City Council - Regular Meeting

Half the pay is dinner.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call. Would you please call roll city clerk back?

More present.

We have a quorum five next to the proclamation to the first Presbyterian church of Petoskey. Are you representing them here?

Sure.

Well, I thought Grace Ketchum was going to be here and she's not. So

Okay. That church. So we're happy to do that.

Okay. Whereas the first Presbyterian church of Petoskey is actively involved in this Petoskey community and has for 150 years reached out in service and in love. And whereas the church's mission faith in motion aptly describes the work of first Presbyterian church of Petoskey as the church, as well as its congregants, serve many constituents throughout our region as well as throughout the world. Whereas more than 500 community members use the facility, whether it's for service on Sunday or through community meetings and events. And whereas the church has two other faith organizations that utilize space for worship, has closely partnered with the Petoskey District Library and the Crooked Tree Arts Center, and is hosted to annual AA gatherings six days a week. And whereas the first community lunch has been offered to the community on Thursdays and Sundays at noon for the past 30 years. Whereas the First Presbyterian Church is a church of openness, kindness, acceptance, generosity, love, and spirituality, and standing as a testimony to diversity and to inclusiveness. Therefore, I, John Murphy, Mayor of Petoskey, together with the City Council do hereby proclaim August 9th, 2026 as the First Presbyterian Church of Petoskey Day, We are grateful for your presence in the downtown area and celebrate with you this milestone birthday. Signed today, the 6th of August, 2026. You want a picture with you two?

Sure.

Come on down.

Lindsay, you too.

Whoever's a member of that, come on up. They're a member of us. Come on.

Okay. Yeah.

Let's see. Next is the consent agenda and it's the July 20th, 2026 regular session and closed session city council meeting minutes.

Acknowledge the receipt of certain

report certain administrative transactions that have occurred since July 20th, 2026, and also adoption of a proposed resolution authorizing the city manager to submit a ballot to the Michigan municipal league for workers compensation fund trustees. I go to council for questions or comment, Mr. Wilmot.

I move acceptance of the consent agenda.

Support.

Any other discussion, council? I go, Mr. Moore.

Just a quick question. Is this Michigan Municipal League item supposed to be included here or added to the agenda?

I'm going to go over that just as soon as we're done here.

Excuse me. Thank you. Add it to the agenda.

Yeah, I'll talk about it when we're done with your vote.

I go to Sarah for roll.

Wilmot?

Aye.

Damore? Aye. Hey Walker. Hi. Knock tribe. Hi Murphy.

Hi. Consent agenda passes five zero. Asked about this right now.

So council, we got Sarah and I received a, um, we get this annually. It's like a housekeeping item from Michigan municipal league, their annual, um, What is it called? Meeting. Convention. Thank you. It is October 7th through 9th. It'll be held in Traverse City at the Grand Traverse Resort. Unfortunately, we got this after the packet went out. And so from a housekeeping standpoint, we typically, for anyone that's planning on attending, anyone in city council that would like to be considered a representative and potentially an alternate representative, be appointed so we can return that information to the league ahead of this meeting. So when they do their annual meeting, we have representation at that meeting. So again, I apologize that we're handing this out to you, but we did not receive it in time and we will not meet again. The ballots need to be returned by September 7th.

So would ask for your consideration. Anybody wish to be there? Our representative, Mr. Moore.

I'm attending.

Okay. Ms. Walker.

I would like to attend as well.

I will be too. So I guess three of us, anybody else wish to attend? There you go. So you've got three.

But we need to fill out who's going to be the city's voting rep and who's going to be the city's alternate representative. So between the three of you, you can arm wrestle that. Ms. Walker.

Thank you, Mayor. Do you know, Tina, is the Youth Advisory Committee planning on attending again at the annual convention, if this would be something that? They're going to attend CapCon, which is in the spring. Different. Okay. Thank you so much. Works.

Either of you wish to be our representative or not.

I'm happy to do it unless one of you wants to do it.

Ms. DeMora, go for it. You want to be the alternate or I can?

I'll be the alternate.

You'll be the alternate. I just need a motion. I ask for a motion. Well, you guys are being nominated. Mr. Wilmot, would you make a motion?

Yes, I move for acceptance of the motion. resolution.

We need a motion for us to add it to the agenda.

Should probably have a motion to amend and add. I modify my motion. I'd like to move that we accept the resolution and modify the agenda accordingly.

Support. I have a motion from Mr. Wilma, a second from Mr. Knob-Trop. Any other discussion? On that motion, I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Wilmot.

Aye.

Dr. Trav.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Murphy. Aye. Walker.

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Mr. Horn. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Next, we have public comment. This is your opportunity to step forward with full name. You will address council and not the audience. Is there anybody who wishes to speak to council? If there is something that's on the agenda and you wish to wait for that, we would suggest you do that. But if you cannot wait and you wish to take this time now to do that, you may. Is there anybody who wishes to speak to council at this time? Sir, the one in the back first. You're next. Sir, sir, sir. Come on up, Max Putters.

My name is Max Putters, retired former county planning director.

And I can only say I've been involved with trails and park facilities since 1972. Is the mic green? Good question.

Now it is. Yeah, we got you. Kind of speak into it.

A little light on the subject.

Yeah, there you go. That's good.

Okay. I just wanted to introduce myself as Max Putters. Maybe you know, I don't know. I was the county planning director for years and worked with the city of Petoskey and Bear Creek and Resort and all of northern Michigan almost. but one of the big projects that went in was the trails for non-motorized trails and city council people were on those boards. Fred Pettis worked on that. And so many people went, put their time and effort to volunteer and provide a recreation facility. That's I'd have to say world-class. I mean, when you look out here, I mean, a little Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan, that's a world resource. And what we tried to do, as a planner anyway, is to make access to that, not necessarily physical access, but visual. So you could, when a person drives by, they could see Lake Michigan. You don't need a sign out there that says, the arrow says Lake Michigan. You can see it, you know where you are. But I want to point out that this area is a, You know, we live in a vibrant, active community. I mean, there's lots going on. It's beautiful. It's world class. And how lucky we are to be that way and how privileged we are to have you interested the same way and serve the citizens and their needs. A lot of people probably don't like trails because they think it's a bicycle. Well, certainly that's the focus, but the trails we put in are being used by young mothers pushing baby carriages. We have like people with handicaps that can't drive or whatever. So they serve the whole spectrum of population, especially public health. And in my time here working with the communities, the medical profession has always been first in my book as they're interested in exercise and healthy living for the citizens and their patients. And so it kind of was a disappointment that Dr. Lowe would sue the city. And especially, I don't think the city did anything wrong. I mean, what did you do wrong that would invite financial penalties? My thought was that we could just try to keep that easement in the ownership of the city until there's more time for this all to flesh out. And there's a lot to this. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither were the resort bluffs. So anyway, that's in fact, one of the doctors in Arrowhead was instrumental in promoting and helping us get that trail in. And the other thing is that we had all these volunteers, including, we had the mayors of both cities, Harbor Springs on the committee. We had the city managers, we had recreation directors, They were all here working on this trail at one time or another. I think there's over 100 people that served on the Little Traverse Bay Wheelway Committee. Fred Pettis was a real vibrant force at that. This trail linked to being interrupted with a natural disaster does not seem to be something that you have to fix. I mean, it came down and I think it's, like I said, it's a bigger job and it's not your job as it's just the city to put mother nature back And maybe there are some plans that would come out that would show using what came down. And if the easement is still there, maybe a trail could be put in. I think first benefit is to have just a greenbelt through there, which would be that easement could be just a permanent greenbelt And then the trail could be maybe a hiking trail to start with. And then as time goes by and resources available, it could expand again back maybe to a bicycle path or a paved surface. I say bicycle, but again, you see people walking it, jogging it, taking their dogs out there. And I live on Indian Garden Road and I'm looking right at the road and the lake, and I just see this traffic going by all the time, which is, that's wonderful to see these people are doing what we want them to do. Get outside, get some exercise, do something besides iPad work. There's a lot more to life than that. And we are so fortunate that we have all these resources that so many people have been working on to develop. And I just want to add that those resources came, the easements came at a great volunteer effort. The room down the hall here, Brad Leach was city planner then, we were there, people from along the shore came in, your city attorney, and wrote the easement documents that we offered to the land owners and it all worked fine. But then here comes this collapse, which is really as a concern to everybody, to me too, you just, you can't ignore it, but we need time to work around it and through it. And so my plea would be that you would not give up the easement. you don't have to put the slopes back and spend 45 million. I think, well, what if you have that 25 million in your motion, which I'd rather draft motion. And what if you only got 24.5 million? Then what? It doesn't mean, what if it took seven years instead of six? everything's out the window. So you've wasted six years of promotion and collecting. So I think those numbers are not good in that quote settlement. And again, what's the city got to settle? It hasn't done anything. you know, you haven't committed any crimes, no felonies, nothing. It's just there. So my, my, again, I say, try to keep that easement to the full extent that you can. And let's put together maybe a coalition of some kind or task force to move on from there to advance it to where we might eventually get a very popular scenic trail back. You know, if you're, camping in Magnus Park, you had your bicycle, what could be better than to go out the camper door and head over to Bay Harbor or Charlevoix or Traverse City, or go the other way to Mackinac City? Okay, I'm sorry. I wrote that paper that I had passed out because I don't know how to talk. So I'll sit down and thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else with, sir?

Hi, I'm Steve Biggs. And I just want to say thank you to Max and to you all and everybody that has dealt with this very difficult situation. And we all know the value of it. I mean, and Max outlined it. I mean, it's one of the proudest things that we have here in this town, that crown jewel of all the trails in Michigan. And I've heard that over and over again. There's nothing that ever came close, comes on any of these trails that are being done throughout the state. That's it. And when you rode down that trail, you know, I mean, bring tears to your eyes. You look out in that bay and all the assets we have here in Petoskey, that's the one that I really am the most proud of. And so I'm going to be brief here. I just have three questions that I don't quite understand. And you all have been great at trying to deal with this mess. And, you know, and I know you're going to continue to, but is, you know, my, I have three questions. One, the first is the city's obligation limited to just those, that five foot easement. I mean, that's, do they, do you have any obligations beyond that? I don't know. You know, you may, um, And then my second question is what happens if or when the city designs and presents a connection? I mean, that's all we're asked to do is connect our easement. If you guys and we and committees and Max and everybody and Nick and everybody puts together a plan and you come up with a connection that is just for the easement, just for the easement, And its cost is a fundable $3 million. What if that happens? The third question, if that happens, is under that settlement that we're talking about now that I've read and it's been updated, would we be able to do that? Under that settlement, if we came up with an engineered, viable $3 million fundable program that we could get our walkers, bikers across that. Nick and I used to ride it in mountain bikes before they ever built it. I mean, it was just the rubble of the old train. You know, probably wasn't appropriate, but, you know, I mean, the access across that connection can be made for less than 26 million or whatever it is going to be. So my last question then is, does Gus Lowe or Arrowhead have the right of approval on anything we come up with. If this city creatively comes up with some really neat stuff, and there are things out there, the League of Michigan Bikers, and so there's plans, there's drawings, these kind of bridges or accesses are done all the time. If you guys come up with something that's fundable, that doesn't take care of all their problem, can you do it? Or will Gus Lowe have the right of saying, no, I don't want that. You didn't take care of all my property. You didn't take care of all my shoreline. You know, I want something that solves all my problems over there. I don't think that the city is obligated to make sure that Gus's house doesn't slide into the bay. I don't think the city is obligated to that shoreline.

We're not.

We're not.

You're not.

You're not.

To answer that question, I guess.

Great.

Okay.

Well, then my question is, why would we be involved or required or obligated or carry the burden of anything that's just beyond the five feet that we are responsible for? 50? Okay. Okay, 50. That's incorrect. But that's my question. And it seems to me we're being asked to solve, you're being asked to solve, but we're supposed to fundraise to solve their problem. I'd like to hope that the agreement allows us, the city, to just fix our problem. It does. Okay. Thank you.

Anybody else wish to speak to council?

Will there be time to talk?

I'd prefer that. That's why people talking now, you know, that's why I asked to hold it until the agenda meeting, but you can talk if you want. It works. Hey, anyone else with speak to council on any matters? There being none going to city managers report. I'm going to turn it over to city manager horn for his update. It's all yours.

Thank you, mayor city council. Good evening. I want to celebrate some staff this evening, staff birthdays and work anniversaries for the month of August. Kevin Marcinkiewicz. I practiced that several times. One of the things I've learned very quickly with staff is seems like everybody has nicknames. So Kevin's is Duke. So we obviously aren't gonna put nicknames up here, but everybody seems to have one. I'm not sure what staff, has nicknamed me, but maybe I don't want to know, but yeah, we'll keep that PG. Audrey Plath, our finance director, celebrated her birthday this week on August 2nd. Will Bowen, detective, public safety, August 7th. Steve Sparks, public works, August 11th. Jody Haven at the library, August 12th. Eric Crussell, electric department, August 26th. John Dutch, public safety, August 29. Hunter Arnold, public safety, August 30. And Gina Ellenberger, public safety, August 31st. August work anniversary is this month. Chandler Cone, Electric Department celebrates his first year anniversary with us. Jeff George, Parking, one year anniversary. Tim Crego, Electric, two years. April Sanders, Parking, three years. Dallas Givens, Public Safety, three years. Lexi Steele, Public Safety, four years. Mary Holbein, Library, nine years. Scott Lamont, Public Safety, 10 years. Sarah Beck, our clerk in my office, 17 years with the city this month. Carl Fritz, public safety, 21 years. And Dave Kruski, Parks and Rec, 25 years with the city this month. A few reminders. We have a special joint session with the Planning Commission coming up on Monday, August 17th. That'll again be at six o'clock. We will run through our six-year capital improvement plan with staff, with department heads. So we encourage your attendance. Certainly the public is welcome. This is an open meeting as well. So this is kind of our annual time where we get to talk capital projects for the next six-year period. Personnel updates, wanted to let you know that we are making a few staffing changes based on the workload that is in the city clerk's office. We are creating a deputy clerk position. We had a staff member that was a admin assistant that provided support to parks and rec, planning and zoning, and public works. That person has left the city. So instead of filling that position, I've kind of created this new position to support all the work that goes on in the clerk's office. We really need, Sarah needs more support. The election process is an animal in and of itself. It's getting more and more complicated. God forbid something would happen to Sarah, we really have no one to step in and facilitate an election. So this person would be Sarah's kind of second in command, as well as take on some administrative functions that we lost when we lost that employee that I just mentioned. So we're looking to hire that. We posted the position internally this week. And so we'll also go out in the community and post the position as well. So it's just, we've had over 176 public records requests. That's a huge load that Sarah has as well. and public safety as well that handles a lot of public records requests. So it's just more and more demand on that office as well as licensing, business licensing, and short-term rentals. You are going to see in the next meeting our rental registration inspection program. So that's coming. That's going to be another significant lift for staff to keep up with those from a licensing standpoint, from an inspection standpoint. and just keeping up again, keeping up with that. So it's a needed position and we certainly need to get it filled to provide support to that office as well as administrative assistant for public works. If you can rewind back when Mike Robbins and Terry Barrett retired together, we did not, we obviously filled Mike's position with Jason and we filled, Terry's position with Matt, but we didn't fill... Sorry, Matt filled Jason's position and no one filled Terry's position. That's right. So Matt wanted to try this, see if he could do both Jason's former position and Terry's position, kind of take it on. And he's done a great job. He's been a great addition to our staff, but he needs some help as well. So this would be an admin assistant to take some of the paperwork issues off of his plate. This would be down at Public Works in the office on Sheridan. So really both positions are needed and we're looking to fill those two currently. Some construction updates. Howard Street reconstruction is ongoing. The stretch from Fulton to Washington is where we're at currently still. All sanitary sewer main has been completed. Water main replacement and services will be complete tomorrow. Storm sewer replacement will start next week. And then we'll have the last stretch from Washington to Jennings to complete. That work will start. once we are substantially complete with the prior section that I just went over. So we're still anticipating project completion in early October, which would wrap up that stretch of Howard Street. a number of things that we've been working on staff has been working on that. I want to highlight, um, the, the dog park, um, in the bear river Valley, we're having a ribbon cutting, uh, for that Friday, August 21st, all the concrete has been poured. The gates have been set, um, right now we're, we're, we've done some overseeding and, uh, really trying to water, um, water it to kind of fill in some of the, um, the gaps, if you will, from a lawn standpoint. So right now that it's, we're trying to keep it closed, even though I know folks have gone in and started using it. We're trying to let, uh, uh, let some grass grow in there a little bit more before we open it officially on Friday, August 25th at five o'clock. So we encourage folks to come down for that. The friendship bench along the Bay front is in the walkway. We, we also have a, uh, accessible walkway to get to the bench that is complete. We're having a formal ribbon cutting on that August 28 at four o'clock. We're seeing a lot of folks already take advantage of that going down and getting pictures with the backdrop being the wonderful bay that we get to look at every day. As well, the wheelway art art walk mural, that ribbon cutting will take place as well on Friday, August 28th, right after the friendship bench ribbon cutting, that'll be at five o'clock. So all of the four by four panels are due back. When next week? 14th. August 14th. And our staff will be putting together some framework along that retaining wall off the wheelway, getting ready for that. So that's very exciting to see some of the work that's already come in. And if you've seen our social media, Facebook page, we're trying to highlight some of the artists' work as they've kind of gone through that. So we encourage folks to take a look at that as well. Uh, on a separate note, wanted to alert folks and we'll push out this on social media tomorrow as well. And we said we would do this when city council approved this one, um, commercial fireworks, um, display, uh, that'll be on Saturday, August 8th and Bay Harbor. Uh, that'll be coming, going off of a barge, um, between the hours of, um, nine 30 and 10 30. I didn't write that down, but I think that's what the hours were. And again, we'll put this on Facebook. So if you have any animals or anything that you want to try to assist with the noise, we wanted to just make people aware that this will be the only this is the only commercial fireworks display that city council has approved. And we did this back in. May. Okay. So wanted to alert the public and we'll push that out again tomorrow as well. What else do I have? I just wanted to give a picture of the friendship bench. Again, the backdrop is looking at the break wall and the bay. We're again, getting a lot of, a lot of good comments, a lot of good feedback from that. And we encourage people to take a look at it. The zoning ordinance rewrite, we're scheduling open house later in September, and I will keep pushing this out as well to alert people of this opportunity. So Tuesday, September 22nd, and Wednesday, September 23rd, there'll be a number of opportunities for folks to Come up to this room, we'll have a bunch of displays set up and these displays will remain up through the month, through the rest of September in this room. So you can always peruse at your leisure. So those are some open house opportunities. The planning commission's planning to have a public hearing later in November and that it'll eventually get to city council in December of this year to start working through these ordinance changes from a zoning standpoint. I'm gonna turn over to Sarah to talk about and give a briefing of our August 4th primary vote results.

Yes, so on your handout, Yes, I make errors. So the very first overall turnout, I didn't update that from May. So actual total number of voters that early voted election day in person or absentee was actually 1,844. and that is 36.56% of city voters came out on Tuesday. So on that handout, you can see that 62 registered voters in this city voted at the early voting site on West Conway Road. We have a county agreement So all 18 jurisdictions in Emmett County voted that location for nine days prior to election day. In person that walked through the door, 710 people. So that's about 14%. We had 1,072 people. absentee ballots that are AV counting board processed. And then which leads basically 64% of registered voters did not vote. And as of Monday at 4 PM, we had 5,044 registered voters in the city. And I just wanted to take a few minutes to recognize staff and election inspectors that help me administer election day. So first I'd like to recognize Lisa Grant in the finance department that sits at the front desk. She basically processed all those absentee ballots, issued them, I should say. And Nicole Stradling also, they helped me both on election day. Parks and Rec staff, they helped set up and tear down. And then also public safety officers kind of checking us throughout the day, early morning and late evening hours. So I appreciate that. all of our coworkers in helping that. And then I am going to read each and every one of these election inspectors because yes, they receive wages and training, but it's a lot of work. And there's a few in this room and few of our council members have worked. So they do know all the time and effort it takes. So our receiving board, which is at the end of the evening, it's a team of a Republican and a Democrat. So we have two teams. One was Christine Gebhard and Rick Lloyd, and then Jill Thompson and Emily Meyerson, which is in the audience. Thank you, Emily. They check all the work at the end of the evening, make sure balance reports, check signatures, et cetera, before it goes to the county. And then in ward one, we had Laura Scalarup. She chaired ward one, Barb Daniel, Sharon Walker, Sherry McGuffin, Anna Ballou, and Cynthia McWaters. Ward 2, Rose Fitzgerald chaired, Norb Daniel, Agnes Shaw, Linda Vanderberg, Lee Phillips, Mary Peterman. Ward 3, Elaine Pelk chaired, Jill Thompson, Ernst Ruscha, Mary O'Leary Larson, Emily Meyerson. Ward 4, Patty McLeese chaired, Carol Jarvie, Donna Weklanski, Christine Gebhard, Susan Finn, and then our AV accounting board that processed those 1,072 ballots was Jennifer Fordyce chaired, Rick Lloyd, Grace Ketchum, Lisa Lloyd, Charlie Wilmot, thank you, Charlie, and Wanda White. And I'll just make a comment that I'm always looking for election inspectors. Oh, thank you. Also Rick and Lisa Lloyd in the back row. I didn't see you. What was that? Yes, yes. We're always looking for more election inspectors. So if you guys know anyone, we need ours. We need D's. Contact my office, email me. And it's a matter of filling out an application and training. So thank you. And thank you, council, for rescheduling this meeting.

Council, do you have any comments or questions for the city manager on his presentation? Mr. Moore.

First of all, full support for the concept of a deputy clerk. How Sarah has been doing all this, I have absolutely no idea. So very great, great idea. Well-run election. Thank you for your efforts and for all the efforts of those that were working that day. My questions about the zoning ordinance open house. What is going to be the format of this information for the public And will some form of organized content be available online? I'm aware that online right now, there are segments of content, but I wonder if something's going to be put together in a more formal way for people to be able to see online and what that content might look like at the open house. Thank you.

Yeah, I don't know what it'll exactly look like. There will be some content that'll be, uh, pushed out and shared and available. Um, but it's a, it's coming to, it's an open house format. So it's a drop in, come and go sit down, talk with, uh, our planning consultant, talk with planning commission members, um, uh, And so they can interact at that meeting, but there will be, as we get closer to the date, there'll be additional documents that will be released, they'll have at their full review, yes.

And whatever that material is, would it ultimately be available online for folks to? Yes, yes, sure. Okay, thank you.

Yep, thank you. Anything else, council? Mr. Knobtrop.

Not directly on your report, but just a general question, Shane. What's the process for the five-year strategic plan update? Is that coming this year, next year? Do you know? Five-year what? Five-year strategic plan. Master plan, I think.

Uh, that's a great question. We'll have to, we need to talk that through. Um, I think previously that work and I'm going to look at Charlie, cause I think you were involved with that previously. That was all work done in house.

Actually, I was, uh, That was before my time on the planning commission.

Okay. Uh, but I think you're talking about the livable Patasky master plan. Yeah. Only 10.

And it was the city planner. Yeah.

Primarily getting city.

Correct.

Okay.

That typically it's a five-year look back or review. And so we're, we're at six years on that document. So it does need to be refreshed, uh, re updated. So, uh, whether if we wanna do an outside consultant to do that, obviously that's not something I have considered in the budget at this point, but.

I think it's a great question to ask at the CIP joint meeting with the planning commission.

Yeah, yeah, for sure. Anything else, council? There being none, we'll go to appointments, consider the appointments with the board of review and the planning commission. One second, let me open it up. Here we go. I left my glasses out at home. So these are prescription sunglasses. So I'm sorry for wearing them, but I need them to read. I bring forward David Schuman. He's served on the Board of Review for the Assessor's Office. He has served the past three years. My experience would be beneficial, he believes, to continue. He was a good participant. He's also served on boards such as the top of the Michigan Trails Council and Manna Food Project. He's lived in Petoskey 21 years. He was born and raised here. I asked somebody to make a motion and support that I bring him forward. Mr. Wilmot.

I move for acceptance of David Schumann for the Board of Review.

I second the motion, Mayor.

Thank you. I have a motion from Mr. Wilmot, second from Ms. Walker. Any other discussion? I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Wilmot.

Aye.

Walker. Aye. Damore. Aye. Murphy. Aye. Nachtraub.

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Congratulations, Mr. Schumann. Next is Albert Moss. He's on the planning commission and he is asked to be recertified for serving additional. He learned a lot in the planning process and zoning. And he's been an alternate on the zoning review committee and has an interest in balancing the needs for affordable housing and Petoskey's economic development with the needs of a full-time as full-time Petoskey resident. He's has been on the Michigan patient family advocate advisory committee, Christian Cree sailors board, and is very involved in a chapter of Trouts Unlimited. Then his first 23 years of his life and the last seven of his life have been in Petoskey prior to, The retirement, he taught respiratory therapy at Grand Valley Community College. And I bring his name forward.

I so move a reappointment. Sorry. Do you want to go, Mr. No? Go ahead. I so move a reappointment of Albert Moss for a three-year term for the Planning Commission ending August of 2029.

I'd be happy to support my fellow Ward 3 guy.

I have motion from Mrs. Damore and a second from Mr. Knobtrop. Any other discussion council? I'll go to Ms. Beck for the roll.

Damore. Aye. Knobtrop.

Aye.

Murphy.

Aye.

Walker. Aye. Wilmot.

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Next is we're on to old business. It's the second re-impossible adoption of a proposed ordinance amending chapter eight article 10 of the murals and I turned over to city manager horn for that piece.

Thank you, mayor. Um, really the only change from our last reading, um, uh, based on your direction, uh, we did add language to section eight four zero two D two that the notice of the meeting, uh, uh, Notice of the meeting at which the application will be considered will be posted on the art commission agenda and at the proposed mural site, not less than 14 days before the meeting. Um, I do want to direct you to that section in the ordinance. That's again, eight section eight four Oh two D two that's page 43 in your packet. Um, Council Member Damore and I were talking about this yesterday. I initially responded that the language was good. As Sarah and I reviewed it again, we do need to have a little bit of an update there. What should happen on number two, notice of the meeting at which the application will be considered shall be posted on the Art Commission agenda. We should have a period there. The next sentence, and I haven't wordsmith this, but just kind of thinking through this, what the next sentence should say, but.

Can I help you?

Yes, please.

Notice of the meeting at the proposed mural site shall be posted not less than 14 days before the meeting.

Is that what you were trying to say? Yes, please. Thank you. And that's great. Could you read that one more time?

Me?

Yes.

Oh, I did that from my head.

Oh, you did? I thought you had it. I think I got it. Oh, you got it? Okay.

Thank you. Do you want to read it, Sarah? Are you good?

Notice of the meeting at the proposed mural site shall be posted at less than 14 days before the meeting period.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Before the meeting period or just before, oh, period.

Yeah.

Not the word period.

The punctuation. The punctuation. Yeah.

Does that make sense? What we did here? Okay. Thank you for that consideration. Totally.

And that's also in the next one too. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

But I think this one needs to be addressed first.

Do I have a motion on this? Mr. Wilmot. I move for acceptance of the ordinance amendment with regard to murals, including the correction that was just made verbally, adding notice at the mural site shall be posted not less than 14 days before the meeting.

do i have a second i'll second the motion mayor public wish to weigh in on this there'll be another council do you have anything else i go to miss beck for roll wilmot walker aye moore aye murphy aye nachtrab aye This is the adoption of proposed resolution approving mural policy and guidelines. I turned over to see me as your horn once again. It changes.

Yeah. All right, here it is.

Okay. So similarly on article seven, a page 49 in your packet, will need to do the same language to mimic what we did in the ordinance so page 49 in your packet oh no that's article seven a am i wrong is that at the right spot no that's correct but it yeah i think it's fine the way it's written wait wait wait there's a period in there at least 14 days prior to the meeting Nope, the period should be after agenda, the middle of that section after, shall be posted on the Art Commission agenda period.

No, this might need to be more because at least 14 days prior to the meeting, because we don't do Art Commission agendas 14 days ahead of them.

That doesn't work.

We might need to rework this a little bit more, but it's the same concept. Yes. I can't just be the same as the ordinance. Where's Laura?

Yeah. I want to make sure I understand the intent of the change. Is it that you don't want to have to have the agenda ready 14 days in advance?

Right. That's right. That's not our normal cycle.

Got it. So you could say applications shall be, let me figure it out here. You could kind of, flip the order of that and for the second sentence say, oh, sorry, no, I'm trying to wordsmith on the fly as well. Do you have it, Tina?

Laura, what if we just did application shall be reviewed at a regular meeting, the art commission notice of the meeting shall be posted on the art commission agenda and then period. And then we do the same thing as we did before.

Yeah, I think that works.

Yeah.

So we're turning into three sentences there. And then that third sentence will start with at least 14 days before the Art Commission meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be posted on the proposed mural site or posted at the proposed mural site.

Yeah.

Did you get that, Sarah?

Yes, I can listen to the video. You and Laura's kiss me.

Anything else on there that needs to be changed?

You want it one more time, Sarah, you think you got it.

I mean, you can review it again if you want.

Okay. Laura, Laura's going to tell me if I got it right. Application shall be reviewed at a regular meeting. The art commission notice of the meeting shall be posted on the art commission agenda period, at least 14 days, prior to the art commission meeting notice of the meeting shall be posted on the proposed mural site. Is that it Laura?

The only thing that struck me as a little, um, that we might want to look at is when you say notice of the meeting shall be posted on the art commission agenda. I mean, I'm not sure that's right. Cause it's notice of the application. That would be a better way to phrase it. There you go. But the rest sounded good.

So given that is, is what we did on the prior one. Okay. Or should that be changed as well? I agree.

The other one should also, if the other one said notice of the median shall be posted on the art commission agenda. I think it should say notice of the application.

But it's saying which the application will be considered though.

What was the ordinance language we approved if you have it Sarah.

Notice of the meeting at which the application will be considered shall be posted on the art commission agenda. Period. Is what was approved. which the meeting is quote noticed that we always posted on the website and we post the entire packet. So, right.

The gist is the application will be identified on the agenda.

Yeah.

I think, I think it sufficiently communicates that.

Yeah.

Okay. That's it. Okay. Change. Do I have a,

I'd be glad to make the motion to pass the resolution as corrected by Tina and Laura.

Support. I have a motion from Mr. Knob. I have a second from Mr. Wilmot. Public wish to weigh in on this? No. Council, I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Knob. Aye. Wilmot.

Aye.

Walker.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Murphy.

Aye. Last is the adoption of a proposed resolution approving city council meeting preparation procedures policy.

You're waiting for me here. Yeah. Oh, this is your, this is your document. I was letting you kind of run.

Oh, okay. You've received many changes in this piece. This, uh, I guess if there's ever a living document, I guess this one would be a, it's gotta be alive for how many changes that still live through at this point, but still pump some life in it. Uh, you have, I guess, You've had time to review this. Is there anybody that has any concerns or comments, Mr. Moore?

Okay. With hopes that my colleagues do not shoot the messenger. I have seven items and I'm going to start with two that are Laura's comments. So I'm going to look first at page 54, which is make up meetings. And this was comment number four from Laura. And Laura's comment was, rescheduled regular meetings must be noticed in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. My question, Laura, on that one is, we didn't incorporate anything from your comment, and did you want us to?

Sorry, I have it open in Word, so I've got to find it. Is this under scheduled meetings and meeting calls?

This is under makeup meetings, which is on page 54 of the packet. Okay, I've got it. You got it. Thanks. And that was the one makeup meetings where you gave us the note, rescheduled regular meetings must be noticed in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. And we didn't include that in there. So that's my question to you.

Do you want something in there? I'm not concerned about that because your notices are always going to have to follow the Open Meetings Act. So that is what it is. Great.

The next one for you. is under public hearing procedures. The second paragraph, scheduled hearings, it's on our page 60. It was comment 33. This was the one where the question, let me look myself. You wanted us to strike some language, which we did. But the part that's not really addressed, you say, I would allow the city manager the flexibility and discretion to schedule public meetings, regardless of whether it's required by certain regulations. So in there, it's been changed. Public hearings will be scheduled by the city council. That's fine. But was the intention of your comment that there should be something in there about the ability of the city manager to do it as well. That's my question.

Sure. So it's up to you because legally that can be done either way. In many municipalities, administration retains some discretion to do that in case there's a timing issue. A public hearing needs to be had and there's not a city council meeting in between there. So I'm fine with however you want to do it, as long as administration knows whether they have the authority to schedule a public hearing.

So why wouldn't we go ahead and put that in there? I mean, it seems logical.

Could you simply say scheduled by city council or city manager?

Yes, you could say that.

Do you say that again?

Or city manager? Just add or city manager after city council.

Thanks, Mr. Moore.

The next one I'm going to talk about appears in two places. So I'm just going to start by saying page 56 at the bottom. Under hearing minutes, you all remember that we talked about whether we were going to leave addresses in and whether we wanted people to provide their affiliations. And At this point in the procedures, it appears unresolved when in fact on page 61 under speakers identified at the very top, we resolve this. So we put names and we took out in addresses, names of persons who provide comments during the public hearing, along with affiliations, if speaking on behalf of an organization or entity. So my only point here is that should be repeated under hearing minutes because it's exactly the same. So that's the only thing I'm presenting that let's take that language that we resolved under speakers identified and inserted under hearing minutes as well. So again, sounds good to me.

Yeah. Is that okay with everybody?

Yes. That's number three. Thank you for hanging in there with me. Now let me find number. Sorry. These are out of order. I can't find number four right now. So we'll go to number five. The next one's on page 62, which is the very last page. And if you all remember, my recollection is we kind of left this drafting to Laura and or the city manager and Sarah. And it all looks good to me with two suggestions. One, the sentence, the mayor shall present names of persons for consideration, I think should be added there and approval by members of the city council for appointment to these boards and commissions. So I would suggest adding that. And I would also suggest omitting the last sentence because it's not clear what it means. It says when applicable residents of the city may be appointed to such boards and commissions. And I think based on speaking with Sarah, the intention was when you apply, you might be appointed, but when you read that sentence, it reads like residents may be appointed. So she and I today were trying to draft something else, and this is just winging it, Laura's listening. something like the qualifications of applicants to be appointed to such boards and commissions shall be a set forth in the charter city ordinances and or Michigan law. So two changes out that last sentence and putting in something that makes clear what the meaning is. And then under the sentence before adding and approval after for consideration and approval by members of the city council.

Is this for all boards?

That's what it says at the top. The mayor shall, excuse me. The mayor shall appoint all members of all commissions and committees pursuant to section 4.3 of the city charter, unless otherwise provided by applicable law or the city charter. Then it goes directly to the mayor shall present names of persons for consideration This is where I'm suggesting and approval by members of the city council for appointment to these boards and commissions. Then it would involve taking out the last sentence.

What about the downtown management board, library, downtown development authority board? What about those boards? In the charter, in this charter, it states the mayor will appoint all members of those boards The city shall provide approval of the mayor's appointment then to the following. But I show you this.

I didn't draft the first section.

So I can't, so I don't know if Laura did or Laura, did you look into the charter itself?

So the charter, as you just read is pretty broad. However, there are going to be some statutes sometimes or other, you know, governing documents that may provide differently. So I think the way this is worded accounts for that. because it's acknowledges that the charter provides this general appointment authority, but unless it's otherwise there's something different in the city charter, or there's a statute that provides differently, then, then we're going to follow those. Um, so I'm comfortable with how the beginning of that section reads and, and I'm also comfortable with the changes that council member DeMar proposed to the second paragraph.

Question. Mr. Wilma. Yeah. What's not clear to me is the existing one is. there are certain appointments that you can make directly without approval of city council isn't that correct yes and then there are certain that require and this change would require all appointments be approved by city council is that your intention are you referencing me yes no and it can be redrafted by laura to fit with whatever is prescribed by the charter and other applicable law

Yeah, so when I read, I just looked at 4.3 because I originally had just read that V as you have it drafted that it's very unusual for mayor to just have sole appointment authority without any oversight. And certainly things like the zoning enabling act provide otherwise.

So go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just going to say in any event, the way it's drafted needs to be changed then, because it says the mayor shall present names of persons for consideration. So if some of them aren't to be presented to us for consideration, well, I'm not sure.

I'm sorry. Sorry for the, uh, over speak there. I'm not sure that we do because the, after that, right. It says the city council must appoint all members of the city's board of review. building authority, it identifies those that are going to counsel. And then that language about presenting names for consideration relates to those, I believe.

On the copy we have, that's all lined out.

Oh, on the copy that I thought we sent, it wasn't. Sorry, I had our version up. So let me go to yours.

That was not our deletion. So Shane and I discussed this. This was staff's deletions because I guess I was not aware. I mean, obviously, you know, there's only enabling act, but the board of review and the building authority board of commissioners are those listed specifically Laura because of state statute.

So I think the cleanest way to do it and to take into account that laws can change. Uh, and even if we know today what the zoning enabling act requires to go to council and what it doesn't, the legislature could change it tomorrow. We could. Keep the strike through that staff had, and just put for those appointments that require council approval, the mayor shall present dah, dah, dah, dah, dah.

That's fine.

Can you say that again, Laura?

Yep. For those appointments that require council approval. And that's what I would put before the. the sentence that starts with the mayor shall present. So you can keep that strikeout of identifying those different board of review, et cetera, as in that will remain stricken.

And then are you good Laura with omitting that last sentence and putting something more clear? Yes, ma'am.

The way you read it, I was good with, but I forgot what it was now.

qualifications of applicants to be appointed to such boards and commissions shall be as set forth in the charter comma city ordinances and or michigan law yes everybody good did you find number four yes what about them So the next one, number four, which I missed, but we're actually on number five, hang in there.

Can you, I just have a question just for clarification. Back in the boards and commissions, I understand Laura's, for those appointments that require council approval, the mayor shall present names of persons for consideration and we're not including and approval?

No, you can, oh, we're not because, or it could, It could still say that there.

Yep.

So do you guys want that and approval?

For the ones that are required to be.

Correct. That would apply to the ones that are required. I think it means the same thing either way at that point.

Right. Well, and to eliminate some redundancies, you could end approval by members of the city council for appointment periods.

reduce words oh correct yeah you could do that for of city council period should i go ahead sarah is there more yep there were seven total work on number five page 55 under inclusion requests, there's language based on my notes that's missing there. So based on my notes under inclusion requests, and this is talking about agendas, the first sentence was supposed to say, the mayor and city manager will collaborate to establish meeting agendas. That's missing. Two members of the city council may also that word's missing request the city manager to include items on the agendas. So the sentence, the first whole first sentence, and there's nothing else in here about the city manager collaborating with anybody on city council about the agendas. So I think that sentence is supposed to be in there.

That's good. I recall that discussion when we were doing it too. That was the discussion.

So the mayor and city manager will collaborate to establish meeting agendas period. And it's reads two members of the city council may adding the word also request the city manager. Okay. That's number five. Next top of page 54 meeting cancellations. Um, two things, one, and I already said this to Sarah, but just so everybody's aware that last sentence, if a majority of members, so a is missing and majority of, so those are just words missing. Um, but I, I would only want to revisit here for a minute. This sentence, the second sentence that says, let me read the whole thing. Regular meetings of the city council may be canceled by the mayor. when the city manager has reported that there are no items of business that are pending for the city council's consideration or for any other reasons such as, but not limited to scheduling conflicts, et cetera. However, such a call, for the cancellation of a regular meeting of the city council generally should follow the polling of members of city council. To me, it shouldn't say generally should follow, and maybe you all disagree with me, but I think that if the mayor is going to cancel a meeting, he should poll the members of the city council to determine if a majority of members concur to cancel the meeting. And that's at the discretion of my colleagues.

Mr. Nob, trial.

Has that been your general practice, John, as, as, as you've been, if you canceled a meeting, if we've canceled, which hardly has happened, uh, I always get ahold of people. So why don't we, then that would then, if that's then the practice, it would seem like what Tina is saying probably ought to go ahead and be put in there. That seems like the logical thing too.

When I look at this, I'm always thinking more about when we're not here, you know, and what the practices should be. Is everybody good with that? Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's that one.

You're removing generally? Is that what you're doing?

It wasn't in there? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, it just says generally should follow.

City Council shall be polled, not generally should. City Council shall be polled. Yeah, there you go. and says no, and I say yes, does that mean the meeting goes?

Yes.

Polling is not a vote, to be clear.

Polling is not a vote.

Polling is not a vote. Because we can't vote outside of the meeting.

so I can hold you and still do the opposite of what you wanted. Is that what you're saying? And that's not good either. I think you know that isn't going to happen. And you also know that every board and commission in the last 10 years I brought names forward without doing any direct appointments. I wanted counsel to be behind us because these are our, you guys, they're our appointments, not just mine. So I want you to know that you have not missed one single appointment from me in 10 years.

And I certainly am not intending that again, since we haven't done this since 2012. I'm just trying to set a framework for other people to follow. Ms. Walker?

I did have a question. I mean, the only context I know about a meeting that's been canceled is the Zoning Board of Appeals. And how is that process determined? Is that determined by the chair or by the city manager to say, like, there aren't enough agenda items, so we're not going to hold?

There are no agenda items, and the secretary will send out a notification to people that... Thank you. The zoning administrator sends out a notification to all those members of the zoning and to the public that it is being canceled.

Understood. Thank you.

It happens four times a year, five or more. If there's four feet of snow on Sunday night before a scheduled council meeting, I don't honestly think it's necessary for you to poll anybody, just cancel it.

Again, I think having a framework is, important for somebody going forward so everybody understands what's the expectation. But again, it's a matter of majority consensus.

Are we pending somebody to say something here? I don't know what she's waiting for. It seems like what you're saying, no one's really objecting to it.

Okay. We're good then.

Yeah.

Okay. Moving on last one, page 57, this is under quorum and voting requirements. We had a lot of discussion around required votes and roll call and order and all that sort of thing, but we haven't put anything in here. And I know there was two lines of discussion. One was about, um, you know, should the person that makes the motion vote first and the person that supports go second. And even though, and Laura can correct me, but it's my understanding, there's nothing in Robert's Rules of Order or anything like that that says it has to be that way. But to my mind, as a practical matter, it's really important because once again, not for these people at the table, but going forward, if you don't require that, somebody who was a bad actor could make a motion and advocate for something and then be the last person to vote and vote no. So to me, that's an important thing that that order continues. Then there's the other aspect about, are we gonna rotate with the remaining three votes or what are we doing with all that? I guess is the question. Laura question.

It does not require the person making the motion to vote first. Is that correct?

Not only do they not have to vote first, they don't have to vote in favor of their motion. There's no requirement under Robert's rules or otherwise that you vote in favor of a motion you made. It's possible that you make a motion and after discussion, change your mind.

Okay. You know, I think I've sat in the services. I did not bring paperwork and stuff with me. Excuse me. But I'm sure, I'm sure that at some point and some instructions to city council, I don't know if you were here or not, but I felt that it was told that it was kind of an order. If you made the motion, you voted for a second. You couldn't, if you made the motion, you had to vote for it. The second opinion of it could vote either way, but it sounds like that was all misinformation given to us at some point.

Well, regardless, Laura, of Robert's rules, since these are our council procedures, if the majority of us sitting at the tables wanted to establish a practice that if you make the motion, you need to vote first, it's not dictating what your vote is, And if you support, you vote second. Is there a problem with that?

I'm glad you were saying that you're not going to dictate how they vote because I don't think you could do that. I don't think you could say if you make the motion. I don't think there's anything preventing you from requiring that sequence. I will say I have not seen that in any other community I represent.

Also, what do you want to do? Mr. Knobtop.

So whether it's legal or not, in my own experience, that's generally the practice. And so I personally am in favor of saying our role is just how we do it. Whoever makes a motion is asked to vote first. Right. Whoever has a second is asked to vote second. And then I also thought, and we talked about this quite a bit, our time we spent the whole darn night together, and that we also included the fact that we are going to try to rotate the order of the other three. The other three. The other three. And what I believe was the consensus, I think so, was Sarah was gonna try to figure out a way to do that so it's kind of fair and easy to administer. That's what I was understanding for this whole subject. I agree 100%, Ms. Walker.

I am totally shocked that we just learned that if you approve, if you make a motion or a second motion that you do not, I was publicly chastised and I had to change my vote because I was told in this body that I had to vote the way that I had voted. made a motion to approve whatever language. And so I am in total shock that that is not the truth. And of all things that we've done in this review process and is like militant as I've been against this whole process, I am shocked to know that that one piece of information.

We all are.

And we're throwing all the baby out with the bathwater right now.

Council member Walker. Have I redeemed myself by putting us through?

You didn't ever have to redeem yourself. I totally respect the process and I appreciate the lens at which you look at the world as an attorney.

What do you, how do you want this to go? Mr.

I think we ought to just do it. We've been saying our practice has been that the, the person who makes the motion vote first, who makes the second, who supports it vote second. There's no requirement to say yes or no. And then we just rotate the other three in some fair way over some, whatever.

As a fair rotation. I'm fine with that.

I agree.

We just won't be able to have that pre-programmed coming into the meeting. Cause we will obviously not know who's making the motion, who's supporting the motion. So we won't have that. ready to go, we'll have to do that on the fly, which.

But you can probably come up with some, not hard, some dynamical, I'm sure you can. Yeah, we'll figure it out. I know you can.

So if you're adding that in your procedures, how do you want that worded?

Laura, can you help us with that?

Laura?

What's that?

Could you help us word this?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. So you do want to do it so that the person making the motion votes first and the person second unit votes second?

That's what council has asked. Yes. Okay. And then rotate after that.

And that the remaining votes be rotated, Laura. Got it. So I'm just looking at your...

And you want to put that in, I'm under the quorum and voting requirements on page 57.

Under required votes.

Yes, I'm thinking too. No, no, you're okay. Yeah, all voting shall be by roll call vote and tallied. For roll call votes, the... I would say the clerk, Laura's acting as clerk, but the clerk shall call, I have to write this down and type it as I go here. The roll call votes, the sequence of votes shall be first the member who made the motion, then the member who supported the motion, and then the remaining Members. I mean, it's hard to say rotating sequence because it's going to be different people. Depending. You could do that. If you were not always having the motion maker do it first, I would say then the remaining members in, you know, in random order.

Yes. Perfect. Selected random order.

Yeah. Um, so I have for roll call votes, the sequence of both Shelby first, the member who made the motion, then the member who supported the motion and then the remaining members in random order.

Selected random.

And selected random. What is selected random order?

We don't know what that is. Just in random order.

Just say random.

All right, just random.

What about rotating random order?

It's just hard to keep track of rotating because you're going to have different people making all the motions. It's easier if you, and I'm not advocating it one way or the other, but if you don't have The motion maker going first, then you could always rotate the motions. The clerk would just have a list and each time would start with a different person, right? So rotating makes it kind of complicated. If you're always having the motion, make your vote first.

Understood. I defer to you, Laura.

That's how I would do it.

And he never missed. And with that, I have nothing else on this item.

Mayor, can I ask a question?

Please.

So my comment or my concern about the fact that whoever makes the motion and seconds the motion doesn't have to vote with that after the public discussion happens. That's not part of our charter or part of this ordinance. That would be part of like Robert's rules of order. Just the guidelines for like general governing. That's what this is.

Right. So let me, let me give my spiel. Let me ask first, let me give my spiel about Robert's rules. We tried to, and I'll tell you what Robert's rules says, which I just said, it's 43, 25. that the maker of a motion can vote however they want on the motion. Robert's Rules says the maker is not supposed to speak during discussion against their own motion. But what I would submit is that Robert's Rules does not always align with the duties that you hold as public officials. Robert's Rules was not written for public bodies, especially small public bodies like this. So we apply it as much as possible. Again, it's consistent in saying that the maker of the motion can vote however they want on the motion. I would probably not say that you should follow a part of Robert's Rules that would limit any council member's discussion of a motion, because I just don't think it's a good fit with your independent statutory fiduciary duties to the public in making these kinds of decisions. So that's kind of a long-winded way of saying that Robert's Rules says what I said is said there. Robert's Rules also says that you shouldn't speak against your motion, but I would not tell the city to follow that part of Robert's rules, frankly, because I think an open and robust discussion on matters before this council is part of a duty that you have by law that supersedes Robert's rules.

I agree. All right. So Laura, just real quickly though, is there, I feel like there's a reference to Robert's rules either in this document or in the charter. Do you, do you know?

So, and that was I was trying to look at before I started my speech there. Because I'm kind of curious what that says. Usually what we wanted to say is that you will follow Robert's rules as much as practicable because there's no way. that a public body can strictly follow Robert's rules. And an example of that is under Robert's rules, you can just adjourn a meeting whenever you want. As a public body, you have to have public comment first. So there's plenty of examples where you'll never be able to perfectly follow it. We follow it as best we can, recognizing um, in the requirements of, uh, of the city. So you have a section in these proposed rules. I'm looking at my word version. So let me make sure it's the same in the other, but my version says in those instances where transactions of the city council's business require parliamentary procedure, Robert's rules of order shall be consulted and the city attorney shall serve as the city council's official parliamentarian. And I'm comfortable with that because it's not trying to hold the city as a public body to requirements that it can't follow.

Sounds good. Thank you.

You're welcome. It's now becoming worth my while that I decided to take an advanced course in Robert's Rules a couple of years ago.

Other comments? Are you happy with this? Do I have a motion then possibly?

Are we able to make a motion? Yes, sir. I would love to make, first of all, I would like to say that I really, really appreciate Tina's This is a very tedious project. And for me, having Tina's skillset helped me a lot because it was the basis of all of our going back and forth for these months. And I really do appreciate that. And I would be lovely to make the motion to pass this resolution dealing with the city council meeting and meeting preparation procedures.

I would be happy to second that emotion and that motion there.

Does the public wish to speak at this point regarding this matter? Also, any other discussion? I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Nocturne.

Aye.

Walker.

Aye.

Moore. Aye. Wilmot.

Aye.

Murphy.

Aye. Was that a little Roberts rule humor? It was. It was. We've been desperate here.

That's Bob's here.

New business, DOPSA proposed resolution authorizing contracts, extension of the agreement with Motorola Solutions concerning public safety department. Public safety director Parr, welcome.

Thank you, Mayor. Hello, City Council. Try and make this quick because if the sun goes down, I don't think the mayor will see me.

Put those glasses on. Anyway...

Yes, we were approached by Motorola Solutions who oversee our data and our in-car cameras, our body cameras. We've had them since 2003. With a five-year contract, they approached us and said if we would extend by the end of this year, that they would provide a 20% discount, which is a savings to the city of over $62,000. We are pleased with... with their product. They continue to do investments in their products. We have updates every three years. They provide us a renew, they call it. So we get new body cameras, their next, their latest version, our in-car cameras, things like that. Our system right now is consistent with Emmet County, as well as Michigan State Police, as well as Harbor Springs. Kind of our area has the same cameras. They link together. We're able to seamlessly send our incidents up to the prosecutor's office in one motion. And there is a correction on this, on just the dates of the contract. I had in my mind, because we pay them in January, that it was a January to January type of contract. It's actually May 15th or May 19th of 2023 to May 19th of 2028. is our current contract. So the extension would be May 19th, 2028 to May 19th, 2033. That was my error. And since we're in the mood of corrections, here I throw out another one. So.

Corrections today. That's correct. Yeah. Falls right into place.

Does anybody have any questions? Mr. Wilmot.

Yeah. I think this is great. It's a wonderful product. I'm familiar with Motorola. Just a clarification. It says 20% discount in cost. And yet later on, you say that the cost is increasing from 22,000 to 25,956. So is it a 20%? Would it have otherwise been 20% over the new price of 25,200 or over the existing price? Had we not agreed to the contract?

Had we not agreed to it, yes, it would have been, I believe our final price is $123,000. The price without the discount is $156,000. That's fine. Something.

So just a few questions. Thanks for the correction, because when I saw this in the attachment, I was confused about the dates. Is there, is there a contract here that Laura's looking at, or it kind of says there's either a contract or terms are founded that at this link to you.

And kudos to Laura. Cause I sent it to her about three days ago and she responded today that everything looks kosher to her.

So it, it, it incorporate, there's an existing contract that the city already entered into that. This is an extension of, so the full contract is already adopted. But the contract terms for this extension, I did review.

Okay. Thanks, Laura. And then on page 66, which is the first page of this bid, like item number one says refresh duration three years. And that kind of confused me.

That's the refresh of their latest product. So we start out, say they have a Motorola camera version 2, and they come out with a 3. The refresh is the new chargers and all of the new body cameras that come with it.

Okay. So that happens every three years instead of every five years. Okay. Yes. And then also it says on here the number of devices are 31. And my question was, is that sufficient for us for the next five years?

We allow or we have had to add a few. Matter of fact, when we had Tony come aboard, I wanted him to be able to record his interactions. We also now have one for our cadets as well because of the same interaction. So they've allowed us to add a few here and there, but it is at a cost. So If there would be any additions to this, then we would have to, it's, I would say maybe $3,000 to add a camera. And that includes all the data, roughly, give or take.

Okay. And then finally, since we're doing this for a five-year instead of an annual renewal, how is this going to be budgeted? And maybe that's a question for the city manager.

Maybe a city manager question. We would still do this on an annual basis is how we're paying for this now, right? So let's break this five-year into once a year.

Year one, year two, year three.

Yep.

Thank you.

Yeah, we'd be paying $25,956.92 yearly, where right now we're paying $22,404.

I appreciate you looking at it, making sure that your cadets have it. Tony, I think that's been a test that you're looking out for all of the staff, not just, I think that's beneficial to them as well as public, but also to them.

And my two senses when this all came about, the officers kicked and screamed about having to wear cameras and everyone watching them and things like that. But it is been a blessing in disguise because we're able to learn from it with training and transparency and officers getting caught doing the right thing type of things.

Motion, please. Mayor, I have a question, if I may. Thank you, Director Carr. I did want to ask, do you know if emergency medical services, so EMS, do they wear body cams at this time as well?

I don't believe they do, but I think there has, and it may have to do with some HIPAA things. They don't, but it also... I guess I'm not really sure on that, but I don't believe ours are in the county have those.

And then EMS is, or I should say, public safety in the city of Petoskey is cross-trained. So would firefighters wear these as well as part of when they're on duty as well, or are these just reserved for public safety officers in particular?

We just have them for our public safety officers. They are paid on call or part-time that would show up. They don't wear them. Actually, our officers, the public safety officers, don't switch their body camera over to their turnout gear either just because it's time consuming. And there's magnets that are involved. And if they come off and then we end up with... they're in a fire somewhere type of thing. So we do not actually enter fire scenes with them, but we have them on when we respond to them in our police gear, so.

Thank you, thank you, Mayor.

Do I have a motion possibly?

Go ahead.

I'll be happy, Mayor, to make a motion to approve the enclosed proposed resolution authorizing an agreement between Motorola Solutions and the City of Wetaski.

Thank you, Ms. Walker. Support. Thank you, Mr. Moore. We have a motion from Ms. Walker, a second from Mr. Moore. Any other discussion? Does the public wish to make any comments to counsel at this point about this? I go to Ms. Beck for a roll.

Walker? Aye. Moore? Aye. Wilmot?

Aye.

Murphy?

Aye.

Nachtraub?

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Public Safety Director Tire. Last on the agenda, which I know you're all here for. Adoption of proposed resolution that would authorize a settlement agreement in Reese with Gustav and Courtney Lowe concerning the Little Traverse Wheelway Collapse. I'm gonna turn it over to City Mayor Jahorn. I guess what I wanna say first though is, you know, There are many moving parts and pieces to this. This has not been an easy situation for city council. City council has weighed in on this. The public has weighed in on this. I think I've had 58, a couple months ago in May, 58 emails to me concerning the trail. We all love the trail. We all wish we could keep the trail. We expect the trail to be, to be rebuilt, possibly not in the same design. I think we need to look at some engineering changes. City has been sued by Dr. Lowe of Arrowhead Shores. We've had mediation. We threw over three hours of mediation attempted to eliminate moving forward for a jury trial. We do not feel that that's in the best interest of the city. We also know that probably over $100,000 minimal or more if it went to appeal by either side. We feel that this agreement that was negotiated I had the opportunity, Mr. Knoptrop and myself, along with city manager Horne, public parks and rec director, Kendall Klingelsmith was also involved in this. And we tried to get what we could get the best deal possible to bring to you council is a negotiated piece of this. There are still other outstanding pieces that need to be looked at as far as funding, re-engineering, design. But at the same point, we have to know that come the third week of roughly the 25th, unless I'm told differently by Laura, we need to have something that's gonna move forward in the court's action. Is that correct, Laura?

We need to move forward with correct filing our witness list, expert witness list and reports and proceeding with discovery in the next several weeks.

Which is going to cost thousands.

Can I just confirm the deadline date is August 20th, Laura? For which item?

For the end of discovery. No, discovery has been extended out. Our August 20th deadline is our witness report, expert witness reports and expert witness list. And then discovery, we would need to file our discovery by the beginning of September so that responses are due before discovery closes at the start of October.

What's the date of the close of discovery? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that if you said it.

That's all right. It is... October 5th, Monday, October 5th. Thank you. Welcome.

Uh, part of the proposals changes have been made to this, as you all know, uh, it talked to 25, uh, needing to raise 25 million to rebuild it, uh, had to be in a bank. Trail had to be completely built. Things have changed now. Things have changed now. It's never had to be completely. Okay. All right. But things have changed now. And I guess I'm going to ask City Manager Horn to give us the latest changes that have occurred in this agreement.

Yeah, a few things that we've gone back and forth, staff, the city attorney, and getting council feedback. Our city attorney has been going back and forth with the plaintiff's attorney. So we had some concerns about holding onto a number that was somewhat artificial. When we start saying 25 million, we really don't know what the cost of this project is because we haven't been able to submit the plans for review by our permitting agencies. So we could go through a process that we do significant value engineering or scope changes in that 25 million could be significantly less. And so we don't want to have a number that we have to hit that maybe significantly less than that. So we did change that language and have a little bit of, we're not held to that number. So the agreement essentially says this amount is estimated to be 25 million at this time, but the final amount shall be based on final permitting review and value engineering. So that was a change from our first push out of this agreement. The other things the city will do based on our review and input and mediation, we will go through and clear the brush and clean up the easement area. We will leave the asphalt pavement intact as requested. We will install metal gates and fencing on either side of the Arrowhead Shores neighborhood, extending the width of the easement area. We will provide trail closed signage at the trailhead entrance at East Park. the plaintiff will cooperate and execute documents to allow the city to submit plans to permitting agencies for review. So that's, that is a, um, that's the current agreement as it stands now. So essentially it is six years from the date of, of execution. We will, um, all funds will be raised to rebuild that resort bluff section of the trail and to begin construction. So nothing has to be completed. Nothing has to be started. We have to be ready to start construction at that time. So, and I'll just say, I've spoken to a lot of folks and we'd personally rather not be in this position, to be honest with you, we'd rather not have a timeline in an ideal world, but that's not the world we're living in right now. Personally, I'd rather see us spend our tax dollars on providing essential services to our residents. This really could tie up significant resources that could be used in other areas. And we will certainly do everything we can, and we've had great partnership with the Trails Council to assist in this community effort going forward. We see this work that we're going to do along the highway. This would be in concert with the fundraising that would go along on the original wheelway section. But we don't want to sit and wait potentially six and maybe a two-year construction process before we do anything along the highway. So we still want to proceed with that project, but we're not abandoning the original trail. community project will still go on, still move forward. But in the meantime, we need to do something that's a little bit of a safer alternative for people to go along the highway. So we're still going that route, but we're not abandoning the original wheelway. We tried for a longer period of time. We pushed for 10 years. It just wasn't going to happen. So we started at 18 months and that certainly wasn't gonna be viable. We can't raise that amount of funds. Went to five years. We ended up getting up to six years. We think this is the best we're gonna do at this point. And again, we'd rather not be in this position. We'd rather have this an open-ended opportunity, but again, that's not the world that we're living in currently. We are proceeding with our permitting agencies to try to get this in their hands without having to have these acknowledgement forms returned. We've gotten great feedback from them even as of three o'clock this afternoon. It's in their queue to review. They have a number of projects to review. We have a local representative in town that's committed to doing this review. So we'll learn a lot in that permitting review. They could come back and say, we're not going to allow you to go back there again. This is not the first time this has happened. You need an alternate route. And they could come back and say, we can do significantly less stonework along the shoreline. That's a huge part of this project. If we can take that out of it and only address, I say only, putting a bridge concept over the failed area, doing some groundwater remediation, doing some soil nailing along the slope. And that's our project. That's a significant savings. But we don't know if that's permittable yet. So it needs to be reviewed by our permitting agencies first and foremost. And then we'll know a lot of things we don't currently know. So that's kind of where it's at as we stand now.

Mr. Wilmar. Can you clarify for me? It's my understanding that in order for the permitting agencies to review the engineering design and work with us, that they first need the permission of all of the easement holders. Is that correct? That's what I was just saying.

They need acknowledgement forms returned from riparian rights owners along that we would be doing stonework along the high water line and below. So we're trying to have that waived so we can at least... This is kind of an unusual situation. We're being sued. We have a group of... property owners that aren't interested in returning acknowledgement forms. So in my mind, it's kind of forcing our hand a little bit. So could we get a review done outside of that knowing that ultimately, before this is ever permitted, we would need these things accomplished. But for now, could you could the permitting agencies just start their process? So we truly know that what our options are for rebuilding this this section of the of the wheelway. So we've asked that question. The response we got was favorable. It's in their queue. It sounds like that's something that they would consider at this point is what they're what we're hearing. So

Ms. Walker.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Shane, for explaining that for ourselves as well as the general public in this meeting. I did have a question about the language revision of the settlement agreement on page one, number six. So the revised settlement agreement in the language here said, the city shall have six years from the date this agreement is fully executed to raise all funds necessary to rebuild the resort bluff section of the Little Traverse Wheelway. I am concerned, and I guess Laura could probably chime in on this as well if she would, that rebuilding kind of pigeonholes us into like, replacement of the way that it was so i'm hopeful that maybe would a court look at rebuild in a potential situation as like replacing it the way that it was so could we change that language to be like rebuild replace or otherwise reopen the trail uh no great question um i think you know rebuild or reconstruct i think reopen may not

if I'm guessing, a reopen may not go far enough, right? Reopen, you could just say, okay, it's open. We didn't do anything and it's open. And that's obviously not what they're looking for or what anybody's looking for, for that matter. But rebuild, replace, I don't expect to have any problem with that, adding that verbiage.

Anything else, Council? Mr. Knobtop?

No. Yeah, there's a couple of statements that I'd like to make. I was part of the mediation process, as you said. And I guess I want everybody to know that I didn't get this draft any sooner than anybody else did as a counsel. It appeared at the same time. And in my experience in mediations, directionally, we were going in a certain direction. And then you leave it up to the attorneys to start drafting the actual words and the actual paper. And that's when it takes on a new life. And in my own experience, plaintiffs, defendants, attorneys start to try to twist things in and add, kind of get things in and add it into the final document. And I felt really uncomfortable in an open setting talking about this, but I feel like there's some, I want to get the settlement. And I think directionally, I'm happy with it. But there's details of the devils in the detail that I think we need to fix it a little bit and tighten the daylights out of it. And it's not that I'm frustrated, but this is kind of the normal process in the mediation. You have an agreement in the mediation. Then you have the attorney to write it. Well, no, that isn't what we said. We go back and forth. There are some issues in here still that I think like paragraph 7 ought to be deleted.

Why don't you start with your concerns and list them right now so we can discuss it as a total.

So if it's going to get in an open session, I mean, I'll do, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm not an attorney, but sometimes I feel like I spend too many times dealing with attorneys and documents. So I agreed with, I think delete, Item seven ought to be deleted.

Seven was updated, if you keep reading.

Well, I was. And it still got confusing to me that it seemed to me that I didn't see a need to have seven in there. Because in our process, I don't want anybody to say, OK, if we're going to reroute it for a public safety thing and we're going to add a new extension, I don't want anybody to be saying, well, hey, guys, you went an alternate route. So I'm not seeing the purpose of trying to add that in there. We ought to be able to do whatever we want to do to get a safer reroute off of 31. And it should be irrelevant to this agreement. Cause that, that isn't, that isn't low business. It isn't, wasn't part of the litigation. It wasn't part of mediation. It wasn't anything.

Laura, would you address that please?

Certainly. So the, my understanding of the concern is, um, If the city winds up rebuilding, replacing the wheelway in the permanent $25 million, give or take way in a location that doesn't require going across the lowest property. So you do what you want to do what the public wants. It gets rebuilt, but it's, it no longer requires those easements that then those easements will be terminated because they won't be needed.

Okay. No, no, that isn't what I'm talking about, Laura. Oh, I'm sorry. It is currently. And the city knows, Lowe's know, everybody knows that there's a lot, there's a public safety concern over the one section on 31, there's no buffer. And we're actively, rather than wait for five years, 10 years, three years, or whatever, rather than wait for an accident to happen, we're actively looking at using an other extension, whether we call that, it's not really rerouting the wheelway trail, it's a safe route.

Yeah, it isn't.

And so that's what I'm saying is because of that, I don't want to get into a, I started using language. I didn't want to, I didn't want to get into a, a debate over this language that, that low would come back and say, well, guys, you already kind of bypassed this already because you came up with a, another reroute. And, and I don't want to have that debate. So if you're saying that we have the ability to, to, to put up this other reroute and nobody can make an argument that says that this is another trailway. I'm fine with that, but I don't see why we even need it in there to begin with.

So I appreciate that. And I think typically a lot of this is in closed session. I think one advantage to open session perhaps is, I'm sure Dr. Lowe's listening, I'm sure these attorneys listening or will be, I don't believe that their intention is anything other than what I said, but we can work on that language to provide something that makes that clear if it's not clear enough.

The other, at least for me during this process, it was important that we receive the support of the Trailway Council so that we're all in lockstep And I know there was different discussions and it's my understanding that it was sort of verbally done. And I don't know what the status of that is precisely is, is a part of my personally wanting to avoid is to say, okay, I think the six years is reasonable. As long as we define what the six years mean, it's a reasonable amount of time because I want this thing resolved. And, and I was hoping to avoid a big public, debate about this again and that we're being thrown under the bus because we settled on this. And I was hoping to have a little bit of community support and I thought that was kind of the direction. So I'm not exactly sure where that is precisely now. I know there's been a change of guard and there's been some discussion that you've had mayor, but do we know if there's support for this?

I don't think anybody can, nobody can speak for their board at this point, but here's the situation. Their board could say we're committed to funding the trail. and we do an agreement and then tomorrow they could also, the board could decide a change of boards that could say, we're no longer doing it. So this agreement is on the sixth year trying to get this thing so that we have six years to work with this irregardless of, is it the trails council? Is it a new trails council that comes up? Is it a different group that comes forward with money? I think that this allows this agreement opens it up to say, we'll work with anybody basically. And we aren't going to narrow it down to just the trails council, because there'll be funding that will come from a lot more places than just that.

All I'm saying is when we, when we were, I don't know if I'm allowed to, this is why I hate this.

When we were in, let me, let me say, if there's something you don't, we want to have a closed session and discuss it. I don't want you to, you know, I want you to know that we can do that as well. We're not precluded from, having a closed session on pending litigation to discuss it. My understanding was, you know, we were, we have an agreement that we obviously any approval is going to be an open session. So that's why we're in open session right now. But, but I appreciate the concern you're expressing.

So, you know, it was, it was my belief that it was important to get feedback from the, and I hear, I appreciate what you're saying, Merritt, now, now what you're saying, it, During other discussions, I felt we had consensus that we were trying to get some feedback from an organization that has been active in this. I realize what you're saying. It could be there tomorrow, but I was kind of hoping that we would say, explain the situation, and they would kind of, okay, yes, or absolutely no. But I thought we got that sort of.

I mean, I think in our discussion there, they want to work in concert with the city. I think we both want the same things. We want to work together. We don't want to pull in different directions. That's no good for anybody. Their board will, what we were told is their board meets again on August, I believe it was 17th. They'll, they'll consider, you know, a letter of support at that time. But until then they weren't ready to commit to anything. I think, like I just said, they would prefer not to have a timeline attached to it, which I would agree as well. Um, but that's again, just not what we're working with currently. I mean, six years is certainly better than 18 months. They recognize that, um, you know, when we met previously, there seemed to be some support for six years, but that was one in one person's feedback. It wasn't the voice of the board. So we're kind of waiting to hear that, but yeah, I think I felt good coming out of that, that we have a partner that wants to work together moving forward. So I took comfort in that, that this is not us out on our own. We have some, a group that's ready to roll up their sleeves and work alongside us as well.

The next area of concern that I have is the definitions in six. And again, I don't claim to be an attorney, from a business standpoint or from the spirit of this, it was my understanding directionally that we had six years to come up with a plan that was workable that we could afford and could raise the money, whether that's 25 million or as you said, Shane, we create a bridge or somebody said in public comment that had some other ideas and that we had time to evaluate all that. We do. Well, no, no. OK. Let me, I'm ready to very closely, John, please. And, and, and not that we have building construction that not that we start construction at all that we have in my mind, the spirit of this should be that we have six years to figure out a good solution that we could afford. When we had the original presentation, they said it would, even if we had the money, I asked the question back in the last fall, If we had the money today, when could we start? And they said, well, there's a lot to do. So I could see if we could take a couple of years. So in my mind, the definition of the six years should only be that we have a workable solution with the permitting agencies and that matches our affordability and not any language in there that says we have to have permits pulled, we have to have construction going, we have to have activity. And that's not how I'm reading section six. So that's a concern, is I don't want us to get in a trick bag that if on the fifth year, 11th month, that we finally get the permitting agencies to approve, we finally got some money that we can do it for $15 million, and then, oh, you didn't get it started, then we're screwed. I think we ought to avoid that. So that's my concern on that. And a question that I had was, is this settlement that's going to have on exhibit A that we would have, it's only the low easement or it's all easement? What is the definition of what we're doing?

Right. So it would be the easements. And I would narrow that to say, to the extent they're encumbering the lowest property. The lows are the only parties to this. This is not affecting... common elements or neighboring properties. So that is what those, and those are not attached for you. So I appreciate the question, but that is what we would have them say.

Just low. Okay. And then the, I guess the last point was, and I think Shane had sort of addressed it, but I sure would feel more comfortable, you know, not having a situation that a single property owner, and I know we got this in the agreement for low, that a single property owner can't hold us ransom and then we're just dead in the water by default. I sure as heck would like to have a real comfort level that the permitting agencies will allow us to look at bridge and stuff. And I'd love to know that before we actually agree to this. But that's my opinion. That's all for now, Mayor. Thank you.

Well, Mark, Just to back up to 30,000 foot view here, this agreement as it's currently sitting and we're discussing is the result of the mediation. Alternatively, we can just not consider this agreement and we can go to court and take our chances in court. Isn't that correct? So the choice that's before council now is whether or not we take taxpayer dollars and fund a court appearance, or if we continue to refine this agreement and hope that the lows agree to it. But even then, it's my understanding that if the other easement holders don't sign their authorizations and the permitting agencies don't waive the requirement for those authorizations, that this agreement doesn't make any difference anyway. Does that sound like a fair analysis of the situation?

Laura?

Well, I'm not sure I'd characterize it as not making a difference. It will potentially impact whether that project can get done at the end of the day. I mean, we can't force people who are not parties to this litigation to agree to cooperate.

Yes, but my point was it's only part of the story.

The lows are only part of the story. I would agree with that.

Mr. Moore.

So in my comments, um, I'm going to really try to strike a balance between public transparency. I'm a huge believer in public transparency. But at the same time, I'm gonna be very circumspect about sharing specific details of my perspective, given that we do have ongoing litigation, settlement negotiations are still underway. And if the Lowe's have a good attorney, he should be on Zoom right now. Regarding the proposed settlement agreement that we've been presented with, I don't support the agreement as it's currently drafted, particularly paragraph six and seven. My understanding of the mediation proposal was that it involved two components or conditions, a time period and an amount of money. In paragraph six and seven, this proposed agreement adds other factors as conditions, not to my understanding anticipated by the mediation proposal. Having said that, I would like to speak to those who have sent me emails, and I mean this most respectfully, saying, or spoken here, saying don't settle and keep the easements. I hope that those folks will be considering the potential that the city could lose this lawsuit, as my colleague has referenced. With that outcome, the easements would be immediately extinguished without any opportunity for a time window for fundraising or problem solving absent and appeal for which there would need to be legal grounds and funding. So I would respectfully suggest that any settlement proposal should be considered in that context. And specifically, in other words, the value of the settlement in this matter is that it offers some degree of control over an unpredictable outcome. So by its nature, a settlement is a compromise where neither party gets 100% of what it wants. And what I think all of us at this table are trying to say and do is that all efforts are being made in this process to act in the best and long-term interests of the community. So I am interested in this settlement agreement, but not as it currently exists, particularly relative to paragraph six and seven. Thank you.

It's going more into depth on what is wrong with six and seven.

I would prefer not to do that on the record. I would prefer to do that in a setting that would not benefit or detrimentally impact settlement negotiations.

And I think that's an appropriate observation and we do want to be mindful that everything that council member said.

So are you suggesting that we would go to closed session with this?

I think, um, to have the kind of candid conversation that it sounds like council wants to have, that would be appropriate. Um, and I think that the public transparency part is very important. Obviously the settlement agreement is something that is approved by council and open session. If, and when we ever get to a point where there is a settlement agreement that council wants to approve. but I'm sensing there's questions and concerns and maybe further discussion about mediation itself that would be more appropriate for closed session.

That could be scheduled in September. What is the 7th of September? I think we have a, that's our next meeting available.

Labor Day. That's Labor Day.

So it'd be September 20th. September 10th, is it? Yeah, we go to Thursday.

We go to Thursday, don't we?

You guys didn't schedule that.

We can certainly schedule something other than the Monday of Labor Day that week if council so desires. But right now we don't have a meeting.

So the only meeting we have is September 21st. September 21st is our next scheduled meeting at this point. Laura, what do you suggest we do?

Well, you can schedule a special meeting if you wish to consider it sooner. Um, if not schedule it, when it works for council, we will proceed to defend vigorously, defend the city and the litigation in accordance with the deadline set by the court unless, and until there's a settlement.

Mr. Moore.

Laura, is there a date by which having further information from us sooner than September would be beneficial to you given other deadlines in this matter, what you're thinking?

Well, the case will proceed if it's not settled, of course. So I will, the deadlines that I need to meet, I will meet and we will proceed. That means proceeding with discovery because that would need to be initiated before September 21st.

I'm not real happy with the situation of waiting until then. And I'll tell you why, because it's going to be nothing but cost the city hourly, hourly, hourly. And I feel that that's not, very good for the city. And I think if you wish to go to closed session council, then I think we should schedule it probably sometime here in August. I'd suggest two weeks. I would suggest next, I am not available next week, but the week after that I'm available.

Are we, is the direction here, we're not passing, we're just kind of tabling this, it sounds like.

I will need a motion on that, but I would prefer to have a motion with a date rather than just a. Directionally, that's where we're going.

Okay. Okay, then.

Is that, Council, what you wish? It sounded like that's what you wish.

I mean, I definitely would like to be able to have some, I mean, if you were wanting to, to get anything from me on this anyway, the mediation, we've got to follow the mediation process and words matter, very detailed words matter to protect the city. And I want to protect the city too, but words matter and they have time.

I am not entirely clear about what would be resolved in a closed session versus a public meeting. I'm sorry. Thank you, Charlie. I'm not entirely clear what would be resolved in a closed session meeting versus discussing in public.

If I can jump in, part of it is that to talk in detail about mediation, mediation stands, communications made particularly by the Lowe's, that were communicated to us in mediation are considered confidential. Um, so we can't actually really talk about that in open session. We could talk about that in closed session, um, as well as, um, you know, receive more, I suppose, ask more questions that, um, if, if people are concerned that saying something could be used against the city and litigation. you know, having that in closed session eliminates that concern. Even though settlement discussions generally are protected, people will, I think, feel a little more comfortable asking those in closed session. Thank you, Laura.

Also, if you wish to schedule a closed session, Another session to go into closed session. Ms. Walker.

Mayor, can we still consider public comment at this time and then come back to a decision after we receive public comment to decide if we want to meet in closed session?

Yes, for sure.

I would like to hear the public that did show up and also acknowledge one of the statements that was made already by former County Planner, Max Putters, who really outlined very articulately the history and the context in which this bike path was created as a public, public, public, public, private partnership. And I've been very vocal in my term of on city council. I was here and serving in city council in 2020 when the bike path fell into the Lake Michigan due to unprecedented climate related events. And every year, this body, this governing body approves between $100,000 and $150,000 of our money, of your money. to repave sections of the wheelway at our expense. Where's Resort Township? Where's Emmett County? Where are our public partners in this process? We are out here and we are very much alone in this process and I feel, It's been very isolating. And we've been thrown under the proverbial bus in terms of responsibility. Absolutely. We want to take responsibility and ownership in a public public process for or restoring whatever this could look like to regain our million dollar views in Miles. So I think there might be other possibilities too with our Native Sovereign Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs monies that they received to help replace roads. And we've done lots of partnerships with the tribe in that regard. So who's to say that there couldn't be a better public demonstration and coming together for this purpose? So I I wanted to acknowledge that because I felt like what Max had shared with us was a historic reminder of how what a partnership this was. And now we're here like all on our own and we're being sued by somebody that's a respectable member of our community and somebody that I consider one of my elders and that I have a tremendous amount of respect for. So this has been a really hard endeavor, but I just, I really would love to hear what the rest of the public has to say before we decide that we're going to go into closed session again and we have to make a motion. Would that be okay?

No problem. I will say that we need to keep this to five minutes. Actually, it was three, but we will look at five minutes for this situation. We've had a speaker went to nine minutes, but we're going to try and keep it. It'll stay to five minutes. Okay. Public wish to weigh in on this. Please come forward. Who's first? Raise your hand, sir. Ready?

Thank you. Thank you for working and all the money you get paid for doing this. I, you know, I just think it's just wonderful. My name is Nick White. I live at 927 East Lake street. I've had an office in Petoskey since 1979. I'm an architect. I was about 12 years on the planning commission. Some of those with Tina was 10 years as a County commissioner and and having 50-some years in architecture, I know a little bit about easements and condominiums. But I have some questions. And my first question is, has this council been approached by the Arrowhead Condo Association?

And maybe that's the question for the lawyer.

Continue.

That's a question. I'm just looking for an answer. Okay. You want me to list them and then you guys answer them later on?

You may not get the answers to this. Okay. You're just, you're the, okay.

Was, did, did the condominium association with whom you have the easement agreement with, did they ask, did they approach this, this council? I don't know. Did any of the other property owners in Arrowhead approach the this council for a remedy for the wheelway. Do the Lohs, Gus Loh and his wife, have permission or approval or an agreement with the Condo Association to represent the Condo Association? The original agreement was with the condominium corporation. I've got a copy of it right here. I read it. It's pretty clear. It doesn't say Gus Lowe. It doesn't say individual property owners. It's a collective association. And I don't know if you guys know what condominium associations are. They're different than a regular fee simple lot that you break up and you divide. Condominium associations are three parts. One is the condominium unit. That's what you buy. Two would be the limited common elements. Those would be elements that are enjoyed by you as a property owner only, not as general public or not as everybody in the association, but they would be limited to either your unit. It'd be like your front yard or whatever like that. Then the general common elements are roadways and things that everybody in a condominium association can enjoy. Those are the three major elements. The easement, this easement is a 15-foot strip of property that crosses both the units themselves. It crosses the limited common element, which is a lot that they set aside for some back lots to have a common lakefront access. And it also crosses the general common elements, which is the cul-de-sac. And the 15-foot easement is all that the easement agreement says we're responsible for. We're not responsible for anything outside the 15-foot path. As a matter of fact, if we do something outside the 15-foot path, and it's pretty clear in the agreement, we would have to get permission from each individual property owner But we're not responsible for the lakefront, for the lakeshore. That wasn't our lakeshore that dropped away. That was their lakeshore that dropped away. It dropped away from our strip that runs through there. But other than that, that's not, you know, but... I don't know that we can, you know, legally go down to the lakeshore and start digging stuff up without some type of another easement. Well, they'd love us to do that, I'm sure. But it's not our property. It's actually in Resort Township. So the other thing is... that the original agreement states that if we abandon or terminate the use of the easement, then it shall extinguish. So we have to make a statement. That's one of the things that we really need to do. One of the action points would be the city needs to declare that they are not abandoning nor terminating We also need to determine if Lowe has standing to sue the city. I don't think he does as an individual property owner without, you know, because the original agreement was signed by Duane. Oh, is that for me? Jesus Christ, you know, give me a break, you know. Okay, all right, give me, all right. So declare that it's not abandoned. Determine if Lowe has standing to sue us. Otherwise, you know, take a hike, that'd be my opinion. Determine if the settlement is an actual remedy or just something to get rid of Gus Lowe. And if you do a settlement, I think you have to stipulate it's with the entire corporation. It's not with Gus Lowe. That's all I got to say. Thank you very much.

I will tell you that our city attorney will get back to city council through the city manager. We'll get back to us with any questions that we have here, I believe. Is that right, Shane? We can request that. So directed, yeah, if you guys want that.

Yes, please. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to speak to council, please come forward.

Emily Meyerson, you guys know me. I just, it's terrible. And I know you guys are a terrible spot. So I'm here. I wrote a letter in March. I was at all those meetings that you had before. I didn't want to rewrite that letter, but really nothing has changed since then. I mean, what I said then is preserve the easement. It's not about building a trail. It's about preserving the easement the public paid $233,000 for. Emmett County in essence paid $233,000. That is our money. It is a public right of way and we need to fight it. I worked in government a lot of years. Being sued is terrible, but it's part of doing business. And I really believe that the city will win and they will persevere. I understand your need to negotiate too. And I think you have to do that on good faith, but to incorporate raising $25 million to build a 10 foot wide bike trail into this. I was just shocked because I know the city is looking at building the upper trail and I respect that. A lot of people want the lower trail, but you're moving ahead with that. According to Councilman Wilmot, he told Ward 2 that it would be done next year. So you have a upper trail why not you preserve that easement? It could be a different kind of trail. It can be a walking trail like Mr. Putter said, like Councilman Walker said. It doesn't have to be a 10 foot wide trail. If you have a hiking trail, a walking trail, you can get through there. You don't need permission because you're not going outside your easement area and you could put that back in and it preserves the easement forever. So maybe in 20 years, 30 years, you do build another trail down there like the one we used to know. But right now, why not move ahead with your upper trail? I just feel like this whole settlement agreement is mixing up building a trail and that's not what it should be about. It should be about preserving the public easement that the public paid for and the public wants to care about. And so I just, I really, I just, I think that should be the focus and that shouldn't be on there. If it's coming up with the change of language, like manager Horn said, what if it's going to cost $3,000 to put a footpath in there? Is that all you need? I mean, I don't know. I don't know the answers to that. But I really don't think that should be wrapped up in it because a trail means different things to lots of different people. And I just, you know, it really concerns me getting, you know, about the money. I just think you've got to fight it. I think that's what it's about. I think it's obvious the public is behind that. They're willing to say, hey, pay for this. This is important. Fight it. But it's like you're fighting one person. What about all the public that's come to all those meetings? At one meeting, Mayor Murphy said something about he was getting calls from all over the country because a lot of our seasonal people that live here weren't here at the time when this came up. And they were making calls. Visitors were making calls. This is important. I mean, what if they decide to counter sue? Do you want to fight that? I'm not saying they're going to. I know nothing about it. But that's also a possibility if you give this up. So really, just preserve the easement. You can negotiate, but get that money out of there. It doesn't belong. Refocus on just preserving the easement. And this council should move ahead and build your upper trail and preserve the easement long term. And that's all I have to say. So I know it's hard. I respect you all. I know it's difficult and I appreciate it. So thank you all while you do.

Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Jane Danae, and I live at 566 West Lake Street next to Magnus Park. So I've had years of watching people enjoy the bikeway and improving their health, not just physically, but emotionally, watching families and friends connecting. And that's what community is about. It's about connecting. So... I am grateful to Mayor Murphy and to Councilman Natstra for your negotiations and mediation and ongoing with the Lowe's. I'm also grateful to Trails Council for their tenacity in pursuing rebuilding of the washout area. But I cannot accept giving up the easement. The public 20 years ago purchased this easement and we can't give it up. Because once it's given up, are we going to buy it back someday when we have a different plan? So really, that's all I wanted to say is to protect the easement and that we all realize that the Miracle Mile is the jewel in our community's crown. Once that jewel is gone, it is probably gone. So thank you for all your work in protecting what we all know and love so very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to council?

I'd like to take another second. My name is Max Arp, and the Arp name is redundant. I think that there's just so many aspects to this that need to be aired out a little more. And I would like to see like a task force, something, get the township, get the county, get the conservancy and try to map out the issues. And so like you said, the burden of this maintenance costs, Of course, people think you deserve that because you've got the 425 agreement. So you're getting money from Bay Harbor to do stuff for service. But I think we could all get a task force together, something like that to really iron out and get to the bottom of all these questions. There's some really good points made here today and questions that need to be addressed by other agencies like the Top of Michigan Trails Council, like Emmet County, And again, the Conservancy or the Watershed Council, we've got a lot of talent in this community. And it just seems like this project is a can of worms. We gotta go open it up and go fishing.

Thank you. Anyone else speak council at this time? Is there anybody online? No? Okay, council. Mr. Wilma.

Yes, I'd like to propose a motion that we schedule Thursday, the 20th of August for a special meeting, which would include going into closed session for further discussion on this situation.

Would that include coming out of closed sessions?

In other words, to have it as an eight. It would include closed session, but I leave the rest of the agenda to you and the city manager.

I cannot be on here on the panel.

One, one option to consider is we, we could use our regular meeting on the 17th. Instead of doing the CIP, we do this meeting and push the CIP meeting a few weeks down.

cannot do the evening of the 17th. Unfortunately, I'm so sorry.

No problem. What about next week? I cannot do next week. I'm out of town. I can do next. I can't do anything next week.

How about the 27th?

Do we do it before the CIP? Maybe not.

They're gone.

It's not available. How about the 27th? It's a Monday.

So Thursday, Monday, Monday. Yeah. So when your guys are gone next week and there's no other day, the week of the 17th that can work from the 18th on available.

So what about the 18th? What is the 18th? Following the CIP meeting on more than 19th. I could do either of those dates. I don't have a calendar in front of me.

When's the CIP meeting?

Monday, August 17th.

Two days back to back together. That's awfully intimate. So you've got 18th, 19th, 18th or 19th.

Either one's fine. I can adjust my motion accordingly. So does that work 18th or 19th, either one? Either day is okay with me. Laura, are you open?

Yes, I'm open either of those dates.

Why don't we do the 18th? Why don't we do the 18th in case of snow or storm or something like this pushes us back a day, okay?

Does that give you enough time to notice the notification of the public?

Okay, I guess. I modify my motion to August, Tuesday, August 18th at 6 p.m.

I support. Any other discussion? Public, what's the weigh-in on this? I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

We're tabling. That's the motion, right?

The motion is to table and to write. Allow me to clarify. The motion is to table this resolution for the time and further discussion for a special meeting to be scheduled on Tuesday, August the 18th at 6 p.m.

I support that modified motion. Closed.

Yeah, that's good. That'll work. You have to come up and you have to speak. Give us your name. It's a routine that has to be followed. Sorry.

Emily Meyerson. I just was wondering if it was going to be a meeting that would be closed session and then open afterwards or is the meeting just...

My intent, it'll be up to the city manager and myself, but our intent is that we would have open, we would go to closed session and come back to. There'd be action out of closed session. There'd be action following closed session.

Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

Anybody else wish to comment on this? Sounds so good. I go to Ms. Beck for roll.

Wilmot?

Yes, sir.

Nocturne?

Aye.

Walker.

Aye.

Aye. Murphy.

Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Next is City Council comment, and I start with Ms. Walker, Ward 4.

Thank you, Mayor. I did have an announcement based on the resolution that we shared earlier this evening. The First Presbyterian Church of Petoskey is celebrating our 150th year anniversary, and that will be an event that is transpiring on Sunday. So we have a 9.45 a.m. this Sunday, 9.45 a.m. service. That's our normal scheduled time. And then from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., we have and ice cream and cool jazz in, on the property at the first special cheering church. So that is a public event and everybody is welcome to celebrate our 150 years of being rooted in community here in Petoskey. Thank you.

Mr. Knopftaub. Speaking of the 425 agreement, I happened to attend the 30th anniversary of the Bay Harbor Yacht Club Saturday night. There's 1,000 families that have been moved into our beautiful Petoskey community by way of the 425 agreement that are wonderful people. They're all new over the last 30 years. Bay Harbor has generated hundreds and hundreds of jobs. Good middle class jobs, great jobs are not all a bunch of rich people behind the gates. Half of the Petoskey tax base is from that community. They tend to be light users. It's been a godsend to our finances. I'm so proud of our balance sheets and our finances in this city. And part of that is the result of the Bay Harbor community people that you're trying to get money from, which is a little irritating. There has been... there has been, and I wanted to just have a special shout out for the vision of Bill McCormick and David Johnson, who is their vision to create that. And I think that Bay Harbor has been a wonderful asset to the city of Petoskey in the greater Northern Michigan, and they love the, the, the trailway too. Thank you.

Ward two, Mr. Wilma. Just a shout out for our, Lockwood picnic 26th annual. Is it now 26th annual Lockwood picnic Monday night? Uh, be there or be square. That's all. Five o'clock.

This the more

We kick off the 2026-2027 Petoskey Youth Advisory Council year with a trolley tour of the recreational properties with Mr. Klingle-Smith at the lead and hopefully somebody driving the trolley. So obviously if one of you would like to join, you know, you're welcome to do that. And then the entire group, which numbers 18 this year, we've gone from 12 to 16 to 18, will be introduced to city council at our meeting on September 21st. Thank you.

What's the date of your trolley riding?

Yeah, thank you. August 20th. You too are invited, city council manager. Thank you. There's a dance. I think we departed five o'clock right in front of this building. Why don't you go shoot me a text and let me come. What date did you say? August 20th. August 20th. Will there be chocolates? Will there be chocolates? Okay, fine. There will be chocolate. If that'll lure the rest of you. And I'm also going to have an announcement about a really interesting thing that's happening with the youth advisory council on September 14th. more about that to come.

All right. Oh, good. You have a dog show up for the dog rub and cutting. I think you'll enjoy that. Are dogs invited? Dogs. Oh, absolutely. You can send your dog and you can stay home. Okay. I would just went by the dog park again today. I ran into four people that were standing there with their dog wanting to know if they could use it now. I said, no, there's a sign coming up that says stay off until ribbon cutting in two weeks from tomorrow. Or yeah, two weeks from tomorrow. Make sure if you want to see something really cool, we've got some great art panels. These are people from Emmett County and Charlevoix County, residents here, workers that have been here, people from Bayview. Sorry, they left. They could have heard that people even from Bayview are in this. We've got some great piece of art. They're large four by four massive panels. Kendall came over and saw them and they knock your socks off with how cool these panels are going to be. But it celebrates Northern Michigan artists. And that's what this is about is let's celebrate the talents that we have here. You don't have to go away to see great art. You're going to see this down at the waterfront on the wall, the support highway wall across from the softball park. And that's two, three weeks from Friday, tomorrow on the 28th. And also go down and sit on the bench. Pete Kehoe sent me a text just now as I was walking in here. He said that, oh my gosh, he says, I went down to see the bench. I ended up getting stuck taking photographs of three different families crowded on the bench because they wanted somebody outside their family to take it. So he said they kept rotating through and he took three family pictures while he was there. So take a look at the bench. I got to say, Thanks to city manager Horn, Sarah involved with this, Sheila Runes, and our arts commission. What a great group of people we've got that you guys have supported with some funding. And it's just spectacular. Yes.

I'm sorry, Mayor. I failed to mention that our annual Little Traverse History Museum's annual corn roast is coming up next Friday, August the 14th from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. and the most amazing volunteers. And of course, it is a zero waste event. Thank you so much.

No further business come from this council. I call you all.