Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'm going to call to order this regular city commission meeting of Monday, April 6th. All please rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. As always, we begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather as the territory of the Ottawa and Chipua peoples who have stewarded this land through the generations. Thank you for your strength and resilience in protecting this land and inspiring us to uphold our responsibilities to do the same. And with that, we'll go ahead and start um with roll call. Sarah, please. Commissioner Hug

here. Commissioner Shaw here. Commissioner Treadwell here. Commissioner Anderson here. Mayor Promstess here. Commissioner Bmer here. Mayor here. All right. And we'll continue with announcements from the city manager, please. I actually don't have any. Oh, great. Thank you. Any from you, Sarah? I know. I went through that real quick. Sorry, Sarah. Always got to coordinate.

Not ready. Um, just a few meetings this week. Uh, there will be a ad hoc I'm doing this on the fly interview committee for the board of zoning appeals tomorrow at noon. Um, April 7th at the second floor conference room. The Parks and Recck Commission um will be having a special meeting April 7th, Tuesday at 6 PM in the training room. And the planning commission is having their regular meeting at 6 PM also on Tuesday here in the chambers. And there's another ad hoc interview committee for the human rights on April 8th and that one's also at noon in the conference room. And that's what I have so far. So, thank you. Great.

Okay. Well, then with that, we'll go ahead and let you keep going with the consent calendar, please.

Sounds good. The purpose of the consent calendar is to expedite business by grouping non-controversial items together to be dealt with by one commission motion without discussion. Any member of the commission, staff, or the public may ask that any item on the consent calendar be removed there from and placed elsewhere on the agenda for individual consideration by the commission. And such requests will be automatically respected. If an item is not removed from the consent calendar, the action noted in parenthesis on the agenda is approved by a single commission. Action adopting the consent calendar. One, consideration approving the minutes of the March 2nd, March 9th, and March 23rd, 2026 meetings of the city commission. Approval recommended. Two, consideration of adopting a resolution recognizing Downtown Traverse City Association, DTCA, as a nonprofit organization within the city, which will allow it to apply for a state of Michigan RAP license. Adoption recommended. Three, consideration of authorizing issuance of new redevelopment district liquor license with class C privileges with Sunday AM PM sales and additional bar permits to City Opera House Heritage Association, Inc. located at 106 East Front Street and authorizing the city clerk to issue the registration. Approval adoption and approval recommended. Four, consideration of authorizing a confirming purchase order for diesel fuel for city operational use. Approval recommended. Five, consideration of authorizing an agreement for roof replacement at City Opera House. Approval recommended. Six, consideration of approving a budget amendment for the contract for the painting of long lines in fiscal year 2025 2026. Approval recommended. Seven, consideration of introducing an amendment to the Traverse City Code of Ordinances, which re which would reszone the 523, 525, and 551 Mson Avenue from C2A neighborhood center. conditionally zoned to C2 neighborhood center as recommended by the planning commission introduction and schedule for possible enactment on April 20th, 2026. Recommended. Number eight, consideration of

introducing an amendment to the Traverse City Code of ordinance which would update parking meter operations, clarify payment options, and revise related civil fine provisions and consideration of approving the parking rate ceiling fee for parking permit surface permit. Introduction and schedule for possible enactment on April 20th, 2026. Recommended. Nine. Consideration of the enactment of an amendment to the development regulations for the Grand Traverse Commons to allow for additional sheds at the community garden as recommended by the Grand Travers Commons Joint Planning Commission. Enactment recommended. 10. Consideration of the enactment of the amendment to the Trevor City Code of Ordinances, which amends the composition of the parks and recreation commission. Enactment recommended. 11. Consideration of enactment of an amendment to the Trevor City code of ordinances which would establish a rightaway ordinance. Enactment recommended. 12. Consideration of the enactment of a amendment to the Trevor City code of ordinances which amends the parking related enforcement of rightaway. Enactment recommended. 13. Consideration of accepting a public utility easement for public water main purposes. Acceptance recommended. 14. Consideration of adopting a resolution approving submission of water resources division state high water infrastructure grant for coastal resiliency and shoreline stabilization plan application approval recommended. 15. Consideration of adopting a resolution to terminate participation in M's healthc care savings program for AFF members and transition to IAFF MERP plan. Approval recommended.

Okay. Okay. Does any commissioner want anything pulled? Go ahead, Heather. Seven. Seven. Ken. Um two. Um and 12, please. Okay. Uh Jackie and then Mitch. 14, please. Okay. Mitch, uh four. And just a slight correction on Um, where is it? On 10. Okay.

In the memo, it says effective eight days after, but it further down it does list the dates as the originally scheduled um March 16th. So, can I get corrected? Correct. Okay. Yep. Great. Um, is that everybody? Okay. Anybody from the public would like to pull any item other than 72 14 or 4? Seeing none, I'll bring it back for a motion. I make a motion to accept the consent calendar as amended. Support. Okay. Thank you. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion passes. Okay. We'll start with item number seven, which is the um MSON reszone. And Heather, you had this pulled.

Yes. Um so it looks like looks like the deed restriction that that may take place, so I'm going to skip over that. So, my problem with the C2 um designation in this location is that C1 does not allow laundry and dry cleaning services and C2 does. And since this location is about a block from East Bay where we get our drinking water, I think that we might want to think about how we treat our dry cleaning services here in Driver City. Um right now there is proposed legislation in Michigan to force dry cleaners to phase out their per chloroethylene um by 12 by 2032. So why don't we get why don't we do this now? Um Minneapolis did it. That was the first uh state that did it or the first city that did it in 2018. They didn't ban dry cleaners entirely. They just forced them or ordinanced them to switch to alternative technologies. Um we could also just amend or ask that the planning commission amend C2 to prohibit these perk they call them these per chloroeththylines in s sensitive locations. This has been done this has been a recommendation from the EPA for decades. Um, so I'm looking for support from the commission to ask the planning commission to please take a look at their C2 and make uh some changes to that to the dry cleaner uh use and that would actually filter up through all higher zoning

throughout the city. Um, that's I I appreciate that. And Lauren, I would ask that if this gets if we were to vote on this to continue as it was, if we pass something like that, let's say in 6 months, would that if there's no building there that has a dry cleaner, would that rule then apply if anything tried to go into this property?

Um, sure. Couple things. Um, I would like to take a look at whether there is there are regulations already in Michigan that cover that and whether if the state regulates it, whether that allows more stringent regulations to be enacted by a local municipality. Sometimes it's totally regulated by the state and the city can't make regulations like that. I just don't know if that's the case. I'd like to look. Um but as long as the use has not been established, it would then be subject to um the current zoning at the time that it was um being established. So if there were something different established in 6 months, then it would be subject to that regulation. Does that make sense? As long as they hadn't didn't have shovels in the ground, right?

Right. Is that helpful? And I agree with you, Heather, about exploring that and and doing that. I know this is the this particular zoning I remember a couple years ago they had done a lot of work with the neighborhood and such to try and incorporate um oh gosh what I just forget third coast right there's so many coast businesses here uh Third Coast into the plans in the future and the neighborhoods to create something that was accommodating and no dry cleaner but um also as we all know we don't want to just let things go and not think about it and hope for the best. So I appreciate that being brought up in this lens here. Well, I appreciate the owner of that property and all he's but how he's been working with the neighborhood. He's gone beyond and above.

Um hopefully that deed restriction goes through, but anything could happen. Yep. You know, and his heirs could decide they just they just want to sell it and then we absolutely. So that's great. So I appreciate that. So, knowing that we know can do this and that there's no shovels in the ground and that's not the plan right now, do we have a motion for this right now to continue it or Thank you for checking that out, Lawrence. Bring that back to us. Could we make a motion to refer it to the planning commission for action?

Is that appropriate this time or not? I would hesitate to do it because of the time limit on this for it being having already been approved that if we take too long and send it back that does that affect the process here for what they're in the middle of trying to do? Well, I don't they're asking if commission is doing. I mean, I think that you can um you can either hold on it now or refer it or if you if you moved it forward now, then um you could still change it in the future so long as the the use has not been established at that time. Well, I defer to Heather, Commissioner Shaw. I I wasn't thinking of wrapping it up into this recommendation. I was more like let

Yeah, I would I'm looking for support from the city commission to recommend that the planning commission take this up. I'm not sure how that the dry cleaning part. Correct. Yeah. Not this particular Right. Yes. So noted. So did we want to go ahead with this then? Okay. It looks like I'll make a motion. Um let me just make sure I have the right one. Yeah. All right. here. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Uh, I move that the amendments to the Traverse City Code of Ordinances, which would reszone 523, 525, and 551 Munson Avenue from C2A Neighborhood Center, conditionally zoned to C2 Neighborhood Center as recommended by the planning commission, be introduced and scheduled for possible enactment on April 20, uh, 2026. Support. Thank you, Ken, and thank you, Lance. any further discussion with the notes that we've already made to send to staff. Go ahead, Lance.

Yeah, and I made the motion just um because uh I do also believe that we should have the planning commission look at the dry cleaning uh as an issue in the future. Um but uh I we've had all of us have had emails back and forth I think in the last couple days uh with the owner and some of the concerned neighbor neighbors there. So, um it's really good to see when somebody wants to do something that they've gone out on their own. We didn't even have to ask them, but they went out on their own and they met with all of the neighbors. Um and they have neighbor support around it. So, yeah, that's why I'm supporting us. Laura, did you have your hand up?

No. Okay. Sorry, something moved over there. Any other comments on this? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. Thank you for that. Okay, now on to item number two. I readjust my computer. Uh, and this is the DTCA license. Was this you as well, Heather? Oh, sorry. It was Ken. Sorry.

Um, no. I'll speak to this now because it this I don't think anybody else would have pulled this off. This isn't very controversial, but I wanted to pull this specifically because I believe that this pursuit by the DTCA is a good thing and something that I wanted to publicly support. Uh, I've been very critical of the DDA's projects and how I feel about their contribution in the community. And I wanted to specifically highlight this item because my feelings about the DTCA and the businesses downtown should never be confused with my scrutiny of the DDA and their projects. So, with an uncertain future for TIFF 97, I think that this is very important measure to strongly support. I hope that someone will ask me to buy a raffle ticket when it's time. If no one has any further questions, I would be happy to make this motion. Go right ahead.

Um I move that the city commission of the city of Traverse City formally recognize the downtown read the one at the top. Sorry, the very top of the um item. Page one of that bundle. Uh the motion recommendation for one though. Uh yeah, the lo the local governing body resolution. Yeah. Uh, I the local governing body resolution for charitable gaming gaming licenses issued by the Michigan Lottery to recognize Downtown Traverse City Association, DTCA, as a local nonprofit organization be adopted. Second that.

Thank you, Cam. Commissioner Funk and Commissioner Shaw. Any further comments on this? All right. Any public comment on this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. Thank you for that. Thank you for that, Commissioner Funk. Um, all right. Then our next one is 12, which is the code ordinances for the parking rightway. And this was Sorry, I'm confused. Enough people pulled it was kind of correct. Yes. Did I read it?

Um, I don't agree with this and I don't support it. And uh we currently have adequate enforcement mechanisms in place to address this. I'm not worried about bothering PD with going out into the neighborhoods for pesky parking tickets. I don't want parking enforcement traveling around the city patrolling for park parking ticket opportunities. Um I feel that this would potentially could or would happen and it could be viewed as potentially an unnecessary risk. If this is happening at a significant enough level that needs immediate attention by parking to immediately enforce rather than a tire getting marked and 48 hour 48 hours later there's a follow-up visit. I feel like this is a pretext or a prelude to further encroachment of metered parkings into residential neighborhoods. The proposed language is a little bit different than what was discussed when this was previously brought up. Um we were presented with the problem of job material waste trailers, dumpsters and boats and alleys as a problem. This ordinance language speaks to parking or display displaying in right of ways for the purpose of for sale signs on their vehicles and they will be in violation of this ordinance. So I felt like this is a little unclear. And when you look at it is the third page of this agenda item right at the top and they're highlighted in red. It says prohibited parking unless otherwise allowed by the city manager. No person shall park or place a vehicle, boat or other object in any city parking lot on a city street or public rightway for the principal purpose of displaying such vehicle, boat, camper, mobile home or object for sale, for storage or for advertising purposes. So, some of these job site trailers have the name of the company on the side of it. I could be misconstrun as advertising. If I put a for sale sign in the back window of my truck and I park it on the street, I'm technically

in violation of this. I would, as I read it, and I don't know that I necessarily want to leave it up for interpretation by a city employee who could then get some verbal backlash from the community member who owns that vehicle. They're like, "What are you giving me a ticket for? Well, you got a for sale sign. you're in violation of this ordinance. So, I'm not a fan of this. I don't support it and I wanted to voice my concern with it and that's why I wanted this removed. Thank you, Ken. And I know that Benjamin wanted to say some things to this.

Yes. I just wanted to make sure it's clear that the language in this ordinance prohibits uh what you said for the principal purpose of selling or for uh principal purpose for uh displaying it for sale, storage, or advertising purposes. The principal purpose

I'm going to get a lot more views of my for sale truck parked downtown than I am in front of my house in the neighborhood. It's it's kind of an interpretation thing and I don't know that I like leaving it as a open loophole for interpretation and subject to the interpretation of an employee. I might get some some backlash from it. I think that we have a mechanism in place right now. Tire gets marked 48 hours later. They check it and if the vehicle is still there, it can then be ticketed by parking enforcement. This was this was promoted as we're going to relieve the burden of PD. Mhm.

by going into the neighborhoods and being able to ticket them right away because PD can ticket them right away. I say leave this alone. I don't necessarily agree with this. Go ahead, Lance.

Yeah. Question. Um, so let's just say theoretically, right, where I I have, you know, a sign for sale in my my Subaru and I do get a ticket because it's displayed for a long time in a a location. Um but uh my principal purpose is really just because I park on the street. Um but that was misconstrued maybe by by somebody and I did receive a ticket. Um how do I go about fighting that ticket since it's a civil matter and this isn't up really for the courts. Does that how does that work as a a citizen? Nicole Vaness is approaching uh who is of course in charge of parking and if you can answer that question and Nicole if you have any other uh context that might be helpful for Commissioner Funk's concerns for the full commission that'd be great too.

Thank you Nicole parking mobility director.

Uh so to answer the question as far as um how to go about appealing a civil violation um that would start with the office um and that's a level one appeal where all of the photos and evidence as it relates to the citation is reviewed. Um at that point uh there is the option of the 86 district court um who will uh do an informal hearing um if the if the information provided um supports the the citation one way or the other. Um our office will typically try to do the best that we can to avoid anybody going to the 86 District Court. We don't want to waste the court's times. Uh so we take into consideration all information and evidence that's provided for the citations. As far as um for sale, I can honestly say in the 14 years that I've been here, I don't think we've issued one citation for for sale. Um I think that when this ordinance was brought forward and it was brought in forward with in conjunction with the um rightaway ordinance provided by city engineering and um the purpose is right now we have a lot of um uh dumpsters, waste trailers tied to projects where they're just storing them on the street. So right now we don't have a mechanism. We have called businesses to try to get them to pick up the trailers. Um but then that just becomes you know a lot of back and forth and a lot of administrative time to make those calls. So it's really tied to that ordinance as it relates to engineering and less to the sale of vehicles or advertising.

I have a follow-up question. Um you said dumpsters or trailers. Um but I'm reading as I read this the addition is not dumpsters or trailers. looks to be campers and mobile homes. Um, and maybe I'm

We do also get phone calls from residents that have uh neighbors who have their popups extended by the camper. They've got extension cords coming, generators running. So again, those ones were unable to address. So with at this point with this being tied to the rightway ordinance, campers and trailers also being in the right ofway, we did add those so we didn't have to come back for a second amendment. But um, yes, you are correct. It does include boats and and campers and would allow us to u take action on those complaints as well. Uh we're not stocking the neighborhoods. We're not out looking for citations. Most of the time when we address um complaints, it's citizen driven. We have other questions.

I I have a question for um Commissioner Funk. Is your primary concern the sale the for sale and the example of the truck or is your concern the entire ordinance? I I just I think we're trying to fix something that doesn't need fixing and I like it. I kind of like to leave it the way it was there. I understand that like there's a there were some issues with people don't get the permit to have these dumpsters or any of these things in the street because if you get the permit then you are allowed to do this. Correct.

Correct. So, they're not getting the permit and parking enforcement can only mark their tires and then they have to wait 48 hours before they can then go and issue a citation. Whereas, our police department has the ability to go and cite them immediately. We are going to give parking enforcement the same abilities as our law enforcement to issue citations without waiting. We have a mechanism. our our law enforcement can do this if they're there for 48 hours or longer. I like leaving it at that rather than giving this increased ability to our parking enforcement when I don't necessarily want them in the neighborhoods. Like I it's just my thoughts and feelings as far as today they're driving around in neighborhoods looking for I know you you just said they're not stalking them. I agree with that. you're probably not, but I don't want to create the opportunity for it to become an issue that people are looking at like, man, parking enforcement was over here and they wrote a ticket on this. It's I don't I don't believe that you are aggressively running around trying to generate revenue,

but you're really good at it. Well, are they though? I mean, we look at their numbers. Um, and and the sparking spots were losing. Um, the one thing I would ask I had two questions about this. Looking at the what's in the packet, almost all the fines that could be associated with this with the exception of I think like three maybe four is $15. Is that correct?

That is correct. Yes. And so, and then the duration, you know, living, having lived in several places throughout town and seen a lot of dumpsters without permits parked, overnight parking all winter long because to get overnight parking, you have to uh for a car that's been there for several days, you have to call after 11 p.m. to report it and other such things. I I guess I don't know that I feel like parking enforcement is already patrolling and looking for ticketing, nor do I think that we have the staff that goes all over a lot of staff. And so I I hear what you're saying, Commissioner Funk, but I guess what I'm I'm looking at is this would take some of the pressure off of parking, but and the the error margin of error is $15. And so that's where I I feel I don't necessarily know that we'd go patrolling for $15, nor do I

um wonder if that's a huge error if it does accidentally land on it versus somebody people that I mean I don't think $15 is a big deal to me, but the people that typically $15 might be an issue for um I think are more likely to be someone who would have to deal with this situation. disabled vehicle. They're already strapped for cash. Vehicle sits there for a period of time or they're waiting and making arrangements to get it moved. They don't want to go. They don't have the the knowledge to go pull a permit and the vehicle sat there for a period of time because it's complained. It's been reported. Go ahead, Lance.

Then I had a question. I guess my my question maybe proposal would be you know can we better define the two words principal purpose um in the actual ordinance itself because I don't want to you know as you said commissioner fun you know stuff happens and then they get a ticket now they have to go to court to fight it but principal purpose is really not defined uh within the document uh or the ordinance or maybe I'm wrong maybe our legal counsel can advise to that. Um, and so now it's my word against your word without a definition of what principal purpose actually means. Um, and so I I I don't know. I'd like to see that maybe more clearly defined if we were going to pass this. Um,

yeah, that's interesting. I had thought of it that way, but until now.

Well, the whole thing with the for sale was the the for sale sign potentiality of like I'm selling my vehicle and I have a for sale sign. It's it's left up to interpretation. It's a it's up to that person's decision on whether or not they may want to cite them for it or not. And I don't think that's a great thing. Like that's the thing. Let's take the subjectivity out of it and make it very clear. So I I don't like it as it is. Um I I think something cleaner could be better, but I understand that there was a need to tie this in with the rightaway ordinance. I've seen the job site trailers on streets with amount of snow packed around the side of it because it because we had weather and that trailer hadn't gotten removed yet. So, I know there are some issues and challenges with this. I don't feel good enough about this to move it forward.

When you're coming back, what you're coming back to a lot in this example is the for the forale and Nicole has now said that she hasn't in 15 years experienced a forale complaint. if that was just stricken for everybody's clarification since that seems to be where the muddiness is. Is that something that would make that clear for Lance and for yourself or I'm not trying to get you to inherently say yes to something that you would object to if that's where you're at? But that's what we keep kind of keep coming back to in this conversation. So, is that really necessary to have in the ordinance as a whole? I guess I I I don't really understand what you were

Well, you what are you trying to clarify? You've kind of as if we were talking about this, you know, nobody's saying that we don't think that campers should just be living on our street or that um you know, not permitted

vehicles or boats, which we've I've seen too, but the what you're coming back to is the for sale. And I get it. It's it's kind of obscure what if you're just parked on the street and you get a ticket for the for sale and not being appropriate use. Lance was asking about the clarification of what we're all agreeing that phrase means if we just struck the object for sale and that's fine like it's a car that would have been left there for long and violates other things if it's there but that seems to be the sticking point in the language if we took that language out does that then make that a little more pal that make that p more palatable for really the intent which the intention is intention is if somebody's just parking their boat out for a couple days or a camper or a dump site that isn't approved that would still be covered by all of this then we would just take out that kind of subjective

um object I'm using I don't know I'm tired tonight sorry you know what I'm going for um language go ahead Mitch yes I don't think this is a question for Nicole or Lauren or um just ether uh but do we have language from other communities or from case law uh that more clearly defines um how principal use uh is defined.

Uh I'm I was going to say, you know, the the words p principal purpose, I don't know that they're defined in the ordinance. It's probably one of those issues like the reasonable person standard where you would likely find um guidance within the cases if it were to come to that. And that's what the, you know, the magistrate um would then base that decision on in in a hearing situation. Um and it would be up to that person to then weigh and balance, you know, whether there was evidence to show that the PR, you know, the principal use or the principal reason that it was there was, you know, in violation of the ordinance. So,

okay. Well, that uh tells me that we don't need to uh explicitly outline everything. Um especially since we can't imagine every possible scenario. I think that there will be both some flexibility in the person writing the ticket, especially if they can contact the person at the house if it is in front of a house or business. That's first person I would try to talk to if I had seen if I was uh enforcement and had seen or had reported a car or boat or other vehicle. Let's not start prescribing method to people who have a job assignment that we're not aware of what their rules are.

Exactly. Go ahead, Heather. Yeah. If we're going to strike the for sale part, I think we have to strike the advertising purposes as well. So, basically down to storage. You can't for the principal purpose uh of displaying of uh storing your vehicle or whatever display on the street. The only I don't know and and sorry that difference really between uh advertising the kind of trouble you could run into from parking your truck with a big sign on it and putting a for sale. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I was going to say that does satisfy uh Commissioner Funk, your other

concern about you know my my trailers and my everything has advertising on it. Um and yeah,

yeah, the because I was going to ask um Nicole, the essence of why this was brought forward is I if I'm remembering correctly from the presentation we had initially was that this was just to help with basically people abusing the the parking by doing campers, boats, long-term storage of a car. If there's an aband issue of abandonment because of non compliant or sorry a vehicle that's not working that can be called in and there's are exceptions given to that. So we're really just talking about people who are essentially using public roads for storage. And so if these were these two were stricken from it. Does that that doesn't still change the real motivation for really what this was for was for enforcement of abuse basically. Correct.

That actually further defines the purpose. Yeah. To make storage. So, I'm I'm and there's there's a little thing with this, too. Those are some of like the the the issues that I have with how it's written and how some things could be there could be a problem with how these are interpreted. But at the end of the day, you can get a permit and you can park this vehicle right on the street, no problem. But if you don't get the permit, we are actively seeking out a way to penalize you for that faster instead of leaving the mechanism as it is. It seems like it's closing this 48 hour gap, which I don't really feel is that essential. I like to give these people the benefit of the doubt. You got 48 hours to get that thing out of there, whatever it is, once you've been warned by a tire mark.

If you see the tire mark, well, I don't know where they put them. They could be really small. They could be really big, but you know, if they're they're gambling, and I like to give these people the benefit of the doubt. If it's if it is if it's about if it's about money, then then I think that the way it's written is fine. But if it's about what's maybe in the best interest of these people a little bit more, I I like to be flexible. I don't like it to be subjective with the advertising and with the for sale sign. So, I just I didn't really like this and I didn't really want to see it change from the way it was. It's a recommendation on a change and that's fine. I don't agree with the recommendation of the change. I can tell you the motivation is not money. Yeah.

So, uh uh it's whether or not you want more uh rapid uh enforcement. Uh and you're saying you don't and obviously that's the commission's prerogative. I just wanted to clarify that the reason this was brought forward was not to generate revenue. I'm sure it was. So, we don't have a motion yet on on the table. Um, so either I can make a motion and then we can vote. Yeah. And move on. Yeah. If you'd like to make a motion. Um, my clarification for you. Would you be making the motion for what is there or would you say as amended? I would strike the sale and the advertising as amended to strike the sale. Okay. Exactly. Good. Both. I'm looking at our clerk and our legal.

Okay. I I move that the city commission adopt the proposed amendments to part 4, traffic code sections 48402, 484, and 48806 as amended to strike the advertising and um for sale to update parking meter operations, clarify payment options, including mobile application payments. No, I think you're go up to the top one. The top one. The top of the Okay. Okay. Got it. Okay. I'll start all over.

This one. Yeah. I can't that amendments to the Trevor City Code of Ordinances. That's So it would be amendments and my cover memo. Okay. So it' be amendments to the Trevor City Code of Ordinances. Okay. To part four. All right. That Amendments to the Traverse City Code of Ordinances to Part 4 Traffic Code section 480.03A and section 488.0628E as amended to strike advertising and for sale which will allow parking services to assist with enforcement be enacted with an effective date 8 days after publication. Second.

Okay. Thank you. Uh Nes and Bulmer. Any further discussion on this? Okay, seeing none, any public comment on this? Oh, I just want to point out the motion um that where it says an effective date 8 days after publication. That's for zoning amendments. Our charter requires it to be 10 days uh after today. So, if you can just agree to that modification. Our apologies for that. That modification. Okay.

So, everybody's clear that it's a voting on the amended. We're striking the just to summarize, we're striking the for sale and the advertisement and it is effective 10 days, not eight days per the city charter. So, any further discussion on this? Seeing none, any public comment on this? I'll bring it back. All in favor? I opposed? Nay. Roll call, please. Uh, Commissioner Funk, nay. Commissioner Shaw, yes. Commissioner Treadwell, yes. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Mayor Promnes, yes. Commissioner Bmer, yes. Mayor,

yes. Motion passes. Uh, we now have item 14, Jackie, that was pulled by you for the Eagle Grant. Um, and and please understand that I'm highly supportive of both the project and the request for Eagle funds, but um I had a a couple of questions regarding um connections. Um, first off, I wondered what our intent is to um take advantage of the watershed cent's um expertise and uh services and um both inind and and sometimes even funding donations um in support of the um the shoreline net stabilization project. And then I also wondered um will this have any impact on um progress on our repairarian buffer ordinance that's currently I think still somewhere in the planning commission process.

Hi. Hi. Um I'm Michelle Hunt. So uh Leslie and I worked on this together. So I'm just in case she has to answer. But the watershed center is a partner on this grant and um which is really exciting because bids are bids were due Friday for the request for qualifications for the shoreline stabilization project and we received 11. So, we're going to be going over those and we're gonna that's so we're actively down that road. And so, this grant is to help us with that process so that we can find a consultant, work with the watershed center and staff and accomplish this very big project in a phased approach.

Excellent. Excellent. and then coordination with the repairarian buffer ordinance. Does that need to be paused relative to what may happen coming out of this project? So, we've taken the repairarian buffer uh ordinance back to the um design team one more time. It's um undergoing legal review one more time. Uh we've gotten more input from the watershed center. There are a couple of uh things that I think uh could benefit from input from this uh firm which is identified through the RFQ to um to help uh make that ordinance a little bit more refined. Uh but the way it's written right now, those may come as either appendices or um information not actually in the ordinance. So, um I think it can be helped with this process, but they're not necessarily tied.

They're not codependent. All right. Thank you both very much. Do we have further questions or I take a motion?

I'll make the motion. I move that the city commission authorize the submission of a 161,50 grant application to the water resources division for a project addressing accelerated flooding, coastal erosion, and destabilized shoreline banks along east and west Grand Traverse Bays and the Boardman Ottawaway River Corridor from Grand Traverse Bay upstream to the Union Street Dam is more fully described in the deputy planning director's communication with the grant providing 80% of the total project cost. And with the city committing a 20% local match in the amount of $32,258, including $5,258 in inind staff hours and $27,000 in cash with actual expenses to be approved by the city commission at a future date.

The board. Thank you, Commissioners Ness and Treadwell. Any further discussion on this? I'd just like to say I think this is a great project. I really appreciate the partnership with the watershed center and good luck. Yeah. And following up on that, yes, uh, Lake Michigan is lower than it was, uh, several years ago, but it will come back. Uh, the Bordon River has, uh, seen very high water over the past few days, and it's important that we are looking forward and making our shorelines more resilient. Thank you. Any further comment? Was it optional participation for the private residences to participate in this in the study?

Michelle or Leslie, can you respond to that question? So, are are you talking about uh public outreach as a component of this project? um you know the uh Eagle didn't specify exact projects or I don't think there's a requirement for um public outreach and public engagement but um you know working with the watershed center we felt that that would be an important component uh to make sure that um we're getting it right but also that um that the uh public is aware of what the outcome of this study is

I I'm also kind of wondering if while they're studying these public beach areas if they'll be if it is optional for like private residences that butt right up to those like we we got a significant amount of private residence frontage on the shoreline. So um will they be participating?

Yep. So the uh vulnerability analysis component um includes both an analysis of uh vulnerabilities of public properties and private. Um but there's a kind of a split in um the recommendations which are more broad and more zoning ordinance based for the private properties and for the public properties. uh a little bit more specific about um you know particular changes to be made um and ways to um introduce um some soft uh shoring up of the shoreline um with natural um solutions,

erosion prevention practices, right? Yeah. Okay, great. I'm just curious if if it this money and this research is and the product is going to be available to the private residences of the city that the shorelines.

Sure. If they want to mimic some of those uh approaches to controlling their their own waterfront. Um but there would be specific um recommendations for the public to use as they see fit. I don't think this is meant to be an ownorous uh additional layer of uh requirements on private property owners. It's more uh to make sure that we have that extra layer that we need um in the our ordinances and to provide more information and more um design details that will help people um have the best approach to protecting their shorelines and leaving it in a more natural state. It just it kind of made sense because you might spend a sign significant amount of time and money to protect this public beach area, but then right next to it is the same exact amount of private beach area and they haven't been provided with the information to maybe take the steps if they want to to provide that erosion control if that's something that they would choose for. So, you've answered all my questions. Thank you so much.

Any other questions from the commission or comment? All right. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. All right. And the last item we had pulled was the fuel purchase. Mitch, you had this pulled?

Yes. Uh a month ago, we had a fuel purchase of two tanker trucks for a price of uh $41,500 roughly, which equates to uh 208 a gallon. Uh today we have before us a purchase of one tanker, 10,000 gallons for $37,000. That's a 78% increase. And uh we can see the price at the pump uh going up, but uh 370 a gallon is still cheaper than the shell down the street. But it is a cost that we are having to face because one person decided to uh get into an international conflict uh without um the voting of any of us. Thank you for the reminder, Mitch, that uh everything that happens globally affects us locally. Would you like to make a motion?

Yes. I move that the city manager be authorized to issue a purchase order to Crystal Flash, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan for the purchase of low soul diesel fuel for city vehicle use in an amount not to exceed uh 37,042.17 fun with funds available in the garage fund.

Thank you. Support. Thank you, Jackie. Any further comment? How um how does our what is the highest fuel price that we can sustain within what our established budget like when we set up the I know we're going to start talking about this soon. What dollar per gallon are we forecasting is to to get to get us through the year. We're going to have averages, but like how much should we anticipate to spend over the course of a year in fuel costs? Sure. I I see Joel Tapio. Great. Glad you're here.

Director, uh, thanks for the question, Ken. Basically, we leave um the budgeting for fuel up to each department. So, it's uh it's something that we we pass on the cost to and we try and leave plenty of buffer room. You know, as you know, over the years, fuel has gone up and down, but it's uh probably going to be more volatile as we move forward. So, we'll need to uh do budget adjustments perhaps, but um and then maybe even a budget amendment if you know the entire department uh goes over their their spending, right?

And we'll need to we'll keep an eye on it. At the end of the day, if it got so high, it would end up being an operational and or fiscal decision, right? uh it might mean we're driving less uh in certain capacities and we'd have to have a conversation about what that looks like, but in a lot of ways where uh I mean gas prices are generally what they are. Uh and uh but yeah, uh what I said is really what the approach would ultimately be. Thank you, Ken. Thanks, Sure. Lance, I would say that this is uh also a terrific time to continue looking at electrifying our fleet

um as those prices fluctuate significantly less when it comes to electricity rates. Yes. Yeah. And uh thank you for the continued efforts with that Benjamin with Brandy from TCLP. We on that. Yes. Um any public comment on this item? Seeing none, bring it back. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion passes. Okay, we are on to old business, which is the Oops, it just popped up on my screen. Uh the sale and development of uh West State Street properties. And so I'll let you kick this off then.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Shamro. We have Rob Bachalupy here with us this evening. I engaged uh Mission North, which is owned by Mr. Bachalupy, to assist the city in preparing the request for proposals. He worked with the city employee team uh under my direction to develop what's in front of you. He's going to be going through uh key elements of that RFP with you this evening. Uh there's a couple of things that we're going to propose modifying specifically in terms of the scoring rubric. He'll go through those. I did want to mention uh specifically things obviously the conversation is completely open. and we'll take direction from the commission. But specifically, some things walking into this conversation that I'm looking for feedback on are first uh the scoring rubric, which again, Mr. Bachalupi is going to go through some proposed changes. We want to make sure that that accurately reflects what the commission thinks should be emphasized. This is uh essentially a strong signal to potential biders on how they should structure uh their RFP. So, we need to make sure it's in alignment with your values. Uh you'll note for instance there's a small bit of waiting uh provided if the applicant includes an option for a police substation. Um and then also uh for your feedback is uh we do have a reference in the uh RFP that they have to comply with city policies. Specifically we're talking about the building electrification policy. Uh the RFP as written uh would have the uh applicants articulate if how compliance with that electrification policy might impact uh the bottom line of the project. I do want to emphasize and one of the things Mr. Botchaloopy will go through on that scoring rubric is we do want to have some waiting given to their compliance with that electrification policy. I've asked Mr. for Bachalupi to work closely with folks who have expertise in this area to help us think creatively about

how we can require that of developers and have the project still be hopefully as sustainable as it otherwise would be. And I'm talking about, for instance, with uh uh workforce housing units being viable uh within that project. And we want the uh applicants to come up with ways for that to to happen. For instance, possibly using some incentives. Uh so with that, I'd like to at this point turn it over to Mr. Bachalupi to walk you through the key elements, the scoring rubric, and then uh we're here for the discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh good evening, commission. I think first I'll just go through um just a few little changes in the document uh because we continue to get some great feedback. Um obviously we've had people on vacation and um uh but as they come back, we're getting uh some great feedback. So, there are just a few uh minor changes in the document um from the one that you have in your packet that I'd like to propose. Um and the first one is really just a clarification. This is on page one. And you're referring when you refer to page numbers, you're talking page number on the RFP document. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Yes. Not the Yeah. on the the the named or the numbered um page

five in our

pages on the bottom which hopefully you can see. Um it's just under project goals. Uh we list public restrooms and just want to clarify that um maybe broaden that out. We say D we say either dedicated facilities or participation in the DDA's restroom subsidy program just in case that transfers over to the city. we're going to just uh maybe take out the reference to DDA or clarify that it may it may be um under another portion of the city. So that's really just a clarification. And then um the issue of electrification came up. I think that's the next one. And this is on page five of the RFP. And we wanted to really uh clarify that. So under the development process and then um the subheading zoning which is the last item um we just I'm proposing that we add after that first sentence just a clarification that any development must comply with development regulations including charter section 28 which governs buildings over 60 feet. I'm sorry this is about the 60 foot one. I I was thinking it was electrification. It's actually the 60oot rule. Uh we just want to kind of point that out that there is a charter provision that does limit buildings to 60 ft uh with some exceptions and then go on to say that the city has an established policy on how these regulations are administered and enforced with a link to that policy which is of course is on the city's website. So, uh, that came up, uh, just we wanted to make sure that we weren't missing, um, making it clear that there is, uh, this charter provision.

Uh, so we want to point that out in the document. And that may actually, oh, no, there's one more on page six. We list um under proposal requirements, criteria, and process, we kind of list what the responders have to put into their document. And we would like to add specifically a description of public parking in there so that they they um kind of zero in on what is what kind of public parking is going to be provided. um describing the number of spaces, how the ownership is um is uh laid out, and then any pricing commitments that they might uh be offering. So, are there any questions on those changes?

I have a question about the subsidy for the um public restrooms, which has been something we've done for a while. We've built them into city buildings, but we've also paid businesses to allow for public restrooms. um if that funding is not available from the DDA anymore, that wouldn't be a guaranteed program. That would be up to the city commission at the time to decide if it was going to continue with that. So, I guess I would want to say that as part of this process to make that clear that if somebody was thinking about building a designated space or something that that wouldn't be inherently available if if that money funding goes away, but if that is something that they would get a tenant or something to agree to, then obviously they can work out that leasing on their own. But I just wanted to make that clear as part of the conversation that that program may or may not exist in a couple of years.

Okay. I have a question about the the last amendment that you just covered about the public parking. Can you repeat that? Sure. Um so in the section which is on page six under proposal requirements, criteria, process, we are just kind of we're specifically saying what their proposal has to include. Okay. Mhm.

And um though we do kind of sort of cover it in the very first uh section which is letter of interest because we say that you have to you have to state how your team's vision for the site u meets the stated goals of the RFP one of which is parking. But um to make it very clear um and to ask the proposers to really clarify how parking is going to be provided, we just want to add another bullet um that asks them to describe the public. So we're asking for an explicit statement of how who will operate and manage and how what that will look like with respect to the public parking piece. Yes.

Okay. I think that's really important. That was on my notes to request. So thank you for that. Mitch, you had your hand up. Yes. Uh we have a criteria for public restroom or a thing in the rubric for public restrooms, but also in the specifications for the police substation, it has a restroom as part of that. Could the public restrooms be counted towards the police substation restrooms?

Um that is probably a police department question. Um my guess is no. But uh yeah, I I think the the intent of that police substation is um you know a secure area where they among other things can um manage events uh larger events where they do need a a presence downtown. So I would imagine they would want that. we had separate consider it a a mini law enforcement center where we don't allow the public into uh parts of that for obvious reasons confidentiality and so forth

and just for the record because it was happening off camera we had a vigorous uh shaking of the head from our chief so no that is definitely not the intention to have shared restroom space so thank you other questions or now go ahead

so an additional clarification around the amendment that you're making with respect to the electrification policy Um, I think that that if we're going to explicitly state the 60oot charter requirement, which I believe we should, that was another question I had. I think we need to explicitly state on page five maybe underneath that under city policies and the exact electrification policy that we have or include it as background material because right now it's there, Ben, and I know in your memo you outlined where it was buried. It's on like page six or seven under the financial piece, but it's really buried. It's hard to find. And I think with respect to this, if we can detail it under city, it's you've got zoning and we'll include the charter provision, but then underneath that city other city policies and include the electrification policy and then with a reference to a background exhibit.

Yeah, absolutely. Very helpful. Yeah. And it's just a sentence or two, so why not, right? I mean, especially. And then the other piece um and it may be in there. I know we we referenced the strategic plan in kind of the opening preamble, but will the strategic plan be included as a background exhibit is going to be linked. Okay, that's even better. Um that would be great. Both of those

other Go ahead, Jackie. Um, I I wondered if it's possible. As I was reading through it, it seemed as though there was an assumption that the beyond the the obvious benefits of housing and parking and and all of those. Um, that there was an assumption that the financial benefit to the city was going to be based on only a purchase price for the property, which we apparently have valued at $7.6 million at this point. I wondered if we should consider not only looking at it from the asset perspective but also from the revenue perspective. Um, you know, perhaps we could we could establish a baseline sort of case analysis that says, okay, if there's no public private partnership, if this simply if this land simply was sold to private developers, what kind of an income stream of property tax revenues would that create for the city? and and then to give us some point of comparison as these RFPs come in from various developers that we can accom you know account for parking revenues, property tax revenues minus any subsidies that that we can not only look at what's happening to city assets but also what's happening to city cash flow. Is that

too complex? No, I think I I'll jump in on this one if I may and Rob correct me if if you think I'm wrong, but uh where it talks and I'm on page um page one of the RFP document and it talks about that 7.6 6 million investment you referenced and it says compensation and or public benefit. And so we are and of course we will vet how they present the information but public benefit could be those things that you mentioned for instance

as well as possibly if we decided to uh have a long-term lease for the land versus an outright sale. Yes. You know in in evaluating various scenarios. I think I'd like to see both sides of that asset and revenue uh taken into consideration. So, I don't know if that affects the RFP or if that is something that happens once once the proposals have been received and we're analyzing them.

Well, we could ask for a fiscal impact um which would simply be, you know, obviously the if there's any revenue coming in, uh which there may or may not be uh plus taxes, you know, there will be there will be taxes, of course. Um, and that those are the only two that I can think of, but we could ask for something like that. I like that.

Well, Jackie, I don't disagree with that at all. I would I was curious about that versus, you know, somebody putting their proposal and doing their their circus uh math of we're going to twist it this way and do it this way versus having the city do it after the proposal's come in and know, but them knowing because we've had this discussion that that's where it's going to land. I agree with the philosophy on it. They just maybe trust our numbers and and maybe the answer is yes. And you know, we we incorporate it within the RFP and then we turn Heidi loose and and ask her to um verify and compare and contrast. Yes. And certainly some of that calculation could only be done once we know what they've proposed, right? In terms of taxes and so forth.

Exactly. But and I also do think that the issue of having a baseline case of what happened if that land was simply developed by private developers, you know, what would that look like for the city and then we can see what the increments are in both asset value and cash flow. That definitely would be part of the conversation as a whole picture. I agree. Yeah. Great. Thank you,

Heather. I had the same uh thought, but I I was hoping that the city would do three different calculations while the RFP is out. One would be um single site public benefit, you know, basically this private part private uh public thing that we're working with. Um h how would it work with a for sale? How would it work if uh we had the long-term ground lease? Mhm.

Um and uh how would it work if if we had individual parcels for sale at market rate and um and what I'm really looking for is to to compare these scenarios so we understand the financial and the civic tradeoffs. But I think this could be going on while the RFP is out there. Yeah. Yeah. Um I I also have a question about the electrification section of this. Did I read this correctly that TLC that the developer must use TCLP exclusively? Yes.

But what about does what about um you know their own solar you know that they're putting on uh their own batteries. You know we're kind of we're asking for affordable housing but we're kind of taking away affordability if we're not allowing them to do some things on their own. Well, that's where the uh expanding our bench with some talent that can help us think through these things creatively because and I say this respectfully, we don't have that on our team. Uh and that's now we need we need that assistance from others. And so that kind of analysis and those types of creative thinking. We're going to need some thought partners on that and we're going to, you know, expect that uh those that are submitting a proposal that they're utilizing some really good thought partners. If if you're utilizing solar, you're not purchasing that. You are generating your own.

Well, but that all depends on the generation, how the generation is being measured by TCLP because like ultimately most things end up on the grid still. It's just how much are you pulling and what that rate looks like. So my eight previous years, but if anybody from TCLP wants to talk about anything that might be going on right now to that end of like we have experts that we'll work with to get that maximized, but um having a project that's completely off-rid, maybe somebody has that and I'd love to see it, but it's it's pretty rare for major developments in north in the north. I can I can say um as a TCLP board member um we just approved a parking

what's the word I'm looking for? Overhang uh in front of the TCLP building. Um kind of a parking shelter. Um the amount of power that it's going to generate is uh is an a decent amount of power, but it's enough to charge a car uh and not enough to necessarily say run um the heat pumps for all of the units. Um, and TCLP has a program uh for to allow uh solar generation. They hook it up to the grid and there's certain switches um that happen. Um, I do support having this as uh a fully electrified uh building. TCLP has a goal of uh renewable energy electrification by 2040 for the city. Um, and we should be supporting that uh as our part of the city. Um, we also have some of the lowest electricity rates in the entire state.

Uh, you know, like literally half what they are in Charlavoy, um, just up the road from us. Uh, and so, you know, this is it's it's good. It's it's better even from an affordability standpoint. Maybe not for the developer upfront, but if they continue owning the property, it's less expensive for them to have heat pumps from a maintenance perspective, and it's significantly less expensive for the tenants in the attainable housing units. um to because that it's one system, right? And they're not subject to multiple fluctuations in pricing. Jackie, you had your hand up.

I was just headed in the same direction, Lance. uh not only recognizing the the benefit of our low electrical rates, but wondering if Light and Power would like to be an official partner in evaluating these RFPs and looking at how they might direct some of their community support efforts toward supporting this sort of public private partnership perhaps with um startup costs, perhaps with the you know funding of equipment costs. Um, I I know that they they are um community-minded and that they direct funding and to to those kinds of efforts. They do have funds in place. Yeah.

So, to be sure that we're we're leveraging and that they're aware and and that we welcome their participation. Yes. And I I'd love it if you could make a note, Rob, to uh add Leighton Power to the presubmitt team. Uh, and I know we can talk with Colin and the folks at Leighton Power about that. And additionally, there's the section on um available incentives that's in the RFP pages five and six. We could add um light and power to that list of environmental incentives and be specific about like their EOB program and and some of the other programs that they have out of the box. And then some partnership with Light and Power, Colin, Brandy, I think would be extremely helpful.

Mitch and then Jackie, I put a couple of hands up.

This is great. Yeah. As I've said before, I think that housing is um an important priority, but I do question its inclusion in this box on these parcels. I see uh parking as a deck and with integrated others things as something that will facilitate more housing in the general area and throughout whole community. But specifically, I am curious. We have the city-owned parcels. We have the RFP process. Is the scope large enough that we can uh look at uh options that a developer might bring to the table that are outside of that? say if they are willing to uh build over the alley for the third and fourth floors or um work out a deal with the I don't know if current address but the stone path building on the corner um to say hey uh we're going to give you x number of parking spaces so um to use some of that uh lot area

yeah none of none of nothing in here prevents either one of those uh scenario. So, yeah, that those would all be available options for sure. Great. Thank you.

I was wondering if we have an option to um push a little further on uh commercial building design guidelines for this development. Um, the last time I was involved in a conversation in that specific block of of u streets downtown, um, there were some surprising to me uh elements about our current design guidelines in the in the downtown core. And I wondered if we even have the option to include in the RFP um uh either either a very clear statement of our expectations on how the current design guidelines are implemented or whether we want to consider as a as a commission advancing those a little further. Um, one of the the options that I thought of was actually related to something like a heat pump. You know, do we want heat pump mechanicals um exposed and facing State Street and Pine Street on the exterior of of the buildings? Um, you know, what what design guidelines do we want for the parking structure component? Um, so I is this the right time to be deliberating on that?

Oops.

Well, what comes to mind are the existing um I believe they're called special standards. There are there are some design guidelines in the zoning ordinance for commercial districts which are admittedly, you know, they're uh it's one pager. It's a one page design guidance. So those so that's that's a control. There of course are um you know and I'm going off memory here but there are controls on where utilities are located. You know certainly utilities have to be in the alley that sort of thing. Um and then in this process we've added in a a public meeting where um you know public's invited in, stakeholders are invited in to um I mean we've kind of framed it that way. We've asked the the proposers to kind of expand on it and tell us what they're going to do, but the idea there was to present some drawings um and maybe get feedback on things like design. So, that's kind of what we thought uh as a as an efficient way to add in a public um engagement piece to this project.

Lauren, were you about to say something, too? Yeah, there's fundamentally there's nothing that would prevent the city commission from requiring some type of design element. Um I don't know whether you would want to um incorporate that into the ordinances or you could incorporate it as an element in the RFP. Eventually this will be either a purchase agreement or a development agreement or something like that. So it could be um incorporated into that as a contractual ter term at that time. Um and so uh there's It just depends on how you'd like to do it. If you'd like to put it in the RFP or in the um the rubric that says something about the aesthetics will be a consideration. It just depends on how um detailed you would want to be going into the RFP. Does that help?

It does. And and I actually appreciate the idea of including uh design aesthetics and and fit with the surrounding buildings um as part of the rubric scoring. Uh, I don't know if that has support from anyone else, but Laura.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I actually called Lauren this afternoon with the question about design principles and whether or not we could incorporate that into the rubric. So, thank you for bringing that up and I certainly would support um that being incorporated into the rubric and having some weight on it because I think it's important um from the the public's perspective. Also, in addition to public engagement, it gives us it it's a signal to the developer that that's an an important value of the city commission. Um, so when it's time for the rubric, I had some other things, but before we get there, um, I did have a comment about just some little things that the RFP right now reads more like a purchase, like it's it's all about purchase and all about sale. And we did have a an extended conversation at our last um meeting about the possibility of a long-term lease. And even the title on the the pretty cover page says to purchase and develop land in the west end of Traverse City, Michigan's downtown. I I think it should just be to develop. Um because we did look at those other, you know, long-term lease, 50-year lease, trying to acknowledge the um implicit investment that the city has made into these properties. I think that's important. And also on page six, um it's pretty explicit that it's a purchase. And again, I I think we were looking for RFPs either direction, long-term lease or purchase, and trying to weigh those out once we receive the responses. So, I'd like to see those changes incorporated.

I I see a lot of head of nodding. I just want for the staff and everybody to recognize is that I I think that's what we had discussed previously. We're all in agreement on that. Correct. Yes. So, purchase or lease if we can have that the document amended to reflect that please. Yep. Perfect. And then and then on the rubric. Well, are we to the rubric yet? Are we on the rubric? Where do you want to be on this? I just want to echo uh Can I echo please real quick? I just was going to echo your and Jackie sentiment towards the design. Yeah.

Part being in the rubric. Um I completely agree. Um I do agree. It should fit uh the character of our our beautiful downtown. And just to really before since we're going to move on to the rubric part um Jackie you had said to be the design to be um you didn't say compliant but you know in in the in the vein of everything else around it in that corner. So just reflecting that I think design can be very um subjective sometimes but we're saying look there's some buildings around here we want it to look like this side of town. We don't want it to be I went to school at MSU the hamster wheel that gets built out of nowhere and it doesn't match anything. So, just however that reflected in your wording uh for the RFP of that's what we're kind of looking for. Um, you know, I don't think we're kind trying to get into a book that has three different types of sighting or something that you'd pick from, but just that's a good guide, I would think, to the buildings that are surrounding it and giving some inspiration and idea. Is that consensus or

I think it's a value statement that that's in that the the architectural piece is important to the commission. Right. And I I just want to clarify though because if I'm sitting there not at home and thinking about doing an RFP, I want to know what that means. And I think that was a good example given. I think you'll find some language within our our current commercial design guidelines, but um you know how they're implemented and knowing that they're going to be evaluated against those standards may be the way to go. Yep. That's great. Thank you for that clarification. And then I'm going to let Laura finish and then I saw Heather's hand. So

are we on to the rubric? Before we go to the rubric, I would like to I and I think Commissioner Shaw has something, but Rob, I just want you to know I'm going to put you on the spot and ask you to summarize what you've heard in terms of changes you're going to make to the RFP document. Uh before we get to the rubric, I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page. There's another change.

I have a couple of things to say. Okay. Maybe first. Um first of all that on page one um you talk when you talk about the housing um it's very specific that you're saying that it's for downtown service workers. You repeat it a couple of times. Uh it is not just I mean that's not what I anticipated. This is for the whole city anybody. I mean, we people work at Mson or people who work at our schools and it and this is really more about uh increasing our year-round residential population downtown to integrate it better into the city to and to create a more uh stable and resilient community. You know, if we have a more people living downtown, we have better business in the wintertime. But it's it's also about that strategic pillar,

right? it wanted our downtown to be more integrated as a neighborhood. So, I I really appreciate that you get rid of the um you cross it out on page one and then there's another one on page two, downtown service workers, a little bit derogatory as well. Um, also, uh, let's see. Uh, at the bottom of page one, you talk about it says community profile. Traverse City has grown into a sought-after community for visitors, retirees, young families. We don't need visitors in there. That we're talking about the people who live here

for the housing. Yes. But like for the parking component and and a commercial component, this is a community profile. I don't know. Okay. Well, I won't fight about that. Don't completely disagree. Don't completely disagree. Okay. Um page two, I only have a couple more. Page two, it says uh at the top there, Sleeping Bear Dunes, and you are talking about the nice things we have here like strong healthcare, expanded commercial flights, better connectivity. I'm like, what does that mean? So, I I think that you could highlight that we have um outdoor recreational systems

with, you know, amazing connectivity because otherwise I don't know what that means. Um again, another the downtown service workers. I would like that to come out. Um and one more there's a typo. If you're going to capitalize state, you got to capitalize it everywhere. If you're going to capitalize city, you got to capitalize it everywhere. it it's in that second um paragraph at the top of the page there. And one more thing, um several you you've got one grocery store down here, one small grocery store within walking distance on page three.

You got Burrets, you got Froggerelli, you got the Cheese Lady. How could you say several grocery food stores? makes it seem a little less, you know, dinky. And that's all I've got there. Those are the ch the wording changes I'd like to see to to that end. And just if we can incorporate in some way because I appreciate the thought where that's going. The bay line runs by this as well, which does connect to Meer free and for another option that's a more affordable. So maybe we're integrating there like with the connectivity of the recreation trails and public transportation. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Go ahead, Jackie.

Um, this is a question about timing. Um, I don't know if it's possible to put some any kind of a um worstcase occupancy date. Is there is is there a point in the future where if we haven't gotten this thing done,

we need to cut the cord? Um it at this point it feels to me quite open-ended other other than the date for response to the RFP and um is there any way that we can signal our expectations that time is of the essence that that we don't want to see this property in process for an unlimited amount of time? Um what is there anything we can do about that? Well, we would ask them to provide a schedule. Um, we don't really talk about that in the rubric in the kind of in the grading, but we could um we could include that.

See, even if I I would ask if that's even okay as part of the narrative of like what we expect to have reported because a lot of these projects, if they're going to be affordable, are going to go out for MISTA funding and things like that. and that could move it on, but I also get we don't want to be sitting here seven years from now still talking about what we're going to put there. So, kind of however that might be best described as we're looking for people who are actively ready to go. We understand that there's funding mechanisms, etc., but showing some haste and that this project might get yanked if there's not haste. Communicating urgency. Go ahead.

Uh I mean, we can also put that in the contract when it comes down to it. um we've done that in other instances. I don't want to reference LA O because it wasn't super successful that way, but um it there could also be mechanisms to extend it. I would just caution like the mayor was saying to make sure that it's realistic um with all of those other elements that are probably going to come into a project like this so that there's a balance between them coming back and asking for um extension after extension and then having an open-ended timeline that you know is just open-ended. So they know that might be part of the contract ultimately then. Yeah,

there was a there was a time component to that eagle funding when we originally talked about this. That was one of the issues that made this need to happen fast if we were going to pursue this. When is that eagle money no longer available? It expires. Yeah. August. Yeah. Part of this. So the proposed timeline with potential July 6th or 9th, what was 6th commission? July 6th commission meeting. That's when we should make a decision on this if we're going to go forward with it or not and select an RFP.

Well, true. So, and also there have been ongoing discussions with Eagle um about that funding. I'm not um I don't know exactly where those have landed, but uh that has included the Brownfield Authority and other partners. So, um I would say we would have to with that timing, we would want to check with Eagle as well if there's any ability to um make that more flexible or um to extend the if there's a if there is a development on the horizon. I think that's part of the goal of what Eagle wants to see. And so if there is one, there may be um the ability to have that conversation with Eagle. Okay.

But but just to clarify because we are talking about appealing to people who want to bid on this project that right now it expires though, right, before anything would be awarded. We will try but that's not a guarantee that that million dollars is going to be sitting there. Go ahead, Heather. Um I'm trying to remember because I'm on the brownfield. It seems to me that they've already maybe Harry knows more about that. This is all it's moved. They've picked it up and they've moved it out into the county somewhere and to bring it back again.

I'll just speak Harry Brook with the DD. I'll just speak to the Eagle grant. The Eagle grant is eligible until August. We've had several conversations to Lauren's point with Eagle Round Redevelopment Authority about the potential extension of that grant or if it's not ready, close out the grant and reapply. Um, a lot of the other uh work that's been done on that site has been done through other brownfield redevelopment funds, not necessarily an eagle grant. Okay. I think the brownfield fund has been moved and it's sitting there waiting to be used. That's good. So, it's still there

and it it is included in the RFP under the list of proposed incentives. It it is. But I think it's important for us to say though that this is always clock and as long as that's clear. Yeah. Which I believe it is once burned twice shy of hearing all these things that were going to be available for a project and six years later it hasn't broken ground. So are we to the rubric yet? I I think first if if Rob if you can summarize while it's fresh in everyone's minds. I want to ensure alignment here. Okay.

All right. So um starting on the cover page uh we will remove the word purchase um in the somewhere probably on page one perhaps in the executive summary make a comment about timeliness and you know that there's a there's an a desire to move quickly on the city's part. Uh, let's see. And then still on page one under workforce housing, we will get rid of the word downtown. I was thinking of just replacing that with city workers. Um or just residents. Yeah. Or workforce. Yeah. Because we're talking Yeah.

It could be workers. Yeah. Exactly. Members of the workforce have disability. Yeah. It could just be workforce housing across range of price points. You just cut that whole thing. That's why we're clarifying. This is why we're clarifying. Okay, great. Uh, let's see. I think we're keeping the visitors so on the bottom of the page there. Um, unless we don't want to. We're keeping it. Okay, that was the consensus. You weren't gonna fight,

right? Didn't want to die on that hill. Okay. And then page two, um, referencing I think what I heard is, um, referencing beta, maybe clarifying the connectivity part, but also mentioning outdoor recreation, trail systems. All right. And then again on page two down towards the bottom in that last paragraph, um, removing downtown, the word downtown as service, just saying for workers.

The only thing I would say that because you mentioned it on page one, but then you've referenced the change twice, is throughout, not saying purchase, but saying purchase or lease or something to that effect. Making sure that's clear throughout. Okay. assuming a purchase. Go ahead, Jackie. Um, talking about range of price points, is there an appropriate place to communicate that in in the traditional percentages of area median income, you know, 80 to 120%, or is there somewhere that we can say um, no million-doll condos on the top floor? It's in the rubric. Great.

Okay. So under property details on page three um we will point out that there is more than just one small grocery store. There are actually a few of them nearby markets right

food market. All right, let's see. On page five under development process, we do mention the building electrification policy. We have a link in there. Uh I think you were asking about that. It does say specifically C section 2.6. I forgot about that when we were talking about this. So Laura, do you think we really need to quote that because it's saying see section 2.6 what section

within the building electrification policy that section 2.6 are the two sentences that deal with um the policy section is I view the electricity and internet reference as very different than a city policy on building electrification. I I would rather see the building electrification spelled out more clearly as a as a policy, not just as a reference to a utility. Okay. So, uh I think then what we'll do is even if it was just a even if it was just a break there with a new header that's, you know, city electrification policy, it's it's buried in there. I had to look in order to find it.

Yep. Or just call out 2.6 six and write it as it's written in the policy. We can do that and we'll also make it sort of under its own heading so it's more pronounced. Thank you. But all right, we'll do that. Um you're also adding reference to the um section 28 of the city charter. The height um that is in for the zoning. Oh, did that in another spot. I thought that's the next one. Zoning.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's on page five. It is. Uh, yeah. Um, okay. Under zoning. Can I um jump in really quick? I'm was testing my memory really quick with Benjamin. Um, the whole policy is only a couple of sentences for the electrification policy. There is an addendum at the end that the city commission can wave this policy if it's determined to be in the public good, which was part of why we wanted to see A versus B. I think we all want electrification, but you know, we have to see where numbers wear out. So, can we just link to the policy and not specifically 2.6?

It's not a it's I remember passing it. It's six sentences or so, maybe 10. So, it's not a complicated document we're asking people to wait through to understand. I think highlighting that it exists and being explicit about that with a link is is very appropriate and it addresses my concern. Great.

All right. Yes. So, we do we do have the reference to section 28 um kind of mentioned the charter provision but also the policy which tells you how that is applied. Okay. Page six. Uh let's see. Under obviously purchase price, we'll change that to say um uh purchase price or lease or something like that.

And then I'll have to change that language as well. Provide a purchase price or lease terms or something like that. Okay. And then we get to the design guidelines. I'm a little unclear on that. Um, so you know that could be done during it could be in the rubric which means the design team is going to review it. So, um, they would review it using their kind of impressions of of design and then it would go to city commission and then you would have a shot at it. Um, is that kind of the intention?

Jackie, you would reference I'm sorry. And I think that um perhaps clarifying that we're we're talking about um elements of design including material choice and ornament and um you know elements of design to make it compatible with the surrounding architecture. Um yeah and the surrounding architecture um would be Midtown. Um,

we could we could use the written design guidelines that are already uh applicable for downtown. Um, but we could also at our discretion um ask for specifics um and and the one that I used had to do with HVAC hardware and whether whether it can and should be um visible from as part of the streetscape. So, uh, I don't know. I could use some some input here.

Well, just to refresh folks memory, what had been discussed a bit ago was uh that there would be this public engagement session where folks could have um some input and uh ultimate I mean I I thought that that's where the commission landed, but maybe I'm wrong. I thought it was also going to be integrated into the rubric itself. Yes. Yes. Yes. Y

because the the way that it's written now that public meeting would be after they're chosen. So, you know, they're um you go the proposals are submitted, the design team uses the rubric to review them, then it goes to city commission. City approves a party and then um I assume at after that point uh there would be an agreement. So there'd be some period of time where the agreement is written and then um the developer would be kind of off and running and then they would have a public meeting where they would um would kind of present that. So may maybe that's not the right spot for it. Um I don't know. Well, I think what I'm hearing you say is um by including it in some element of design aesthetics in the selection rubric, we get a first pass at it

and then we get a second pass at it through the public input process. Is that what I hear? Which I think is sufficient. Yther, go ahead and then I think we're we're asking with this RFP RFP for a to solve a boatload of problems. You know, public parking, workforce housing,

design control, electrification, public restrooms, possibly a police substation. And all of this plus compensation for, you know, possible compensation for uh the 7.6 six millions that's invested and also while getting market rate compensation and also while imposing requirements that uh lower the land value. I mean that's a pretty heavy heavy lift. So, I'm really more uh with what Laura is saying that by incorporating design elements into the rubric, we are um we're showing that we we believe that that's a value and and we're showing it not only to the developers, but also to the public.

And I think that's all we need. Yeah. And adding specific controls at this point. I I just I can't Mitch, go ahead.

Yeah. to that point. Most of downtown does fall into one of the three historic districts in Traverse City governed by the Historic Districts Commission, but that does not cover west of Front Street, I mean west of Union Street, which we are. And yes, you can say you want it to match the surrounding architecture, but what is the surrounding? Do you want to match the uh post office building? Do you want to match the um uptown condos? do you want to match um the 10story uh brick apartment building that is uh 150 pine? Uh you've got new buildings going in right across the alley that are a lot more modern. So, you can say you don't want the hamster cage in East Lancing as uh I would say a much uh derided um aesthetic building, but it's grown on me in my times there. uh but I don't see just within practical design considerations uh something that is going to be so out of left field that it can't uh fit into the broader and increasingly eclectic architectural landscape that we have in this town. I I think you're making a good point which also though supports my hamster cage that that would probably not score as high on the rubric if you threw out the the multicolored

tubes as part of your proposal. So I I appreciate what you say, Mitch, and I think that's kind of where we're going with that. So yeah, Ken, go ahead.

Um there are two specific spots in this um page one under project goals, it talks about compensation andor public benefit. And then on page six for purchase price, it and it mentions offers below appraisal value may be entertained based upon alternative or additional considerable consideration offers. But we don't talk about that anywhere in the in the matrix as far as how we're going to evaluate what type of incentivization they want to to throw out there. Like that.

Does that make sense? We we mention it twice in this document as things that are important to us because we will consider them in lie of the full purchase price but we don't value it with any scoring in the in the matrix. So with that Ken has now moved us into the met the I was just going to say and to your point no I mean that for real like you've we've all summarized where we're at now. I think I'm hearing that this is being heard and that our notes are being taken. We're kind of I don't know what the hand lancing is. So I'm like we're segueing to the matrix.

Yes. Well, it's it's turquoise and pink and and yellow. Um and so that but yes, so let's move into the the rubric now. And to your point, Ken, let's um I think Laura was paused for it. So you can start with your questions on that if you wanted. And then Ken kind of has your point to make sure of how we can benefit that and everybody else can start chiming in what we think might be missing or else. Well, I I think Ken raised a valuable point, so why don't we just let him um continue with that? And I'm hearing a suggestion to potentially add to the waiting the uh financial or other public benefit to the city. And I I do agree in terms of the that's the that's probably one of the most important issues. Um so how do we not weight that in the rubrics in the end? Um, so whether it's long-term lease, whether it's purchase price, whether it's explicit public benefit that is spelled out by the applicant, I think it's important to put a weight on that.

Thank you for so eloquently saying what I said. Yes, but I I've been waiting all night, Ken. You were waiting to say it, too.

I I would question and I I totally agree. I would question and put it back though of is it a separate um new point under the rubric or is that really when we're talking about the public good and we're talking about all these things we're talking about housing and is that then where it's weighted 20 right now would we like to see that um shifted more and have a higher weight or shift you know where what are we how are we defining some of this of the the cost because that to me with that being such a high measure there we're automatically giving weight to projects that are going to come with that affordable housing aspect or the workforce housing aspect and that's measuring our value as we talked about. So is that we want that weighted more then or is that there's another element that we think is missing on the rubric to better express that in a different way. So that's where I'm just curious for everybody's at. And Heather, you put your hand up. Go ahead.

Yeah, I think you've got a good point. I think that if if uh the developer wants to wax eloquently about public benefit, they can probably do that in their cover letters, which there it is required they submit some kind of written statement, right? And I do agree with uh Amy that it's I I believe it's the housing that's the the public good here. Um, I do I think you could pull seven points off public restrooms

because we have public restrooms right down here on Park Street and they don't open. I don't think those public restrooms open. They're mostly closed because they can't be uh taken care of and they've vandalized. So, you know, so the public restrooms in the um Oldtown parking deck, those are okay because they're impossible to find. So, I don't know. You know, public restrooms, that's great, but pull pull some points off there and they have to add that to housing.

I would agree with that, too. And I would say though, just to offer the counterpoint of how public restrooms can work, too, though, is sometimes it's a business like Horizon Books for years has allowed people to come in and use their public restroom and there is some lack on the west side of town. So, I don't want us to completely write it off, but I agree. We could definitely pull points from that and put it towards the housing, but to add that element. And Lance had his hand up. Then, Jack, real quick on the public restroom piece. Uh, we do have the public restrooms at Hardy open in the summertime from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. I was told. Uh, otherwise they are not open because of vandalism issues and folks staying in there, frankly.

Yeah, I was just going to concur with uh Commissioner Shaw on public restrooms. I would, you know, to me uh most of the public benefit here uh is our uh housing. Uh, and I would challenge us calling this uh workforce housing and and call it more attainable housing um in that in that wording there in number two. And then I would be uh supportive of moving, you know, 17 to 20 17 points for public restrooms is waiting that pretty darn close to attainable housing. And I agree with that. That's a little uh too much. So, you know,

public restrooms are a good 10. Yeah, I agree with and then Jackie and then Laura. I I was struck by the the current waitings in the rubric that we had public parking, affordable housing, and compliance alignment with the strategic plan, OKRs, all at 20%. And um I I I wanted us to be sure to have the conversation here about um the tradeoffs between public parking and affordable housing. And it sounds to me is though what I'm hearing here is that we're we're raising the relative importance of affordable housing. Yes.

Do we do we want to reduce to some extent the the importance relative importance of public parking? I don't I don't think so. I think public parking is a public benefit and it's definitely a need downtown and it's serving although a different component of our strategic plan that is important. So I I look at public parking and I like Lance's suggestion to change workforce housing to attainable housing having higher weights certainly than public restrooms and certainly higher than the the police substation as it is now. Um, so I that would be my response to that. Um, I really quick I agree with um that but I think before we go using putting attainable housing instead attainable has a definition in a lot of areas of a strict percentage. We're keeping this really open. So maybe we would say subsidized housing or what we don't see say see say that phrase anymore but something that indicates um housing that would be low below market rate um or below the average AMI of the city something along those lines to make it clear because we're saying in here we were 80 to 120 but we could go lower if they want if people wanted to attainable is much lower than 80%.

I'm I'm comfortable with with that. I mean, we have it spelled out in the rubric the specific EMI criteria. So, that seems reasonable, but we just change it to targeted housing. Yeah, targeted housing. But if you change it there, don't you have to go back and change it all through the whole probably. Yeah. Yeah. Control F. But you are you are wishing to keep it at 80 to 120% though, right? Okay. 75 at least 75%. At 80 to 120%. Yep. And then Heather had her hand up. Go ahead. And then Jackie can see yours. I think that public parking is also a public benefit and I don't think there's any problem with the developer ignoring public parking because

hopefully they're going to manage it and make some money off of it. Um but I I would um you know if we take the public restroom if we take what 10 points off public restrooms add it to workforce housing now we're at 30 right parking 20 housing 30. I would also um ask you to consider taking 10 points off adherence to the strategic plan objectives because you can take those objectives and you can make them fit any old way that you want. That's a good point. So I would take 10 points off that and also add that to workforce housing. Can and you don't have to make this equal 100, right? It's truly however you want to

prioritize. Oh, that that helps so much. Um Jackie and then Ken I saw your hand. Oh, but go ahead. Did you have a question, Rob? No, no, no. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Actually, I I want to reinforce what you just said and um and maybe clarify for all of us that when when we're talking about strategic plan and OKR alignment, what we're really talking about is that idea of downtown as another neighborhood of the city, making making it function of our city and like another of our neighborhoods.

Well, there's other aspects though. I I would look at it also. So you have the environmental stewardship piece through the electrification policy. Yes. Um so I I think that there's a couple of areas, but I agree with Heather that any anybody responding this could creatively craft ways to show that I would request could this is nitpicky but can we change adherence to alignment alignment with the strategic plan? I didn't love adherence. And then um the developer capacity number hold on just a second. We kind of had his hand before you.

We we took a lot of the bathrooms took a pretty big beating here. And I just want to focus on the point that like doing this development without at least one or two public restrooms, men, women, unisex, whatever it may be. They're like this has to be a component. We can't do this project without some sort of public restroom. Right. It's just we're not we're just not going to weight it as high. Right. Right. So, make sure we emphasize that it because it it lost a lot of importance really quick. And I'm

Yeah. And again stressing to your point, Ken, it it should be available. It can be available as look, it's a one of your tenants or whatever is agreeing to have their breast room public facing. They're going to take care of the maintenance and toilet paper and we're going to give them extra money for it as the pro that's part of the programs right now. They're not all just built into parking decks and things like that. When you walk downtown, there's signs that identify it. So, that can be part of that. When you say tenants, public facing, I do remember this the f the first floor of this is going to be potential retail. you're we're indicating that one of those retail facilities is going to be provided to the community or there is

it it could be it could be a a retail establishment says we're going to have a like like Horizon books we're going to allow use our restrooms there's a there's an assistance to that from us or it could be it gets built and there's a hallway and maybe they do have a bathroom you know a couple unisex bathrooms or something in there to help out but it doesn't just have to be like our city ones that attached to a parking deck or something and as Heather pointed out are closed in the winter because it's too cold and we have to kind of watch out for them to be vandalized. It's something with an eyes on the streets. Fabulous. I think I think we we made that we clarified that because my whole idea of public provided restrooms are similar to what's on Park Street and that is a problem that they're not attended and they're not always available. So retail focused. Perfect. Great.

Well done. Thank you for that clarification, Ken. And Laura, you have your hand up.

Okay. It's my my last point. Um item number six, developer experience and financial capacity. Um I would argue that this is the most important weight um because if the developer doesn't have the expertise and the financial capacity to deliver, getting to Jackie's points earlier on um completion date, it's all for not. And so I would like to see a higher weight assigned to number six. Um recognizing that that may reduce weights of some of the other items we've all talked to, but it's relative and it doesn't have to add up to 100. Um so my opinion is that that does need to be weighted higher than these other categories because without it you don't higher than housing because without it we don't get housing. I have a I have another question just on the language that I'm strong evidence outstanding financial capacity. They kind of sound I don't know what those mean. It kind of sounds like um I'm going to get healthier this year um without putting a metric on it. Um so maybe it's just my my thought. Um but I I would I would concur that you know if

a developer look it just happened to us, right? We had a we had a development that couldn't make fi it didn't right they couldn't get the finances uh and so so it's that and so you know we're back at I don't want to be back at that and then have a property halfway under construction or something. Um so I would agree like and and we have other rubrics that we've put in place over the past uh couple months and they were I think at like 120 uh points and so why not mirror that? I would I would agree. Add points to to u put it just above the the targeted housing. Okay. Ken, you had your hand over.

Okay. Where I I thought you Lance, where I thought you were going with that didn't end up being that because my my question is, is there a rubric score that won't be acceptable for staff to be able to present to the city commission? Oh, also a good question. That that's kind of we might only have one developer submit for this. What is a score that is unacceptable that won't be brought to us for consideration? Like how

I think with an item of this magnitude, there is no such minimum score. I think that if there's a development that's proposed, let's say it's just one, we bring it to you. Um, and then you make that decision. Uh, and we will have the basis. We may say we don't think you should entertain this for these reasons, but ultimately I would anticipate bringing that to the commission. That's not a decision I would make. Okay. It's it's a real life situation we've dealt with. So, I kind of wanted to address that. That's where I thought you were going with that. But the the the funding halfway through the process falls through and everything kind of stops, right? So, yeah, the the financial

developer experience and financial capacity was a great component, but it wasn't the thing that I was thinking of and I wanted to bring that up. I would agree though. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for your clarification, Ben. Heather, go ahead. Um, uh, where does parking management fit into this? Does this go into the rubric? Where would that be part of the proposal? Financial analysis, I would think. Can you say more? Where does park the parking management fit into all of this? Where do we talk about who's managing the parking? I thought we added that to page six. I didn't hear that. We hadn't we yeah we'll ask who's going to manage um you know is it going to be the city is it going to be them um

is that something we have to define right away or can we see what people bring forward summary that you added about parking management I thought in the very beginning of this conversation we had um we talked specifically about the public parking component and who would be responsible for the operations and management of that I think a definition for public parking but my thought was that we were going to leave it open-ended uh as far as management so that you can make that decision. So, it's a piece of their response, not weighted in the rubric. Correct. Right. That's that's what I understood as well. Yeah. So, they might say, "Look, I'm going to hire my own people. I'm going to keep all the revenue and we're going to build the parking deck and that's their choice." Or they might have some other proposals that we would enter under

something we wouldn't even think of. Great. Other points right now? Um and actually Rob, do you have questions for us right now? Yeah. So, there are two new uh rubric items. Um there is the electrification policy and just to um I was thinking that would be a lower one, but um I guess I throw that out to you all. Uh in terms of how to weight that,

I would my two cents based on what I we've been kind of talking about is that we're asking for them to price with and without the electrification policy. So, right, isn't that where we landed? Yeah. And so to me that's weighted a little less because it is the policy if they have a really exceptional thing that doesn't meet the policy but somebody else has I mean the housing and everything else are weighed so heavily in here that that to me seems like it's what what we're hearing is it's something we want us to consider but it's not up there with parking housing uh it would I guess developer experience where do we rate that on restrooms I guess would be my question. Is it like lower or higher than restrooms? I would say it's almost equal.

Okay. I would say it's with public parking. If we don't if we don't give it the weight of public parking at least, we're saying we don't really care. That's right. I agree. I would I mean it the electrification policy already says we can fiddle with it, right? So, we don't need to I I don't think we need to fiddle with it more in this group. Okay. Uh we'll go ahead, Lance, really quick. I was going to say and I agree uh if we're committed to electrification by 2040 you know it is important we've already made this commitment we need to hold to the commitment I so I would I would put it uh in line with parking and we can add keep adding points right we don't have to be 100

um well my question though to clarify and and maybe I'm getting this wrong but is we're asking them to give us electrified and not electrified no matter what for the proposal so we that is part of what we can say is look, we like this proposal and we know with electrification it's going to cost this and its weight is this. So that's where I'm saying like everybody's supposed to bring us an electrified project. So that's where I'm questioning the weight because if we're saying great let's give a ton of points because everybody's electrified and we're asking everybody to bring an electrified proposal then you know how does that weigh out? Sorry go ahead Heather and then go Lance.

Well does it have do they have to present both of those? Why wouldn't they just present one? I think I think this also pertains to the uh the additional foundation to support two more floors. Why do we have to why would we require that? If they want to put it in their proposal, go ahead. But frankly, it's illegal right now to build that. That's up to the commission. So why wouldn't you say why would you why would we require it? If they want to put it in, go ahead. But don't require it. I would think that the default should be that they comply with the electrification policy, right? Yeah, absolutely. But that if they want to provide an alternative, if they want to,

they can for your consideration. They're not required to, right? I think that would otherwise signal that we're not that interested. So then I would go back to the weighing of it because I'm fine with that too. But we were, you know, we wanted to give what what had been kind of originally presented was we want to give people the option of like, look, we could do 10 more units if it's not electrified by cost and we at least would know that going into the decision. And I was going to say they can put that in. So, but we're requiring electrification out from the set. So now again, it's a requirement

that everybody should have in their their proposal then. So it's almost like giving everybody like a 100 points or 10 points on your quiz just for showing up because that's what they're supposed to put in there. So, that's where I'm getting to the waiting of it as far as weighing as high as housing and as far as as as far as public parking, housing, and the developer experience. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on the rubric, but where how do we want to weigh that benefit? If you don't weigh it, uh then they're just going to come back and say, "Well, we're going to electrify this little bit, but we really want actually not electrify."

I I'm confused. I I would I would put in the language of the uh the scale uh that the that the developer matches the policy uh of the city, right? Because there's only one line in the city policy that's 2.6 all city-owned property sold be deed restrict until 2040 to fully electrification and obtaining 100% clean renewable energy. However, there is one, two, three, four, five, uh, seven, six other um parts to that policy that um are not mandated for city sold properties, but if a developer can match to those, they support our goals of electrification. So, that's how I would at least do the scoring for it, right? Because everybody's going to everybody's got at least getting hopefully one point, right? uh and if they brought something to us but then it's the weight is like how did they match the whole policy

right okay like that is there an option to just fold the expectation of electrification into the housing category in the in the rubric and bump the points I they seem to me to be very different categories it seems like electrification fits more with like alignment with the strategic plan and other city policies. If you wanted to group something together, I would say it would fit there. Um, and and I agree with Lance's comments about the there is a a degree of complying with the policy

in terms of the number of sections and we have that that odd little waiver clause that basically says on a case-byase basis we can wave it. And so I think because that's in there, you would get less points if you said, "Well, we'd just like to wave it." Um, right. And so, yeah, that's fine. I So, I I agree we should include it in the rubric, whether it's grouped in with alignment with strategic plan or whether I think it should be on its own. If we want to look at each point, like Lance point out, which I think is a good idea. I think that warrants it being on its own because otherwise we can kind of get into the weeds too much of them saying, "Well, they didn't get the full amount of points even though they had,

you know, everything else on our OKRs. They were lower on this." I agree. So, um, so the And so you guys want it weighed at the I forget what number we're at right now. 30 40% for the or 30 40 for the housing. No, same as parking. Same as public parking. Okay, that's where we want it. Great. Electrification is same as public parking. Correct. Okay. All right. Great. And then the last one is uh design is um design consideration. So is that going to be low, medium or high, I guess would be the question. Mitch, I was saying five for low. Oh, five. Okay. Not raising his hand. He's saying five. I would have lobbied for 15.

That's not too hard. I would say whatever the strategic plan objectives is. I Are we Well, and I don't know where if we're only at 10%. I say I'd cut it in the middle and go 10 then. Strategic plan objectives. It's 10 anyway. Yep. Okay. So, we're hearing consensus on 10. Yep. Okay. Perfect. When we add all those up, what do we get to? Who knows? I'm just curious. Can we divide it? It's far too late in the day for me to have been following the math. Um Rob, other questions for us right now while we're kind of wrapping ourselves.

No, I guess just to um wrap up real quick is um the design team again will be using the rubric to review um we did have a meeting last week and um some of the members said, you know, gosh, I don't really know, you know, a lot about this subject or that subject. So, I think what they're going to do is they're going to um grade it collectively as one group as opposed to like each individual grading it. That's good. Um so, we're going to lean on kind of experts in their in their field for each of these categories um at the at the design team level and then present it to city commission. Great.

So, any clarificate other clarification points or anything that the city commission would like from Rob while we got him here? Um, I think we should add these up and see and agree on what we're what the point system is. Parking 20, restroom 7, police 6, strategic 10, electrification 20, design 10. What does that equal? 50, 60, 73. Did you say housing? I said 73. I have not I didn't rate housing or developer. does developer experience and ability to deliver was going to be the highest

the highest one. So we've got we've got 73 points right now. What do we give housing? What do we give developer? I mean are we thinking developer would be I'm just going off of 30 because that somebody said that for housing 27. Well no actually what I was just going to say is do we give developer 35 then because we said we wanted it higher than housing than the housing even give housing 30. Okay great. Somebody's doing math over there. I see them working. It's a very strange number. 138. 138. The magic number 138. Does that mean that um developer experience is the same as housing? Is that No, it's five points. Five points more. So 35 for um developer experience, 30 for housing. Okay. For a total of 138.

For a total of 138 because it's absolutely makes sense. It makes sense by the elements. Let's just it's the collective pieces. We can make make it make sense. So all right. Are we So, we've all done this now. Um, there is a motion in the packet. Oh, and so now, are we feeling confident in what we've hashed out here and and worked on lands? Go ahead. Yeah, I'd like to move that the city commission approves the publication of the request for proposals for the sale and development of city owned land on all the way up to the top. Yeah. You want to go to page two of that whole packet?

Page two of recommendation. Oh, yes. I move that the city commission approves, this is what I was reading. I thought uh that that the city commission approves the publication of the request for proposals for the sale and development for the potential sale and development of city-owned land on the west end of downtown Trevor City as included in the official meeting materials as amended for the city commission's April 6, 2026 regular meeting. I just wanted to be sure because I didn't hear every word. Did you say just sale and development or

I said the potential. Okay, perfect. Great. All right. All right. I'll second that. Thank you. Any further discussion as a whole? Go ahead, Heather. I just want to make sure that we are agreed that it's not required to submit a both an electrification and a nonrification idea and it's not required to submit um plans that would support two more two additional stories. I think if you want to, but you don't have to. Are we all in agreement? Not heads or does anybody object? Okay. agree with that. Okay. So, we've got some consensus on that. I see Rob's listening in attentively to make sure we're right.

There was community concern related to that that if the a developer followed the initial plan that was developed by the DDA, it incorporated the ability of the footing in the structure to have two additional stories built on top of that. If the developer for this RFP built it following that, there could be an assumption that they they would be likely to build a second floor. They would be incurring costs under the assumption that something might potentially happen that was prior to the amendment to the city charter allow forcing the vote on the building over 60 foot tall. But let's clarify that this is we're not requiring it at all. Let's underlining that. If somebody wanted to build it that way,

that's on them. I was just going to say it's on them and any technically any proposal that came in could be over the 60 foot, but they have to go through the whole process. So, they'd be saying we want to bid on it and then we want to go for a vote and we want you to accept that. I think I'm saying that because I think it's incredibly unlikely that that would make the rubric high, but we have we legally cannot say that there's not an opportunity to go higher than 60 ft because the charter does allow for that provided. Yeah. provided. So, public housing might get voter approval. Yep. So, there we go. I agree.

I just I think that what we were trying to myself and Commissioner Shaw were trying to say is that we just to emphasize is that as part of this RFP, we are not requiring that you follow that original plan. You may if you choose to, but it is not our requirement for you. Yep. That did not make the final step. And Mitch, go ahead. But to that point, a stronger foundation, yes, could support additional stories, but it could also just mean a more robust building that is more durable and lasts longer and less affordable. Yep. Yeah, probably less affordable. Very good point, Heather. Any other comments from the commission? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back for a vote. All in favor?

I opposed. And we are going to take if we're going to take a fivem minute break. If you are here to get signatures, I think there's a couple students you can come and get signatures from us right now. Um, and be excused. If not, everybody else, we'll see you in five minutes. It's fine.

All right, everybody. Let's start making our way back. I didn't even remember that. I know. I didn't really either. So, pick up on that.

Yeah. Which is fine. We just need to bear that in mind. This is um their tables. Their chairs are nice, but their table's too high. I don't think you know when you're done. Okay. Now we get to this awful

right here. Um you could raise your All right. We'll call the meeting back to order for those we didn't lose to the basketball game. Yeah, playing for the finals right now. So, we'll now move on to new business. It's okay. Um, so we're moving on to new business, which is our scheduled public hearing for the I'm going to do this wrong tonight at this CD. CDBG.

CDBG. All right. I was there. Um, and just to be clear on this, we'll open it up. We'll allow for comments. We are not taking action. and there's still some plans and such that we'll be going over and that will be separate actions by the commission over time. Um, but we just wanted to this is part of the process. Um, so I just wanted to let people know that. So, and there will be a second public hearing on May 11th. There we go. Thank you. Yes. All right. Do we have we have no present I don't think we have to have a presentation. I think it's really just a matter of opening the public hearing when you're ready, mayor.

So, with that, I will now open the public hearing for this year's funding. Does anybody have any comment at this time? Okay, see going once actually because this is official. Twice. Okay, with that I will close the public hearing and I got the gavl out for that. I actually remembered. All right, so with that now we can move on to our consideration of authorizing the purchase agreement related to the Pierce velocity pumper truck. And I'll let you do that, Benjamin.

Thank And we do have Joel Tio here, our uh fleet manager, as well as our fire chief, Jim Tuller. This would have been on the consent calendar uh other than the fact that it's over a million dollars. And this is a budgeted $1.1 million purchase of a replacement of a 21 well 22 year old piece of apparatus. Uh and our fire department, it's key to us being able to provide the important uh life-saving and property saving work that our fire department does. Uh we do, just so everyone knows, we have our garage fund where um lease payments are made and budgeted by uh the department. So this has been preunded uh through those lease payments since 2004. And I recommend that you approve this uh purchase order.

Do we have any questions or would anybody like to make the motion? Go ahead, Jackie. I I had one question and a and a compliment. I'm was really in awe of your phases and and anticipation of of um you know useful lives of all of the various pieces of equipment. My question is was there a particular like growth factor over a period of a year or five years or a decade that was taken into consideration when you were pulling that plan together?

Yeah. So we the garage fund historically has uh a 5% inflationary rate per year. So we take the original purchase price, divide it out over the anticipated uh service life of the vehicle and then add 5% of the original purchase price per year. And that typically results in uh about what you need to to replace the vehicle. Um we've seen some with like COVID come along and the inflation um supply chain issues associated with that especially affect the fire apparatus industry.

But um we do have a healthy garage fund and we're fortunate enough to get uh the ladder truck grant a couple years ago.

So there is space in the fund for this purchase. And um yeah, to to your point, the six vehicles that are in that um replacement schedule are really ones that are very important within the fleet. So, it's important to continue to fund those now. Um so, in 20 years from now, we we can count on having the funds to replace those. There's other things in the fleet that we, you know, try and get funding for externally, but those are kind of plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Have to have them type of thing. Um, and I I do want to say um regarding the uh electrification or uh EV options with this vehicle, um this will have the 2027 emission system in it. So, we're actually looking at um reducing the amount of uh nitrogen oxides in the tailpipe emissions by 98%. Wow. Wow. So, our 2004 is a pre-emissions truck. Um, and with, like I said, with the 2027 coming along, it uh it's also a 90% reduction in a particular matter. So,

that's fantastic. The newer diesels are much better, you know, these old ones that were phasing. That's great. Good point. Thank you for that. Yeah. Yeah. Do we do have another question or make a motion? Uh, I move that the 2004 CAM pumper truck for the fire department be declared as surplus and further that the city manager be authorized to issue a purchase order to Reliant Fire Apparatus, Inc. for one Pierce Velocity pumper truck in an amount not to exceed 1,114,772 with funds available in the garage fund fund 661 or Okay, just to clarify, it was 722. I think you accidentally said 772.

722 giving him an extra $50.1 million. He likes you that much. You did such a good job on your presentation. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Bower and Commissioner Shaw. Any further comment on this? The the way that we operate this garage fund so that we can we are saving money towards the purchase of the next vehicle purchase and then we're going to pay for this truck. We're not going to get it for 30 months. And we are saving the interest in financing. We are saving the inflation costs. I mean, this this is a significantly right way to go about this. There's a really when we bought the 2016, that's the first time that we bought the the um the Pierce Velocity.

Mhm. A puck pump under cab. And there's a really neat video of me with Nine and 10 News talking about the garage fund and uh and how it's creates this potential to buy these trucks and save money and benefit our community. So, I love it. They're doing we're doing good things with the garage. So, yeah, it's a great great system so that we're never caught off guard, but hopefully never knock on wood. All right. Um any other comments from the commission on this? Thank you for that. Any public comment on this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? I

opposed. Motion passes. Okay. So, the next now is our voting precinct 4 update and action. Um Benjamin. Uh I will turn this over to our uh esteemed city clerk, Miss Lutz. There you go. Sarah's on the spot. It's a little late for being esteemed. Um

just kidding. Uh so it's pretty straight pretty straightforward. Um, our voting precinct 4 is our little precinct that's over in Leela County. And currently, um, the polling location is at the it's in a garage at the housing commission, um, facility on Orchard View, Orchard View on East Carter um, Center Road. And the housing commission is selling that building, that complex. And so the sale is scheduled to go through this August and we've been trying to find a location. Um there's very strict requirements on what we can use as a polling location for a voting precinct. Has to be a public building. And so graciously the um fire department is uh allowing us to merge it with our precinct one that's at fire station one. Um we're precinct 4 is approximately 500 registered voters. Um they're they'll probably see an increase of maybe a hundred people in the lines. So it's very minimal.

Go absentee voting. Go absentee voting or early voting. Early voting is another option. So do we have questions? Go ahead, Ken. Or make a motion. Well, I I just wonder about parking. I mean, where do you park over there? There's a whole side We're going to build this parking deck. I I I vote it. It's It's never been an issue. And No, it hasn't. I go vote precinct one. I've never had a problem parking. Yeah. I just walk. Yeah. Street parking. And then there's some lot There's some spaces around the lot, too. Go. Yeah. Or stop by Little Bose after before and be a client customer or after. Um Ken, you had your hand up.

I'm thinking about Little Vos. Little second here. Um I used to vote at Traverse Heights Elementary School. We lost that precinct and it we were all moved to the library. Now we're losing another voting precinct and they're getting moved to fire station at the League of Women Voters forum. This was something that was spec specifically brought up and that was accessibility and making it convenient for people to vote. Do we anticipate anything like this? Any more instances where we're going to lose a voting precinct? I know you crossed your fingers.

I hope not. Do you want to build me a building?

I I will just say, if I may. Uh that uh you know, clerks across Michigan are still trying to figure out what is the chosen pathway for voting. Michigan now has no reason absentee early voting. Uh and we when no reason absentee first went into effect, that was during the 2020 pandemic. So, that's an outlier. Uh, and honestly, in 2022, clerks all over the state thought that because so many turned out to vote absentee, even in 2022, that the polling places would be relatively dead, meaning the in-person voting, and it wasn't. So, everyone's still trying to get their seal legs, have some more data. I would anticipate eventually you will see a great shrinking of the number of in-person polling places, but we just don't want to get caught unprepared. Well, I would say too the other factor was tecaps clo had to close for elections because of increased security. Like I remember going to elementary school and people coming in and voting while I was walking into the gym, right? And that that just doesn't happen anymore. And so that was one of the trade-offs there. This is a building being sold. So I I wanted to give credit to staff and everyone that they do try to preserve our polling places, but sometimes life and other things happen and we just can't avoid these changes. But

are there any issues with election workers and the the amount that we have? Do we is it something that we need more? Do we have too many as we're closing precincts? Oh, election inspectors. I'm always looking for You're always looking for more. Okay. Yeah, it's good. Good to know. But um I just I felt that that was something that should be spoken to. I mean, obviously, we we know that a little bit greater than 60% of Traverse City residents are voting absentee, so maybe we don't need as many polling locations, but I but I we're doing good things as far as making absentee ballots available, but that's in contrast to closing polling locations for various reasons. So,

right, we have we have they have three options in which to vote, absentee, early, in person. We are still to Benjamin's point gathering data on the trends on how our population is voting and we are looking at eventually eventually um consolidating some of our precincts. We already have um precincts three and 10 are at one location which is the Carnegie building. Um there's the potential that maybe we could reconsolidate some other precincts into one building, but we don't want to make that move yet because we don't know what the trends are on how people are showing up. And we have a federal requirement that voters not wait more than 20 minutes in line. Yeah.

Yes. When we had 10 voting precincts, we had 10 voting locations. Like we have all these different precincts. And what I'm wondering is we've never had 10. and they skipped a bunch of numbers.

Okay, can we reert it's due to the hour and everything else going on and I appreciate this. Um that might be something for us to get an update on down the line, but be just due to the hour. I'm going to This is about um our forced closure of precinct 4 and and voting on that change. So Mitch, you had had your hand up. I'm going to recognize that. But I want us to stay on point of this, please. First, I would like to say as the housing commission representative, uh that's the clarity. Yes, it is being sold, but it is not transitioning from a publicly supported affordable housing. It is being financially restructured. HUD um has been uh just nudging at first, but they have been increasingly insistent on divesting from the traditional public housing model of um a public housing authority fully owns and operates um a building like Riverview Terrace that is then um a large tower block um of public housing to uh joint ownership models where you have outside investors and that does involve the opportunity for additional financial resources to be made available that in the case of Orchard View is allowing the expansion to roughly double the number of units. It will still be affordable housing. It will still um serve people that live and work in our community. But then getting to this point, I do echo uh what Commissioner Funk has said about the broader trend of consolidation. Yes. Um we do have a a trend of increasing voting absentee. Uh precinct 4 has I haven't able to pull up the numbers right now, but

Mitch, we're trying to keep to this. I appreciate it, but we've had the conversation now of precinct 4 does have the highest rate of abstinity voting of any precinct in the city. I I do say that I have great faith in our city clerk and her ability to make these assessments and and judgments and I really think we should lean on that. I'll make a motion. I'm ready to make the motion. Thank you. Okay. Mhm. Um I move that the relocation of polling place for precinct 4 from Trevor City Housing Commission at 10200 East Carter Center to fire station number one at 500 West Front Street which has been determined by the city clerk as a suitable location for a polling place be approved. Support.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Funk. And yes. All right. Any further questions about this or comments? We kind of went into comments before we got the motion. So I had I had two names written down and thought we already had the motion. So that was on me. Mitch, just to clarify, because it is is in a separate county administratively, even if there is further consolidation, um precinct 4 has to be kept separate. Correct. Okay. Thank you for that. Any other questions? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes.

Thank you. And you can tell by the engagement that we all appreciate the work of the clerk's office and all of our voting opportunities. So, we thank you guys for that all the time. And now we'll move on to the resolution opposing preemptive local control. And Lauren, did you want to just give us a quick intro on that?

Sure. I'll give you a real quick one. So, this was sort of prompted by some bills that were proposed um and the feedback that I and I I sent those out to the commission uh a few weeks ago. Um so, you'd be aware of those. Uh and I think the the um feedback that we got was that the commission would like to see a more broadly worded resolution that speaks to local control in general. Um there have been uh a number of attempts by the legislature uh to preempt local control. One of them that is particularly important and I bring up whenever I have a chance to is the short-term rentals issue. Um that's sort of a zombie bill that keeps getting killed and coming back. Um, but what it would do would be to uh preempt local units of government from um regulating short-term rentals at all and and labeling them as a residential use. So, obviously, we know that that would be very detrimental to our city um if we could not regulate those. And that's the kind of thing that uh this resolution would speak to and just to send the message that local control is important to the city commission and that uh you know local units of government like the city commission know what's best uh for the local community uh that you represent and that is why it's important for the legislature to understand that it's uh it's not a benefit to the locals to preempt that and please don't do that.

Great. Other questions for Lauren at this time or a motion? I'll make the motion. Okay. Now I have to find it. Okay. Uh I move that the resolution opposing pre preeemption of local control be adopted. Support. All right. Thank you Funk again. Didn't have to even erase my last one. Any other comments? Go ahead, Mitch. in the advance.

I understand in principle this and as somebody that has been involved before I was on the city commission with the board of zoning appeals and the planning commission. Uh I am a big proponent of local control in our planning and zoning but I am concerned that yes this is as broad nor overarching as it can be that it is a bit too broad because there are some situations where uh a state an overarching state regulatory framework does make more sense than ending up in a patchwork. Um I can think of uh was it last year or the year before with the uh utility scale wind and solar um sighting bill that Michigan municipal league in which we are a member and I've gone to their conferences and they specifically um instructed us to say that uh cities and villages should be exempted from that which I can understand. We don't have the same acreage as Garfield Township or

many other municipalities, but um many of the wind and solar farms that have been developed do span multiple municipalities and it can be important to have uh in that case a state framework in which they're operating and yes there can be guidelines on the local level but it's not We are the ultimate vetoers of everything that happens. I think Benjamin wants to speak to that.

To your point, I'm I'm wondering if the paragraph or section four, labeled section four on the final page of the resolution, says that the city of Traverse City hereby opposes any legislation that restricts home rule and preempts local control, particularly any preeemption of local zoning and housing choices. So, it really zeros in on that. So, hopefully that uh takes care of your concerns. Yes. Um, Lance had his hand up and then Ken, I yield to Ken. Okay. I was just going to say that uh zoning and planning have their challenges and they can be frustrating and difficult to deal with at time, but they are better than nothing at all.

So, yeah. Uh, so I mean I think this came to us and I want to be very clear why this is in front of us. um uh it came to us because there's a few state uh state um what's the word I'm looking for? It's bipartisan. Uh some bipartisan um legis bills, legislation. Thank you, uh Ken. That uh would fundamentally change our zoning um across the entire state. Um

and that would with the intention of that zoning change, uh be so that more housing could be uh built or more residential units could be considered residential units. Um, and so this is essentially, in my opinion, I know it's very broad, um, but it is somewhat sending a message to the the state legislature that we oppose, uh, those rules. Um, and I don't necessarily know if I oppose those rules, uh, that they're proposing. maybe some of them um like the trailer parks in uh downtown areas um like you know but at the same time I don't know if I necessarily prop uh support saying no to all of that uh for far too long I think uh maybe not our planning commission but several other planning commissions um won't pull their head out of the sand uh and help housing um and so I'm going to be voting no on this

and just to um clarify on something here just as part of the general conversation resolutions are not really that binding. Um, we can vote for this on the essence of protecting home rule act and wanting to keep local control and zoning. We can pass what we want to pass. We could later on pass a resolution saying we accept our usual we are taking exception to our last resolution because we support this effort for affordable housing or housing accessibility. It's it's not meant to be done on a whim, but it's also not going to ever pres prevent us or other commissions from um re-examining or looking at the lens of certain things. Um and I think that's where Lauren was very careful of like the the part that um Benjamin just pointed out um that preempts local control and zone local zoning and housing choices. Um because we've definitely I I know that's what was the most recent package of bills, but as Lauren pointed out, we have had a lot of threats for short-term rentals to be allowed from the state to be allowed everywhere. And there's it's definitely tended in recent years to lean a little bit more towards um taking the choice away from of locals for what they want for they envision their own community to what wants to be prescribed overall and from whatever powers that be that are pushing for it. So I people can still vote how they want. I'm not saying that. But I just wanted to really stress to everybody this doesn't stop us from expressing our own views later andor changing our minds or rescending. It's kind of meant to be, as Lance said at the beginning of his, even though he's he's not in favor of it, is just a sign to the Lancing legislator, stop trying to do these blanket things to us. Go ahead, Laura.

Yeah, I I'm in full support of this. I think particularly as it relates to local zoning and housing. No one's in a better position than our local officials and our appointed leaders to understand the needs of this community. And I think it's really important that we advocate for local control particularly on those specific issues. Um so I I'm in full support and my brain um is not working since the break. Sorry. So do we have a motion? Not yet. We do. No, I'm actually asking. Sorry. That was my nice. I'll make I'll make the motion. I move that the resolution opposing preeemption of local I think I do. I did. I'm hearing deja vote.

Yes. Yes. Yeah. Go ahead then, please. I wasn't trying to cut it off. I was just trying to make sure we were going in order and apparently we are already. So, yeah. I just want I support this because it's just about allowing uh us to make our own decisions. It's it's not

it's not that I mean manufactured housing on our lot city lots is would that be that terrible? I mean, it's not that I disagree with any of their any and all of what they're trying to do, but they're mandating from the top down. There is no world where mandates that come from the top actually work. It you have to build from the bottom and you have to build through consensus. And that's what I see. That's what this means to me. This resolution, I view this as like a broadie. Sorry. So, it's Go ahead, Jackie. Sorry. Please, I defer.

Yeah. I I view this as a broad a very broad advocacy statement for local control and I I agree with Heather's statement. I I think it's important um important enough that we make this statement, Jackie. And then Lance, I I support it entirely on the issue of local control and and my foundational belief that decision-m should be pushed down to the lowest possible level and that it should be conducted by elected officials uh who can be held accountable. Thank you.

I would say I would support it if this was a resolution supporting something and not opposing something. Uh I think we should resolve to support things and we should not resolve to oppose things. Um even even if the language changes a little bit um it's just I don't I don't like to resolve to a negativity. Uh I like to resolve to a positivity. That's an interesting point. I would support changing this to a a positive

if that would turn into a unanimous vote from the city commission. And I think that that's really a a powerful message to send and the resolution could be reframed entirely to a resolution supporting local control and supporting uh legislature taking action that emphasizes and supports and embraces local control. I would see Lauren. I see Lauren nodding her head. And we could just change I mean with that uh being said, we could change the language of number four and just flip flip the perspective on that to say the city of Trevor City hereby uh supports legislation that embraces home rule and local control particularly in uh

oh that's in in cases of local zoning and housing choices. And could we change the resolution? The title. Yes. Would that be as as people are looking through if would that change? Would that be acceptable to do now or does do we want to see it? Okay. A clean version. Move. Move as amended. Support. Well, well, it's already moved. So, I guess what do I have to say is it's the same two people. It's the same words. Yeah. So, they're in agreement. So, the motion. Okay. Good. Oh, yeah. I look at my notes. I lost. Okay. Um Okay. So, we're all good with that amendment. Are there other questions or can we read what we're amending this to so we clearly understand it because it

I'm I'm trying to figure out the twist on how to make it very clear that we do not support this, but we are and doing it in a positive way. I I don't I'm I can't wordsmith it right now. It would change the uh the title to say um resolution supporting local control. And then number four would say uh the city of Traverse City hereby supports legislation that uh embraces home rule and local control particularly in the areas of local zoning and housing choices.

And then everything else in here is kind of just stating that we are committed to the concept of home rule that um home rural cities enjoy specific powers. So it all can be very positive just amending those statements. So it didn't fundamentally change a lot. We're just as Lance put it more putting a more positive spin on it. Thank you. Is and so are we feeling comfortable with that now? Sure. And I'm going to go to public comment if we have more. Did we appropriately address it in the parliamentary world? Yes. Yes. We had agreement from the mover and the second uh we don't need to a make a motion to amend or anything. No, your rules say that as long as the mover and second are agree, it's it's acceptable. All right.

Yeah. All right. And so with that, I'll open any public comment on this item. See, seeing none other than a nice thumbs up, which we appreciate. Um, all in favor? I opposed. Motion passes. All right. We are now moving on to the Jackie's memorandum on the planning commission selection. So, Jackie, I'll hand this over to you.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. Um, I wanted to share some information that I thought might be pertinent to the decision uh coming up in our next section of the agenda on appointments. Um, specifically relative to planning commissioner selection, it's one of the very few commissions or boards where we have specific guidance from the state of Michigan about um who should be appointed um and and by what criteria we should be selecting them. Um, as far as planning commissioners go, it's governed by the Michigan Planning Enabling Act, and it requires that we strive for maximum diversity in two areas. One of them is geographic coverage. So, making sure that we have commissioners who are representing all of the various uh neighborhoods and sectors of the the footprint of Traverse City. And then also in terms of what they the law terms community segments and um they they mention things like agriculture and education. So think of that in terms of what are the pieces of our Traverse City economy and and community that that you know make us up. Um uh our current planning commission is is fairly diverse in that community segment criteria which is a great thing but it is not very diverse when it comes to geographic coverage. Um we are fairly heavy on the east side representation and very light um on west side. actually um even important uh uh neighborhoods like Slabtown have not historically been represented on the on the planning commission. So um in addition, there's guidance out there from a couple of

really wellrespected uh subject matter authorities. Michigan State University with its college of of urban planning and its citizen planner uh program as well as the Michigan chapter of the American planning association. Um both of those sources recommend against appointing um folks with educational credentials in urban planning and professional experience in urban planning. um they emphasize the importance that planning commissioners are representative representative of the residents, the citizens and the community. So, um it's especially important that you have that citizen perspective when you're talking about appointed officials as opposed to elected officials. So that's that's the guidance that we have from subject matter experts. Right now we have a rare opportunity to appoint not one but two people to the planning commission. Um and the recommendation of the ad hoc committee of which I was a member. Thank you. Um is the next item on the agenda. Uh the good news is that one of the two recommended individuals uh follows both state law and the industry best practices um by representing the southwest corner of Traverse City, which is great, and um by working in the arts and culture segment. Um the bad news is that the other recommended candidate is a a degreed professional in urban planning and public administration and uh worked for more than a decade as um an urban planning professional.

Most recently was the uh planning and zoning director for Peninsula Township. um that person that candidate um also resides on the east side of the city which is really over represented and when you look at the entire nine-person commission so um what actions can we take uh I I will leave that up to to the folks here but I have two suggestions um one would be to restructure the motion that's coming up next on the agenda to allow us to vote separately on the two candidates uh proposed by the ad hoc committee. Or I see another alternative to return the motion to the ad hoc committee with a request to put forward two candidates who fulfill both state law and industry best practice guidelines. So, I' I'd like to take questions um and and have a bit of a discussion on whether either of those two options might be of interest and um what we might choose to do in our next next upcoming agenda item. One thing I just want to mention procedurally while the commission can have the discussion you're asking for of course um is that no uh citizen appointment to the planning commission can be considered by the commission without the mayor bringing that forward. So it's a mayoral appointment. Just want everyone to be on the same page. So uh the the appointment policy was modified a couple of years ago to provide for an ad hoc for mayoral appointments and

so that's what's occurred. But at the end of the day, a nomination can't come forward without the mayor bringing it forward. Just want to make that clear. Procedurally also the motion at the when the appointments come up could be made separately by person. It just make depends who moves it. They're they're listed as um suggested and or in our our packets, not the must. Um so I just wanted to clarify that for anything. We've done that in the past where we've people have made amended motions or changed a motion as it came forward that is allowed. Um and so I just wanted to make that point in general about the rules, but you do have to concur as mayor in order like you have to agree that a motion can even come forward making that appointment. Okay.

Right. Okay. But for example, because those two came out of our our ad hoc, they could both be made separately. So because they were agreed upon by the mayor. So Okay. Good. Well, thank you. Are there are there any questions from my colleagues here or I if Yes, Mitch.

Well, uh state law is clear that planning commissions under the Michigan zoning enabling act are made at the discretion of the mayor, the village president or the other municipal head. That is the policy that's been followed here. We have amended our appointment policy for all ad hocs to all interviews and appointments to create an ad hoc of three members of the commission which if it is a legislatively mayoral appointment does include the mayor. Um that ad hoc was established. It met uh it interviewed people. It made decisions of majority of that ad hoc is two people. So that policy was also followed. Uh so under state law and our own policies they were complied with.

If if I may um where we fall short of state law is call to the order of business. I don't think this is appropriate to have back and forth debate. May I May I correct a factual inaccuracy? Parliamentarian. That's a ruling that can be made by the mayor subject to being overruled by the commission. So your your objection though just for the object I'm asking the the mover please call to the order of business. This is a it's a memorandum or I guess I say even point of order. It's a memorandum. It's not a

discussion item. Um it truly belongs in discussion belongs in the next category where there's action to be taken. If no action is to be taken on an item, there is to be no discussion or debate. Uh, and so I'm ruling with you, but I wanted that it clear to everyone that it's a procedural matter, not um a random rule that somebody threw out that nobody knows what it means. So So is there another question or any other um comments about the memorandum that are not deliberative because the deliberations in our next motion?

I I have one point. Um, I just want to express my gratitude to the scores of volunteers that step up and and volunteer their time and their talent to over 23 different boards and commissions that we have. And I think it's important to acknowledge that these volunteers help to impact and shape many important decisions in our community. So, thank thank you for that. And for those volunteers who are sitting in the room, I think it's really important that we express gratitude around that because my perspective is we should be lifting people up and expressing our gratitude, not bunching them into categories in ways that risk alienated f alienating future volunteers or our current volunteers from participation.

I will join in in saying we thank our both the people who make our boards, as you said, but also everyone who interviews because they're all also taking their time. Jackie and I certainly value each and every one of our volunteers. I also value our requirement to follow state law and we have them something in the packet. Lauren, would you like to address that, please?

Well, the requirements of the law are are stated in the statute. So, it it's a geographical requirement. Um, and it and there are certain, you know, factors that are required in the law. Um, and there's nothing in the law about having a planning background at all. So, just to be clear, that is not in included in the statute. When you say geographic, you mean where the people live, not by neighborhoods.

That you're a registered elector. So, you're a resident of of the city and you're qualified to vote in the city. And since my last was just a procedural correction, um I do think it's you have thank you Lauren for uh addressing that the agenda item which I believe should probably this this memorandum should probably be a study session but the substantive legal question behind uh what's being questioned here is that um a planning background does not disqualify a candidate and that the statute actually supports that expertise. I'd also note her caution about using generational categories as an appointment factor. We wouldn't do that in hiring anybody uh for a real job. Um and I say it is a real job to be a planning commissioner. You just don't get paid. It's a real thankless job uh in reality. Um I want to say plainly for the public record that I just don't think it's appropriate to categorize community members as simply uh as we saw here. Um the people who applied to serve the city, they deserve better than being um just a demographic cell in a table. Uh you know, we work really hard uh to to get good quality volunteers and we should be evaluating candidates on their qualifications, their commitment, and what they bring to the work. And on those measures, the ad hoc found two strong candidates, which we're going to talk about uh at the next agenda item. And if I may add, this is one of the very few city commissions that actually has a state law that that gives us guidance. And um by ignoring the issue of uh geographic segments, I think we are um getting into rather rather uh suspect territory relative to following that law. I'm I'm going to make a statement though that there all three candidates

that you listed on your chart which has question marks and not all verified data is are all from areas that we do not have current representation on the the planning commission from there by the neighborhoods that you identified. So I'm going to point of order. Yeah, we need to move to the agenda. If you want to have a discussion, it needs to be at after a motion. So, okay, we'll move on to the next item.

Okay, so we're moving on now to our planning commission motions. Uh, there was an ad hoc that met. It was myself, it was Lance, and it was Jackie. And um they are to they were to fill the seats of David Knap and Jess Heler whom we both thank for their service. Um, as was mentioned, planning commission is a heavy load and thankless and payless. So, we thank them for that. We thank everyone who applied for this. And we had um several very good interviews. And so, at the end of the day, these are the recommendations. Um we can take a motion or motions. Go ahead.

Yeah. I move that uh Michelle Rearen and Megan Holtry be appointed to the term expiring November 10, 2028 previously held by David Knapp and Jess Heler on the planning commission as recommended by the ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Shamro, Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Bmer support.

Um I'll give it to Mitch because I heard him over everybody else. So thank you Lance and Mitch and well done writing that. So proceed. Go ahead Lance. Uh so I was proud to serve on this ad hoc committee. Uh we spent a lot of time interviewing candidates. Um I have literally pages upon pages of notes. Uh so thank you to everybody who applied. Uh it was very tough uh in choosing who we chose. Um we interviewed uh I think six candidates um who all took time out of their lives to apply to the service of the city. Um and Michelle Ruden, she brings a deep direct relevant experience in land use, housing and planning. Uh and then Megan Holtry brings civic engagement, community roots uh and a genuine desire to learn and contribute uh in making our city uh a better place. Um both are exactly what in my opinion a citizen planning commission should look like. Uh and I'm glad to support this appointment and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Uh Laur Laura and then Heather. process matters and I fully trust the commissioners who participated in our ad hoc interview committees to bring forward these strong recommendations and I think we are going to have times even in these small groups where there's not 100% agreement but as we've discussed over the last few months even in the development of our shared agreements we still need to move forward and and come to agreement and so I I'm going to rely on process here and on the commissioner ers that selected the candidates that are in front of us. Heather,

I watched a county commission meeting a couple of months ago where the ad hoc committee that uh chose the ATL large a new atlarge member of the airport authority, the NRAA, um was uh hijacked at the commission meeting. Uh there was a large mail in campaign against the candidate that the ad hoc chose and the board um essentially said we're not taking your candidate. We are taking the candidate that's coming from this mailin um petition. Um given the issues facing Slab Town, I think a Slabtown voice would be a valuable contribution and particularly as the commission the planning commission goes forward with its rewrite of the uh zoning ordinance. I also think that uh neighborhood representation is critical and I would hope that future ad hocs and the mayor would try to be particularly sensitive to this issue. However, I don't that the city commission hijacks decision made by ad hocs and I I don't want the ad hocs that I serve on to be hijacked by the commission. So I'm going to defer to the golden rule here and say that I'm will unto others as I would like others to do unto me and I will support this recommendation.

Thank you. Other comments right now? Go ahead, Ken. I appreciate Commissioner Anderson's willingness to touch a sensitive subject and dig a little bit deeper into this and and truly seek what she feels is a well-rounded well represented well represented and balanced planning commission. But I want to support the the majority decision of our ad hocs because as someone who served on multiple ad hocs,

the consensus reigns and I mean there's going to be winners and losers. There's going to be unanimous votes. There's going to be split votes and at the end of the day we're going to move forward with consensus decisions and they might not be ones that we agree with. But I appreciate you. Thank you for doing what you did. And I will say um number one all volunteers are deeply appreciated by myself and everyone who is here. Um planning commission in particular is a heavy lift and anyone who steps forward to offer their service there is is um valued deeply. Um the distinction here and the reason why I chose to bring this forward as as an option is the imperative that we are given through state law to to the extent of actually seeking out candidates from unrepresented territories within the city is is is recommended. um that we would uh continue to have an unbalanced and hence perhaps biased planning commission that is not representative of the entire territory as mandated by state law concerns me very deeply. um the possibility of our planning commission shifting to a more professional and and educationally credentialed and experienced board of experts as opposed to a citizen representative perspective as recommended by industry experts as a best practice was worth bringing forward for consideration. I'd also like to point out that one of

the two candidates that that the ad hoc is bringing forward satisfies both of those needs. One of them does not. I would I would ask again for consideration to approve the individual who does meet those criteria and to ask the ad hoc to you know go back retrace our steps and and look for a second candidate who is similarly qualified. I will just add um my comments here of having served on the commission for many years now. I've gone through and heard tales of mayors who interviewed for their mayoral positions uh pre our change of our rules that required an ad hoc where they would show up five or 10 minutes late for a 15-minute interview or they would sit with every candidate for an hour and a half at a coffee shop to pick somebody that was considered the predist destined choice. So I am appreciative that we had a pro we have a process here that there was room and is room for ample robust conversation and vo diverse voices that we try to work towards consensus and it doesn't always happen. Um but as has been stated we we have a process and we go through the ad hocs and respect our ad hoc work. I'll end with a slight joke of especially Ken because I think luck of the draw put him on every ad hoc other than maybe five uh for this year. So, um, I just wanted to point out that, you know, we we take very seriously the charge. The rules were just revamped beyond the ad the ad hoc requirement a year ago. And it was a commission by myself and Tim Warner and Jackie Anderson. And this is through that process that we have established. And so, this was where we we landed. We are we have people from neighborhoods that aren't represented currently. and um

somebody with a healthcare background, somebody with um an education arts background and there's a lot of diversity in our in our group and I am thankful for everybody who applied and everyone who serves and continues to serve. Um I would have at one point this was qualified as a rare uh opportunity. We cycle through people on every board every year. And so whether they get reappointed or there's open seats, we even have openings in between the regular cycle. So this is not a as rare. We appreciate the time people give and what they step up to do and whether they're selected or not. I've had people who interviewed two or three times and eventually got on. It just is what the need of the board is at the time and the the view that is being done by the ad hoc. So I appreciate everybody's input on this. I appreciate everybody's engagement with our city by by applying and by serving. And so I just wanted to make that final comment here for a little backwards nostalgic look on my part of how far it's come since I even started and where we're at as far as having all the voices we can in the room. Are there other comments right now? Um I'll open this up for public comment. Is there any public comment on this item?

May I read the rules real quick, please? We ask that you state your name and address indicated if you're a city resident, non- city resident, and or city business owner. We have a three-minute time allotment per speaker. When your time has elapsed, the timer will beep. And finally, we request that all language be respectful to all parties. Nailed it, Sarah. Thank you. Thank you.

Um Anna Duri, 340 East State Street, Apartment 2F. Um I am the current planning uh chair. I thank you all for this conversation. The one point that I want to bring up that we didn't really cover is that if you're trying to select from certain neighborhoods, people could very well have been priced out of those neighborhoods. You can't really be selective of certain parts of the city when we know that houses in Slabtown go for two to three times the price of a home in Traverse Heights. It just feels really um wrong and discriminatory if we're not just making sure that everybody is representing the entire city city, especially in the current housing crisis that we exist in. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment at this time? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission. All in favor? I opposed. Nay. Roll call, please. Mayor Promesses. Yes. Commissioner Bmer, yes. Commissioner Funk, yay. Uh, Commissioner Treadwell, yes. Commissioner Shaw, yes. Uh, Commissioner Anderson, no. Mayor, yes. Motion passes. Thank you all. We'll move on now to our Trevor C. Light and Power appointments. And waiting for it to load. Um, was this chaired by Laura or was this chaired by Jackie? Sorry. I think I was the chair.

Okay. So, do I need to make the motion? Um, I was just going to say, um, God, I shut my computer. Okay, hang on. Yeah, we can take a motion if you want to preempt it with a comment. Um, just that I thank all of the individuals. We had two apply for one position. Um, and grateful to those residents that are interested in serving. I move that Bradley Matson be appointed to the term expiring April 7th, 2031, previously held by Mora Brennan on the Traverse City Light and Power Board as recommended by the ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Prom Ness, Commissioner Anderson, and Commissioner Funk. Second. All right. Any further comment on this item?

Uh, Jackie and then Ken. Um just just to um mention that um there was verification of voter registration for Mr. Madson. Um his uh during the interview it became apparent that his uh city residence is in a short-term rental building on 8th Street and that a a a family farm in the Misik location had been mentioned. But um thanks to our city clerk for verifying voter registration. So that issue has been um resolved. Great. Thank you for that um input. Yeah, insight is meant to say. Sorry.

I was going to I was going to mention that too because that was brought up in our ad hoc uh related to this. Two phenomenal candidates. Um really tough decision at the end of the day. We we picked we landed on one. Um, Bradley was very impressive and there was the concern in regard to his city resident status and that was confirmed by our clerk. And I just so happened to be driving down State Street at 8:00 in the morning and he was at the corner of State and Railroad with his dog. He that's somebody that lives in town. Community in action. Any other comments? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none. All right, we'll bring it back. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion passes. Okay, now this is I feel like there should be a drum roll on this one. Our complete streets ad hoc. Um, so um, Commissioner Shaw, you were the chair of this, right? Oh, I think Lance was Oh, Lance was Okay. Go ahead, Lance. And and I just didn't know if you wanted to add a couple cents because this has been such a thing.

Yeah. So as we all passed in December, the complete streets policy requires us appoint a complete streets advisory committee which is a mostly citizen uh le committee with one commissioner that will be myself uh and then either um the city manager or their appointee. Um the first order of business as we told every candidate is to uh work to develop a rubric by which the city then can evaluate whether projects meet complete streets criteria. Um and we had a robust amount of interviews. Uh it was two very long days I would say. Um and so thank you commissioners for your time. Uh because it was quite a bit of time that we spent. Uh and then thank you to every single person who applied. Um if you aren't on this list first of all there's we're appointing the entire slot today. Uh and as you'll notice that uh the time times when people come off the advisory committee uh vary uh and so there's going to be lots of opportunities in the next few years to uh join this this committee. Um and so with that being said uh I move that the uh that we appoint Noah Roth and Jason Whitaker for appointment to the terms expiring June 30th.

Can you go to the first page? Is that not the first page? No, that's it. Oh, that's No, that wasn't it. You guys got to stop putting that in twice. I move We're going to work to change it to say recommended motion. Thank you. Thank you. Um uh I move that Noah Roth and Jason Whitaker be appointed to the terms expiring June 30, 2029. Uh Tim Warner and Dana Flugft be appointed to terms expiring June 30, 2028. and Jill Sill be appointed to the term expiring June 30, 2027 on the complete streets advisory committee as recommended by the ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Prom Ness, Commissioner Shaw and Commissioner Bmer. I support that.

Thank you both. And I'd also like to to to invite all the amazing candidates that we had that we couldn't appoint to this board because we didn't have enough room to please come to the meetings and contribute because their contributions are incredibly valuable even though they're not appearing on the appointee list. That's a really good point. I would I would second that sentiment,

Mitch. So after all the work we went through creating uh the complete streets advisory I mean complete streets uh process and establishing advisory committee and now uh going through interviews. Thank you for your long hours. Uh with that uh do we have at least a tentative timeline for how soon they will be meeting? Uh, I believe I I I requested that um Rebecca send a a doodle for a meeting time uh tomorrow. Send it out tomorrow to find the meeting time tomorrow. So, it's on our radar. We're working on it. Appreciate all the enthusiasm from the ad hoc and the applicants on this and

the public at large. It's been a really good, I think, public process on that. Other comments or questions? Seeing none, any public comment on this? Do you want to come do a victory dance? Um Justin Justin Reed, um resident, um 63 C drive, apartment 1B. Um even though I applied and I know I didn't show up for the interview, I actually completely forgot about the day of the interview. Um but um I know there's going to be other opportunities throughout the um you know it's not if you get appointed it's not like forever appointment um so I know that there's going to be other opportunities down the road and I um appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you Justin. Any other comment? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. I'm excited to see the work that's going to be done there. Yeah. And next, our other um robust ad hoc is our Hickory Hills Advisory. So, I'll hand that over to whoever wants to take that.

Yeah. I was the chair of of that group along with um let's see, Commissioner Anderson participated and Commissioner Treadwell. We had five applicants for three open positions, including an incumbent. And um honestly, any one of the candidates could have been placed in these positions. all of their resumes and their um interviews were very impressive. It's a it's a really important year for Hickory Hills. Um lots of issues to um be addressed and we ended up selecting um Andrew Faren who has significant ski area u management experience from Marquette Mountain um also local has grown up here and some engineering background. We also are recommending Rod Kibl, who's the head of the Hickory Hill Ski Patrol, who's the incumbent, and Kurt Neller, who is a parent of two young children that uh ski frequently, and Kurt also brings an impressive background um in revenue management and uh business. So with that, I'll make the motion that Andrew Faren be appointed to the term expiring June 30th, 2029. Seat previously held by Laureness, effective immediately. And Curt Neller to be appointed to the term expiring June 30th, 2029. Seat currently held by Andrew Weir, effective July 1st, 2026. and Rodney Ko be appointed to term expiring June 30th, 2029 as recommended by the ad hoc committee consisting of Mayor Prom Ness, Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Treadwell.

Support I will give that to Miss Anderson. Thank you. Any further comment on this? I somehow ended up on both of the Hickory Hills advisory ad hocs. Uh I'm glad that this one was a lot shorter than when we had to interview 24 candidates uh to fill the whole board. That took a while. Uh but I am glad to hear that the Hickory Hills Advisory Committee as it's been established um is working very smoothly um doing a good job of representing various user groups and demographics that enjoy Hickory. and I think that these appointments will help continue that legacy.

Thank you. Any other comments for this? There were so many talented folks to choose from. It was a very difficult decision, but I'm confident that those that were recommending are going to be excellent contributors. Great job by you guys. I'm sure that was a very tough call to make on all of those. Um, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? I I opposed and I think I've identified everybody. Well, first let me go through reports. Are there any reports from the boards?

All right. The only thing I will add is that the my last EDA meeting um the tiff plan that has been discussed the ad hoc presented there was some good feedback. So the project the projects and kind of outline are available from that meeting and we have our joint meeting coming up next week. So that will pro all of that will probably be sent out to you ahead of that. Um but just if people want to look ahead of time, you can see it in the packet for that meeting. Um with that, we will move on to Oh, go ahead, Ken. Um I don't know like just I just wanted to make a general comment. Oh, that's we'll have that after our public comment. Okay, no problem. Um we have public comment right now. We technically have a reserve public comment, but I don't see any faces that

I don't rec Yeah. Representing NMC that I recognize or don't recognize. So

Dy Brewer, but I don't know. So with that, I will then open general public comment. If Daisy does show up, we will give her her aotted time. But if anybody has any general public comment, Hi, my name is Jared. I'm a resident here. Grew up here. Uh 4703 Golden Eagle Circle is my address. Um I'm a part of NMC's social work program as well. Um, I just wanted to say I really appreciate uh in the past couple years all you've done for homelessness advocacy, affordable housing. Um, it's genuinely making strides towards a better situation in our community, especially like QRT. I know you're pretty involved with that. Um, and working at Monzen, I see a lot of those processes being much more helpful. um especially with patients who are homeless and need a discharge plan and it has to be safe discharge plan. Um so yeah, I really appreciate that and hope that you continue that. Thank you.

Thank you. The reserve public comment wasn't here, but we appreciate the comment from NMC Social Work. Anyways, thank you.

This will be quick.

I promise. Chief Teller, uh, B Chief for City of Traverse City. Uh, just want to thank you for your support on the purchase of, uh, our new engine. Uh, Joel skipped out. I was hoping he'd be here, but I wanted to give a shout out to, uh, uh, Joel Tapio, who's a garage superintendent. He's pretty amazing with how he boils down all the data and came up with the scoring system and all that. That was all him. That was all him on his own. He did a real good job. And uh that is our fourth major purchase of apparatus since I've been chief. And uh we're still working on another one. But right now also too public recognition to Captain Chris Jackson. He is with a couple of his team members tonight in Wisconsin. And tomorrow morning they're going to make the first of a couple of uh improcessed uh manufacturing inspections on a replacement ladder truck. That's all built into the program. built into the price. It's no cost uh to the city because this particular unit was purchased with a grant. So uh I just wanted to recognize his efforts over the years and uh his team as well. So with that, I'll conclude. Thank you.

Thank you, Chief. Any other public comment right now?

All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission. Ken, go ahead. Oh, I was I just wanted to mention that um in our study sessions, we've been talking about how we are going to communicate and work as a team. And I think one of the things that we haven't talked about yet is how we will respond when we deal with difficult and stressful situations. And we dealt with some contentious things tonight. And I think that how you respond after those type of situations says a lot about how you are going to move forward and continue to work in a positive direction or in a negative direction. And I feel like we disagreed on some things, but we we had very respectful dialogue and we moved in a good direction. And so I I I'm glad that we could we we one of the things we've mentioned is that we can't have these conversations outside of public.

So here we are while we're in public right now. And I wanted to bring that up and address that and just say thanks everyone for being respectful. Thank you everyone for respecting other people's opinions regardless of whether they were ones that we agreed with or not. And I'm excited to continue moving forward in a positive direction with all of you. So that's all I wanted to say. You can have the last word. Oh, no. Thank you, Ken. Oh, Heather's gonna have the last word. No, I'm not. Thank you, Ken. I I really appreciated your comments and I'm sure everybody did. Um, so I have a question. Yeah, the CBDG item. Um, there was no commission comment on that and I have a whole bunch of questions. So, we're going to have each item brought to us though, right?

Yes. Uh, and we have another public hearing coming on May 11th. But if you've got some questions in advance if you can get those much information in there, so I've got definitely Yeah, please let me know what they are. Send them to your Yes. Anyone all of you? Yes. Thank you. Any final Okay, Mitch. It pains me to say this is a Spartan, but go blue. Any other I I won't spoil it for anybody. Yeah, I don't think we should in case somebody is going to flip over, but um I I know we're not going to but nobody wants to know the score even they can flip over and see it. So, what I was going to say on Ken's in a more um NCAA finals version of it, I would say uh thank you team. Great work tonight team and have a great night. Gonna adjourn. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks. Yeah.