Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I will now call this regular city commission meeting of Monday, July 20th to order. All please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,

We begin, as always, by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the territory of the Ottawa and Chippewa 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, I will now go to our roll call from Sarah, please.

Mayor Pro Tem Ness. Here. Commissioner Anderson.

Here.

Commissioner Boehmer.

Here.

Commissioner Shaw. Here. Commissioner Treadwell.

Here. Commissioner Funk.

Here.

Mayor. Here. Now we'll move on to announcements from the city manager.

just to say that one year I'm a sentimental person and one year ago yesterday the City Commission appointed me interim city manager and I'm very grateful to be here and that's all that I've got thank you and Sarah announcements from the city clerk okay it's a little hard to follow that meeting scheduled for this week are the complete streets Advisory Committee will meet on Tuesday July 21st at 830 a.m. in the second floor committee room The Planning Commission will meet on Tuesday, July 21st at 6 p.m. in the Commission Chambers.

Great. And just, I wasn't sure if you'd touch on it, Ben, or not, but next week we will not, sometimes we have a fourth study session. We do not this month. And because of the elections, don't forget to vote in the primaries, we will not have a meeting the first week of August either because of our policy to give the clerk's office a little breathing room to prepare for the elections and the very long day that goes along with it.

Which we very much appreciate. Excellent. Thank you very much.

So our next meeting won't be for two weeks, just to let everybody know at the top. So nobody shows up here on that first week of August to an empty room. But you should still show up to get ready to vote. All right, so with that, we'll have Sarah go with the consent calendar. Sure.

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, the staff or the public may ask any item on the consent calendar be removed therefrom 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 parentheses on the agenda is approved by a single commission action adopting the consent calendar. One, consideration of approving the minutes of July 6th, 2026 and July 13th, 2026 meetings of the city commission. Approval recommended. Two, consideration of authorizing the issuance of two additional bar permits and one additional member, David Butler, to an existing redevelopment liquor license with Class C privileges with outdoor service area banquet facility and dance entertainment permits to Identity Brewing Company LLC located at 108 South Union Street and authorizing the city clerk to issue such registration which is a housekeeping matter adoption approval recommended. Three, consideration of authorizing the issuance of additional Sunday a.m. p.m. sales outdoor service area direct connection and specific permits, specific purpose permits to existing retail off-premise and retail on-premise special act liquor license with Class C and SDM privileges to Cherry Country Cafe and Gift Shop Inc. located at 727 Fly Don't Drive and authorizing the city clerk to issue such updated registration which is a housekeeping matter adoption approval recommended. For consideration of authorizing the issuance of an additional outdoor service area permit to an existing redevelopment liquor license with Class C and SDM privileges with Sunday AM PM sales permit to Perry's Place LLC DBA The Flying Noodle located at 136 East Front Street and authorizing the city clerk to issue such updated registration which is a housekeeping matter adoption approval recommended. Five, consideration of authorizing the issuance of new retail off-premise liquor license with SDM privileges with Sunday a.m. p.m. sales and outdoor service area permits within five additional members, Dorothy Wolfe, Eric Wolfe, Jerry O'Connell, Ryan O'Connell and Shelly Burnett to an existing redevelopment liquor license with Class C privileges to Northern Hospitality LLC, DBA, Mama Lou's located at 146, 149 East Front Street and authorizing the city clerk to issue such registration which is a housekeeping matter adoption approval recommended. Six consideration of adapting to make permanent traffic control orders which number 775 reduce 15 minute loading zone spaces from two to one near 101 Park Street. Number 776 install one 15 minute loading zone at 237 East Front Street. Number 777 install two no parking theater exit signs at I think I'm missing a number, 35 East Front Street. Number 778, revised parking meter zone downtown Old Town and West End areas. Number 779, install three 15-minute loading zone signs at 202 South Union Street. Number 780, install one US postal vehicles only sign at 100 North Union. And rescind traffic control order number 357, which would remove 15-minute loading zone space at 111 West Front Street. Adoption recommended. Seven, consideration of waiving the competitive bidding process and authorizing a contract for South Union Street Bridge riprap scour protection project. Approval recommended. Eight, consideration of authorizing an amendment to the five year agreement for parking management software services for credit card reader replacement and subscription fees and consideration of authorizing a purchase order for the credit card reader replacements, approval recommended. Nine, consideration of authorizing a storm sewer maintenance contract which provides the terms and conditions under which the city maintains the storm water system within the MDOT right of way of Grandview Parkway and M72 within the city's corporate limits, approval recommended. 10, consideration of authorizing an agreement for construction engineering services for the Westside Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project, approval recommended. 11, consideration of authorizing an amendment to the agreement for uniform rental and laundry services for the Department of Public Services, Department of Municipal Utilities and Parking Services, approval recommended. Twelve, consideration of clarifying the quantity identified in the motion previously adopted, authorizing a three-year agreement for cardiac monitors for the fire department, which is a housekeeping matter, approval recommended. Thirteen, consideration of authorizing amendments to the amended and restated lease agreement with the City Opera House to allow the direct sale of liquor by the City Opera House Heritage Association instead of a third-party vendor, approval recommended. 14, consideration of authorizing a budget amendment to the Downtown Development Authority TIF 97 annual budget to align with budget information previously presented, which is a housekeeping matter approval recommended.

Okay, would any commissioner like any item pulled? Seeing none, would any member of the public like an item pulled? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the commission for a motion.

I make a motion to accept the consent calendar as presented.

Perfect, second. thank you commissioners funk and shaw all in favor aye opposed motion passes all right that's been a while thanks for being so straightforward staff all right moving on to old business we are doing the parks and rec master plan and this was so quick i haven't even opened it up yet so give me a moment um is there any presentation with this or shall i open them

There is a brief presentation that Ms. Hunt has, and I'll just turn it right over to her.

Hi. Good evening, everyone. I'm Michelle Hunt, the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City. And I'm here to give you a short overview of the master plan process. So please stop me if you have any questions. And I know this PowerPoint was in your packet, so I'll just briefly touch on the highlights. So every five years we go through a master planning process. It's something that is required if we would like to continue to seek funding from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. So our last plan we did during COVID and it actually expired in 2021 and Our new plan will be from 2026 to 2030. And so the purpose of the plan is to just provide a comprehensive overview of the parks and recreation amenities in Traverse City. So we prioritize capital improvements and asset management. We talk to the public, see what they want to see in parks, get feedback on what the investment should be. and then that plan gets compiled and for the next five years I will work with the Parks and Rec Commission and staff and the City Commission to implement those projects and the goals. So one of the biggest parts of the master plan is the public outreach and data collection. We hired a consulting firm Tower Pinkster to participate or to perform all of those duties so they went to um events where the community would be the local community the community that's here 12 months out of the year that was a major point of importance for the parks and rec commission as we were developing the scope that they don't attend they attend events where they're going to meet locals so one of the events that they they went to some high impact events that we have in the parks uh like the up north pride event in september they went to farmers markets and then they were just here on various weekends kind of late summer after cherry festival And all the information, so all the raw data that we have for the community engagement, so the survey results and the mapping and everything, that'll all be included as appendices in the master plan. So it's not something that's available right now for what you've seen online. Once it's completely compiled at the end, that'll all be available. Um so we as a parks and rec commission and myself and staff we wanted to the strategic action plan was going along at the same time that we were doing this and we worked to ensure that we weren't way over here whenever the strategic action plan was saying one thing. So we in the past there has been goals and objectives and we changed that terminology to be pillars to be consistent and then we um when I say we primarily the parks and rec commission and staff we worked to align that community vision with what the strategic action plan was undergoing at the same time and we found a lot of alignment during that process so our five pillars are community well-being and accessibility waterfront conservation and protection of green space local collaboration and that's with the partnerships and the existing operations we have going on in our parks connections and maintenance and management of facilities so take care of what we already have that was a big one And I touched on that already. So here's just a diving into it further how the master plan aligns with the strategic action plan. So some of the projects that came out of the master plan aligned with the projects that we had previously worked on for the Brownbridge Parks Improvement Fund because that was also going on simultaneously. and some of those projects are the shoreline restoration project and like Hickory Hills mountain biking, pickleball and tennis court reconstruction. So these are all projects that people have been wanting for a long time. They improve the quality of life, they get people outside, they're connected to the outdoors and especially with Brown Bridge and the shoreline project promotes environmental sustainability. So Our priorities are to one of the changes that I advocated for in this plan was previous master plans had a whole lot of projects. And they weren't necessarily all easy to accomplish in that five years and I've you know highlighted them in the master plan as i've accomplished them over the five years, but there are still some that haven't. been completed because it's not necessarily realistic to get them all done so our goal was create a realistic timeline with realistic goals that accomplish these things they enhance accessibility which is was the Parks and Rec Commission's main focus when starting this is increase accessibility to parks and public spaces beaches being one of them thus born the shoreline project kinda morphed from there when it was well if we're gonna do accessibility for The beaches, well, what else is needing to do at the beaches? And so these conversations, they all tie into each other. And that's one of the things that I'm proud of with this plan is it feels realistic. There's still going to be grants to apply for. There's still projects that will come up that are maybe just cause it to take a little bit longer than five years. But it is more attainable than in past years. And one thing that has come up during the process for the approval. So tonight we have the public hearing for the plan and then asking for the plans adoption. i will be preparing a addendum as part of the master plan that will go in after the document and it's going to include a parkland inventory so that's a comprehensive inventory i'm going to work with our city attorney and we are going to supply that information to the city commission we're hoping to have that done by the end of the calendar year because it's going to be a lot of research and a lot of the information is going to be you know compiled and for like the first time in a really succinct way so we want to get it right so that'll be available by the end of the year And that's pretty much all I have. If you have any questions about it, I'm happy to answer.

And I would say let's make sure we do questions because we do have to open the public hearing and then we come back to our regularly kind of scheduled program. So does anybody have just questions? Go ahead, Heather.

Is there a timeline on creating that inventory? I know I work better if I have a timeline. If I don't have one, it just goes off into the horizon forever and ever.

yes it would be by the end of the year uh and we actually even included in the uh motion uh that it would provide that i press well staff but me present that parkland inventory by december 21st right and uh and it is comprehensive uh you know requires deed restriction history you know all that sort of stuff and we want to make sure we get it right because as we know properties that are designated parkland are protected under our charter and we want to be very thorough thank you yes jackie

Could you provide just a real top line summary of some of the conversation within the Parks and Recs Commission, the pros and the cons, was the, ultimately the vote was unanimous or not?

For the plan itself? yeah yeah of course so we as a parks and rec commission started this process a little over two years ago and they were very active in creating the scope of work for the consultant and the projects that to focus on so right out from the start they've been very energized and excited about the process And when it was appropriate and I had information, I brought it to the Parks Commission and we had really good discussions and helped refine those pillars. So overall, there's been great support and alignment with, like I said, their goals. One of the main ones was the ADA accessibility, which is very important because some of our parks don't rank very high at all. So it was very collaborative and it gives us a springboard for future discussion. So I would say A plus.

So in terms of pros and cons and whether the vote was unanimous?

The vote was unanimous. For the Parks and Rec board to approve the plan? Yes.

Yeah.

Yes.

And were there any cons that were identified in conversation at that level?

Overall, at the beginning of the plan, there was a more comprehensive want for the Parks and Rec Commission. We had originally come up with a scope of work that was more robust, but it got refined as the budget had to allow. So there were some cons in terms of, man, I wish it could have been more in this category or more in this category and provided more information. but it just had to get scaled back a little bit. So I don't know if it's a con, but it's one of the rubs that we ran into.

Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, I think we're all set with that. Then you can take a seat, Michelle. And with that, I will open up the public hearing on the Parks and Rec Master Plan. Sarah will read the instructions and...

In a moment, as soon as your screen loads. For public comment, we ask that you state your name and address, indicate 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 is elapsed, the timer will beep. And finally, we request that all language be respectful.

Thank you. Grant Parsons, 895 Washington Street, a city resident. I want to speak about, you're doing a great job of addressing parkland and the way we treat it in this town. It means so much, the parks, the green spaces. I want to address the specific issue of inventory. It's so important what is a parkland in Traverse City. As long ago as 1986, I litigated the Bayview Mall litigation concerning what's now known as Lot B and T for NMEAC. We challenged whether that lot could be given, that land could be given away to a developer who was gonna build a six-story parking deck and a commercial development where the farmer's market is right now. I argued that case in front of Judge Forster. He ruled that land was park land and it had to be voted on by the city. voters uh and and uh we won that vote that that's why the farmers market is now there since then there have been numerous park elections uh litigated the division street parkland i've litigated the bijou and fish pass most recently and in all of those cases part of your inventory is going to come into play was it parkland that's the key issue in each one of those cases And I notice at page 50 of your inventory, it does not include lot B or lot T. Those are the only, there's arguments to be had about lot T, but lot B, it's the only absolutely judicially guaranteed parkland in Traverse City, but it's not in the inventory yet. All right, now I understand there are, so that's a key missing thing because as it came up again in the Fish Pass Union Street Park Dam litigation. The issue started out, is that dedicated parkland? It kind of went beyond that in the Court of Appeals, but we spent a lot of time and we had to come up with historical documentation of the status of that land. you know as well as i and i think ben just mentioned that under his charter uh sections 28 and 126 our city charter which trumps everything I hate to use that word, but it changes everything. It requires special consideration if land is parkland. It requires a vote. And La B, La T, I'm not sure where the parkland is along Division Street, how that's identified. But the significance is that this city has ancestors that really, really valued, even when economic hardship was on us, valued parkland. made special efforts to protect it under Charter Section 28 and 126, and it has been litigated. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. Any other comments on this item?

Yeah, Judy Nelson, 429 Garfield Avenue. I just want to say that I really support and thank you for considering doing the inventory and getting that started. We need that inventory for reasons that Ben and Grant have suggested. Parks are very important to the city residents. extremely important and we need to know which ones have this I've been dedicated versus not dedicated what their histories are what their deed who gave them or whether the city purchased them or it was reverted from taxes etc how did we get those parks what's the history and what can we you know and and from there I frankly think we need to think about the commission dedicating those parks so that we're sure that they're protected and that the charter comes into play when somebody suggests doing something different with them. I thank you for it very much.

Thank you, Judy. Any other public comment while the hearing is open?

Hi everyone, Jesus Villa, Traverse Heights. I think it's a question. Well, first of all, I want to applaud you with this master plan because most of the master plans in any city just sits in a shelf. And in this time, it's like, hey, we have a strategic plan. Okay, let's align it with the strategic plan. Hey, we have OKRs, objective skill results. Okay, let's also align it with those. But I think I have a question, and you don't have to answer it right now. I mean, I'm going to ask you anyway. So what metrics is the city going to use, or are you planning to use any metrics? So we have the master plan, but we have what the users and what the residents do in the city. which metrics or like in what timeline do you have like to make sure that in a certain time we're going to match this master plan with the people is doing you know I mean that's the idea because okay if we're doing the master plan and the people is like hey we're not going to use this park and it deviates I mean that's one thing in five years is a lot so it's just like a question of thing to consider like how are we gonna make sure

that the people follows the master plan uh you know you know i mean or maybe we'll need to the master but we need to follow what the people is doing you know so i just like that that okay thank you thank you any other public comment at this time i will now close the public hearing on the parks and rec master plan uh if any commissioners have any questions we can ask them now or we can have a motion to open it up to mitch

Yes, going forward with the inventory process and identifying what areas are deeded parkland is the expectation that those designations align with the current park and or parcel boundaries or could there be issues where it was set up at some point in time and since then there's been either a road encroachment or Additional land was added, but that didn't have the That didn't change the original dedication of what was parkland and thus not only will we have to do the inventory, but we'll have to hire surveying work to figure out where those boundaries actually are.

Short answer, that's possible. I know I had a meeting with Director Hunt earlier this week, so we're going to take a look at all of those issues as well. Hopefully, we can get to the bottom of what the initial dedication was because that's really the key factor. The size and if surveys are necessary to determine the actual parkland versus parks, then we'll recommend that.

Actually, Jackie, do you mind if I really quickly ask Michelle Jesus' question? Michelle, can I have you come up and just kind of, I know you explained that you went through a robust public input process to get where you are. We do have, this is a four-year plan, and I know we've talked about with other plans that about a year left, we check in on those and kind of start planning for the next leg. So can you kind of address Jesus' question of how you're going to be checking in throughout those four years and what kind of, how you transition for the next plan that will be coming up?

So one of the things that we did in starting this plan was looked at everything that was left over from the last plan and tried to evaluate and actually had Tower Pinkster ask the public, like, hey, do you still want this? Like, how do you feel about that? So there will be the carryover of things that we haven't accomplished that we start to look at. mean we all know that the projects you know like the bathroom project parkway took me about three and a half years to do so that was part of the realistic timelines and completing these construction projects i plan to have check-ins with the parks commission if not quarterly then more than that and just give updates and say kind of like how we're doing with the brown bridge parks improvement fund projects this is where we're at which i need to do that for july which we will we will have that at the next meeting so update the commission update the parks and rec commission on the status of these projects and let you know how we're doing on them and that's public and um we would love for guests to come to the meetings and then we can explain that too so there isn't i don't necessarily have like a rubric for it but i think it's just about communication communication because where we think we might be in july we're not sure so it would just be good to you know keep quarterly updates i think as i worked my way around to that answer

Okay, no problem. And Jackie, your question? My question had to do with maintenance, which I'm so happy to hear that that's an increasing priority. I wondered if there were any specific project examples of maintenance that, you know, is within this plan that you could share with us?

The tree canopy. So the urban forestry was one of the major considerations for maintenance and how important our tree canopy is and how important our urban forestry program is to the city, to the residents. So focusing, we already do a great job, we put a lot of focus on it, but it's one of those instances, it's a very important division within the Parks and Recreation Department that maintenance of our urban forestry canopy is critical. So that was actually kind of the driver behind focusing on maintenance was not forgetting how important working on archery work is in the department.

And so will that be receiving more funding, a revision of policies? Is there anything directionally that you could?

Those are discussions we'll be having internally and then that'll be part of the budget process. And so, that'll be coming to you with the next budget.

Next year? Mm-hmm.

Thank you.

Other questions or a motion?

I move that the resolution for the 2026-2030 parks and recreation master plan be adopted and further that the city manager will present a parkland inventory by December 21st, 2026 and the parkland inventory will be added as an amendment to the master plan.

Support.

Okay, thank you Commissioner Shaw and Ness. Any further, now we can have open discussion too. Any discussion or questions?

i just uh i think i think this was a good process and it was done the right way survey respondent answers are just baseline as far as public interest and concerns in relation to parks and anything in general but this process was important to get it right so it was slightly delayed And that came from public comment and concern outside of the surveys and the members of the Parks and Recreation Commission. So I really appreciate that we delayed this to get it right and that with the recommendation of the city manager, we're gonna actually have a parkland inventory when this is all said and done. So we talk a lot about how the sausage gets made and this is the right way to make sausage, so.

Making sausage is never pretty, but yes. Any other comments? Go ahead, Heather.

Yeah, a group of residents has done a lot of work researching this inventory ahead of this. And I hope that Michelle and whoever is responsible for putting this together will be willing to take a look at that.

Absolutely. Ask that they provide that to Michelle.

And to be vetted by Mr. Kelly's already got his first assignment here in his second meeting. So he'll be the primary on that. Yes. Lance?

Yeah, I just want to say that I am excited to see the inventory. Hopefully we can have maybe an interactive map with our ArcGIS. It would be really cool.

That's great. Any other comments? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Looking forward to all of that, the plan and the inventory.

Thank you.

OK. Next on our agenda is the two-way traffic. And Ben, you can kick that off.

Absolutely. So at the February 17th City Commission meeting earlier this year, the City Commission reviewed the pilot findings and requested some additional information before making a decision in particular cost estimates associated with a one-way or a two-way more permanent conversion. I say more permanent because the City Commission always has a prerogative to change that through traffic control order. The city commission also asked that the newly created or recently created Complete Streets Advisory Committee look at the project and provide thoughts to the city commission and to the city manager. And you have those thoughts in your packet, and the public has had the opportunity to see them. and of course commissioner bomer is the chair of that committee i don't want to entirely speak for it but their opinion was that two-way configuration better aligns with complete streets principles when compared to a one-way configuration and so you have that recommendation from the complete streets ad hoc committee that it be a two-way orientation the city i retained a traffic engineering consultant you might remember earlier in the year They reviewed the traffic engineer that was retained by the DDA. That individual's recommendation in both engineers have recommended two-way configuration, and as I said, your Complete Streets Advisory Committee. And so I think that's about all that I've got, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have or at least attempt to.

We have questions?

Heather and then and Ken I do so the the costs that are in our packet here include the turning Front Street into two-way isn't that correct and also the traffic signals that I believe are totally crucial to the success of a two-way on State Street those aren't included either

Ann, do you mind just speaking to the cost estimates? Of course, this scope is not at all intended to affect Front Street, but the questions, did you hear the questions or you want me to repeat them?

I think I have. Okay, great. At least the first one for sure. I'm looking at the cost estimate for the first priority project. So there was like three different priority projects and the first priorities were, removing that island at Pine in front. You know that old, it's like a pork chop shape. That was a high priority because it's pretty confusing when you get to that intersection. And then the other was extending two-way operations on front just between Pine and Union. And this came as a recommendation through the design team and also the DDA's engineer. But that doesn't have to be done right away. It's maybe something we can talk about further. so our highest priority was was removing that island and what was the other question Heather I'm sorry traffic signals so I think that's in priority number two in front of me but and it doesn't require replacing the entire signal it's just the light part of it the signal heads to add a left turn signal phase. So it will allow, I'm sure you've all been stuck there when trying to go straight and someone in front of you is going left and you can't get through. So this would allow a phase where there would be just a left turn signal in each of the east and west directions.

And that was recommended by the traffic?

Correct, yes.

And where is that? Is that in our packet, these phase one, phase two changes?

It is maybe one of the links that you need to click on. Yeah, it's the link.

It's a link.

So there's a link from Benjamin's memo that if you click on that link to the February agenda items, are you seeing that from the memo from February 10th?

February 17th.

Go into the meeting notes.

I'm sorry, the memo's date of February 10th. The meeting was February 17th. If you go to the very end of that, I want to say it's on page 58, but let me double check. Correct. Is it a 69-page document? Mm-hmm. Yeah, so if you scroll way down to...

starts on page 58 this is the memo from the um i see it front street and pine street so that's number one state street and union street x intersection number two mid block crossings and parking number three and then more evaluation So what does the motion that we're looking at actually cover?

The motion would just cover two-way State Street. The motion is to make that two-way State Street configuration permanent until such time as it may be rescinded by future city commission action. And it's State Street between Pine Street and Boardman Avenue and Boardman Avenue between State and Front.

And so that does not include the new? It does not include front. Correct. It does not include front.

It's two front as the intersection, not two union front.

And does it include the traffic signal change?

That would be a future project to change the signals.

People are not going to be happy. Oh, no.

This is about the traffic control order, so what would happen after it was made permanent, then we can take actions. Right now, the other argument being made at the time, well, this has been a pilot project, was why would we spend money on traffic signals if it's a pilot until it's made permanent? So we're kind of getting into a chasing our own tails scenario.

Okay, well, hopefully it comes back right away.

There we go.

Ken, you had your hand up.

Yeah, I guess it kind of aligns with what Commissioner Shaw had questioned in that, This decision has financial implications tied to it and they all exceed the city manager's spending limit and require a five to two vote to support. So I don't understand, especially the fact that we can just rescind this if we feel like we want to for future actions. I think that traffic control has already expired. What? My question is I don't think that this recommendation is appropriate for this motion.

that is i will just say um whenever the city commission uh has adopted traffic control orders uh the expenses associated with them usually are handled subsequent to being made permanent and the thinking is i'm sort of reiterating what the mayor said that why would we do that unless it's made permanent by the city commission and you the commission can always risk you can rescind essentially

any traffic control order i'm speaking broadly there would be liability implications but the city commission has that prerogative and that authority so i guess to my point is if we support this as two-way and maybe it's a five to two vote or a four to three vote or six to one vote it'll it'll remain two-way but if we can't get a five to two vote to support the funding to actually implement these changes what's the point so that's what causes me concern with the motion as it's written

And I would just say it's two-way right now without those things, those elements. And so the typical course of action would be make the traffic controller permanent, if that's your desire, to have State Street be two-way in a permanent sort of fashion. And then we will come back with the expense. And then if that doesn't pass at the city commission level, then the commission has the option to either rescind that traffic control order or to just not include those elements if you didn't approve the expense. It would be four votes to rescind the traffic control order. So it's not like a higher threshold.

And to just clarify though, if we did rescind it and make it one way, there's expenses attached to that as well?

Correct.

So either way, there's going to be expenses coming behind this decision? That's right.

I think the returning it to one way expenses were understood when we turned it into two way. We knew we would have to potentially turn it back to one way. That's an implied cost. This is like the two-way costs aren't implied. The one-way returning it to one-way was implied when we turned it from one-way into two-way.

As a member of the body at the time when that decision was made, it was very much implied that either decision was going to cost us money. And so that wasn't, the idea was can we make this a better street And yes, it's going to cost money if we keep it two-way by that way and it will cost money if we go back to one way. But I don't want to have our decisions previously summarized as we thought we'd be able to just kind of change it back and no big deal and to see, you know, willy-nilly how things were going to go.

I didn't think it would be no big deal but I think it was understood that there will be a cost regardless.

Regardless, yes.

questions right now or do we have a motion go ahead Jackie I have several safety related questions and perhaps there are some insights from the committee that has reviewed this already but emergency vehicle access within the context of the bumper to bumper gridlock that we're experiencing without these traffic light modifications. How do emergency vehicles get through that without any additional lanes or space?

I believe, is there a fire chief here?

I saw him earlier.

okay he left i will tell you that the fire department i can't answer that question specifically but i can assure you that the fire department has representation on the traffic committee and it recommended two-way um and uh

I'm concerned about safety for bicyclists as well as pedestrians. I've received some reports that the two are sharing sidewalk space, not very happily and not very safely. Was that part of the evaluation at this point?

Are you asking that about the Complete Streets Advisory Committee or for the traffic engineers? All of the above.

Anyone who's reviewed it.

We did talk about it at the Complete Streets Advisory Committee meeting. And not necessarily about it. I've never heard of anybody being on the sidewalk, which would be against the rules of downtown on a bike. But there is a bike lane on the street. we acknowledge that the street necessarily isn't complete in either direction and much like most of our streets in our city and so there was some looking at the bike lanes and potentially how can we move the bike lane inside parking as a potential experiment in the future but nothing was set in stone other than the fact that we need a traffic control order for us to actually make some recommendations uh because other than that it's just kind of guessing what the commission is going to do right and in essence that's just i'm the only commissioner on that body so i i uh actually went last in the voting on this uh and so everybody that was there voted first before me on this okay so are are we anticipating that if this is approved tonight that

Then there will be a subsequent approval of expenditures to modify traffic lights and consider some of the solutions that the Complete Streets Committee discussed. And those will all be next steps. And the timing on those might be, how long do we live with the current congestion, I guess, is my next question. TODD BANDUCCI.

Looking to Ann or Harry Burkholder, the DDA director.

That's a great question. I don't know if we have an exact timeline. We've had some recommendations lined out as priorities. So it would be a conversation that the DD has with the city in terms of timing of said improvements or modifications and then the funding that goes with it. We had talked about if we went back to one way and made that decision, we couldn't do that work until after the summer or into the fall anyway. So there's some timing and logistics and then funding considerations that go into that decision. It has been kind of the will of the group to move forward though with something in a timely manner.

Just to clarify, and then I'll hand it back to you, Jackie. But when you're talking about the funding and the DDA being involved, that is with any potential TIF funding and other funding that comes from the DDA. It is also in the TIF plan that will be coming up for a vote. That's one of our next agenda items to have money allocated for that. and or when TIF does expire, then that would be handed over completely to the city, right, for payments and for the cost of all of these changes. So the year involved, DDA is involved in as much as they're gonna help fund it. If that funding mechanism or there is no more money to fund it, it goes strictly back to the city instead of a partnership, correct?

That's correct, and we do have funding already approved for this fiscal year to address some of these improvements. And then the DDA has pledged in this next fiscal year to continue that operation until it's satisfactory met in terms of those modifications by the correction of the city commission.

Just to underscore what Harry said, just so it's it's clear that there wouldn't be any improvements made this year because they're simply not time. So I just want to manage that expectation if you do move forward with this.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. Thank you for letting me clarify, but go ahead if you have more questions, Jackie. Just one more safety question, and it has to do with, was there an evaluation of sight lines relative to parking for people trying to, enter State Street other than at intersections. I mean, there are a fair number of private parking lots and public parking lots, so there is a turning into, and I wondered if that's been taken into consideration and whether the sight lines are adequate for safety.

Those are all things that traffic engineers have a professional and ethical obligation to analyze. And so I put trust in that, that that's their profession and they are, there is high standards for their review as professional traffic engineers. And I don't just say professional lightly, they are certified in that area.

Was it included in their report?

I don't recall if it was specifically that element was specifically included in the written report.

I'd have to go back and look at that. But in terms of sight line between egress and egress, we had some considerations. So, there was a parking space removed. on the parking lot entrance on state street right before cass that was part of this discussion as part of the initial iteration of this project we actually removed parking spaces on the pine curve as you had westbound for those sightline considerations so those have been integrated as part of these discussion as part of these recommendations okay and those would those would be affecting traffic lanes as opposed to um you know like parking lot okay all right thank you

Well, I guess I would say this goes to what we had. The conversation we did 8th Street is private parking lots and such are not our, we have the right-of-way, but we don't have control over the curb cuts. So we did it with ours.

It was more in reference to parking space decisions, which I presume are public. Yes. Go ahead, Lance.

I'll make a motion.

Yep.

All right. I move that the traffic control order 703 or 703 allowing two-way traffic on Pine Street between Front Street and State Street on State Street between Pine Street and Boardman Avenue and on Boardman Avenue between State Street and Front Street be permanently adopted.

Second. Thank you Heather and thank you Lance. And further questions, go ahead.

I don't have a question anymore. I want to say that I concur with a lot of the letters that came in. The West End has totally changed. There's so much housing going in down there. If we were to turn State Street back into one way, it would be sending everybody, don't know into their neighborhoods it would be pushing traffic back onto front street and front street is crowded already and we just passed how many bar liquor licenses tonight six five you know those sidewalks are really crowded we're allowing all these uh places to have uh seating on the sidewalk it'd be really nice if we didn't have so much parking on front street i would like to see that um but that certainly couldn't happen if we if we turned state street back into a one way i also um I don't think that State Street, and this came up a lot when we were putting together the advisory board, the Complete Streets Policy, that State Street is probably not the best way to get across town east and west. It's too car-centric. I think that we need to look at an alternative route. You would come in on Washington. If you're coming from the east side, that's our way to get across. But by the time you get to Cass, you're just kind of hanging out there. So I hope that we can look at that in the future and come up with a better route for bikes. and so much of the success of this depends on getting those left turns to work and getting that traffic to flow smoothly. The more frustration we have on that street, the more people will say we did the wrong thing and so I hope that comes back to us right away.

Well put.

Other comments? Discussion?

Is that for me? I wrote down a little bit and I want to read it just to kind of share my thoughts on this because this has been a long debated topic and discussion. Reasons that we did this. Year one, to relieve construction traffic due to parkway reconstruction. Year two, look at the impact of two-way traffic on the economic impact of State Street businesses, downtown businesses, but we also gathered some traffic flow data. Year three, gather more data on the economic impact and more traffic flow data. What did that data tell us? no noticeable changes in economic impacts, minimal improvements to pedestrian safety, and minimal decreases in vehicle speeds. Those speed decreases and minimal safety improvements are just as easily contributed to gridlock and congestion from roads operating in opposition to how it was designed. Prior to the February meeting, When the direction of State Street was last considered for a vote, staff was not in consensus in regard to what to do with that decision. Our city manager did not feel comfortable making a recommendation either. The experts and consultants will tell us that changing to two-way supports best practice and modern trends. But how many times have we talked about neighborhood and community integrity? Should we be making major changes to our city and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars that we don't need to just because everyone else is doing it? I will argue that there was nothing wrong with the way our downtown loop operated three years ago. And why should we change it if it comes at losing part of our small town charm that makes Traverse City special and not just anyplace USA? One of those regular comments that I hear people say is that they don't even recognize Traverse City anymore. Why as a commission are we contributing to that notion? Now, as the mayor referenced earlier, Eighth Street, I all want us to think about the Eighth Street between Woodmere and Boardman Avenue and whether you like the current configuration or not, how that process developed the current environment and configuration. A need for major underground infrastructure was identified and an opportunity to repair the road was aligned. along with appropriate funding mechanisms. Public input was collected and the intention of helping to produce a community and multimodal finished product was developed. Why are we looking at State Street any differently than this? Why is there a push for this patchwork approach to make it work? Because that's what I heard a couple of times tonight is, let's just pass this and we'll figure out how to make it work. We're going to try and make it work for two-way traffic to be forced into an environment that it wasn't engineered or created for as its intended use. This feels like scraping the frosting off a cake and putting something different on it. When this isn't a cake at all, this is a road that has underground infrastructure needs and real costs that come at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Reductions in lane sizes, traffic light configurations, creating turn lanes, adjusting bump out sizes, and parking spaces are going to require more money than a return to the safer original one-way design that the road was designed and engineered to be. I'll just wrap this up with this. I shouldn't say that, I'm sorry. The progressive study recommends the implementation of Front Street for a two-way traffic, which I have heard but not been officially told is off the table. Why is that? In 1967, after the last one-way versus two-way argument, the residents of Traverse City put together a ballot referendum and permanently designated Front Street as one-way. Since that time, Front Street has been named one of the 10 greatest streets in America by the American Planning Association. Do we want to be anywhere USA? Do we want unnecessary changes just because everyone is doing it? Do we want to spend taxpayer dollars on change that isn't necessary or justified by good data? Or do we plan and implement a process that takes into consideration community input through a thoughtful engagement process that has a focus on multimodal transportation and is responsible with taxpayer dollars? Do we prepare a surface project with an underground infrastructure project that incorporates stormwater management, new freshwater and sewer lines and aligns with our strategic pillars? All that said, every every little bit of that. I don't disagree with state becoming a two way street if it's done right. This is not the right way. What we're being asked to do here tonight, in my opinion, is not the right way to do this. We should do this like 8th Street.

Thank you for sharing. Ken Laura.

Thanks Ken, I appreciate the historical framework. I think that was likely helpful for lots of people who maybe haven't followed the back and forth of State Street and Front Street. But I think we do need to acknowledge that a lot has changed downtown over the last four years. We don't have the same traffic patterns or the same downtown flow that we had four years ago when this change was made. And back in February, this commission asked for two things. We asked for a recommendation from the newly convened Complete Streets Committee, and we asked for an outline of what the costs would be.

We now have both of those things in front of us.

And I think at some point we have to stop moving the goal post. So we have this information along with a recommendation from the city's retained traffic engineer. That's a professional that understands all of these issues related to safety and sight lines and traffic flow and what's the best recommendation for State Street. And I think as policy makers, our role is to weigh the evidence, weigh what's in front of us despite our personal opinions of how we like to drive. Cuz I know my opinion on how I like to use State Street may be different from the final recommendation. But I think we have to give significant weight to the recommendation from the new Complete Streets Committee. I think that's really important. This is their first recommendation of a committee that we convened and we put together. and the technical experts that we engaged. So for those reasons, I'm prepared to support this recommendation and I'm confident that we will do this right based on what staff brings back to us for the traffic light configuration and the other changes that have to be made for State Street.

Anyone else? Mitch?

Yes. I would also like to thank Commissioner Funk for his insightful analysis. When we had this initially brought before us, there was, yes, the issue of how do we account for congestion with Granby Parkway being closed, but there were a number of other potential benefits raised, increased foot traffic on State Street, increased commercial development on State Street. less cars circulating looking for parking spaces, more people that were parking in one place and then walking to multiple locations on both State and Front. None of that has been quantified in any way that compares State Street to front street or that looks at the trend lines pre-pandemic and how we have bounced back. Yes, there's been increased growth in pedestrian use and increased development along State Street, but we knew when we started this project that there were a number of Parcels that were up for sale or already in development along State Street So it would be entirely predictable that we'd see increased commercial use regardless of what happened with the traffic configuration But we haven't seen data that people are circulating the block any less or that people are as was raised before we started this project and again after this and the degree to which two-way versus one-way affects people going into and out of the neighborhoods as alternate through routes. I can see that there seems to be more traffic going down State Street east of Boardman, but I don't have the data to support that because I'm not a traffic engineer. I have not seen that in the data that we've been given. have there been disasters on a broad scale no and you can look at the slight decreases in speed and other metrics of safety and say that we've made progress but we were sold this um on a number of things and i don't feel that a lot of those have worn out yet thank you mitch lance

Yeah, I just wanna, we got an email earlier today, 8.36 a.m. from a resident at the West End Lofts, and it really struck me. She said that she typically leaves the house twice a day on average, and it takes about two additional minutes to go around the entire block, which would be necessary in their vehicle if State Street was essentially one way. Doing the math, it was 24 hours a year of additional time burning fossil fuels. in their vehicle. And then they noted that there's 90 units in the building. I think State Street has evolved significantly and is evolving significantly. And we need to think about the most efficient way to not force people to go around the block if they're trying to get to their home. And so that's just one reason amongst the many others that you've all heard me talk about why I'm supporting this.

So I wanted to take a second, and thank you for that, Lance, and say really quickly I wanted to address one thing that we haven't officially been told Front Street isn't off the table, but Front Street isn't part of this. That's as close to official as we can get. If somebody else wanted to bring Front Street in, it has to be a totally separate conversation. It has to be brought up in a separate way. So I just want to make that clear because I think sometimes with all that that's been floating around for the last, year and a half or so, we've heard it at DDA meetings, we've heard it here, that that is not, this isn't gonna get, if this stays in order, it doesn't mean that Front Street will be converted to two ways at all. That has to be a totally separate conversation if that were to ever happen and has been pointed out in historical record, there's some protections against that. So I wanted to clarify that because that has been conflated a lot over time. The other thing I wanted to say is I'm actually, this conversation I find in a very odd way kind of delightful in a weird way because I remember sitting in charrettes for 8th Street and having everybody say, this is terrible. This is a horrible process. The road is gonna be terrible. There's all these bike people here that aren't listening to the neighborhoods. And then there's all these people from the neighborhoods don't want anything to change. And it's gonna be terrible for walking and biking. And now it's being held up as this great civic project that we did. And I think it has, as somebody who also benefits by living off of it, It has been a great result of a lot of public input and a lot of careful planning and processing. Now, where we had the advantage there, and I will say this, that charrette happened, I believe, just after I was elected for the first time in 2015, and I had the, of by the time I run for reelection in 2019, 8th Street will be done and we'll have the loop finished on Boardman and everything is gonna be moving along. The 8th Street change opened one week after I was reelected in 2019. And so this idea that we had this charrette and everything happened and magically we had all this money just sitting there to go ahead and do the project all at once, that's not how our funding works a lot of the time. I think it's very fair for Heather and everybody else to say, look, what can we do? When can we have the traffic light come back if we do this? When can we do this? It realistically will take some time of bringing things back to the complete streets ad hoc to figure out how we're gonna add some of these lanes or can we take out some parking and put in some more bike lanes, things like that. I think that this is a bit of a trust taking, I won't say a trust fall, but one of those steps. I'm thinking of like if anybody's watched Lord of the Rings where you take the step and assume that the bridge is there even if you can't see it. Sorry, I'm being a nerd for a minute.

But I think that this, What season and episode are you referring to? Lord of the Rings. Oh, Lord of the Rings.

Sorry. Gandalf. But I think that it's not a huge leap that we're taking. I think it's just the way that government works. And so this does become that circular thing that Benjamin alluded to as well. Until this is permanent, we can't go for funding for some of these things. Until this is permanent, the complete streets can't come in with solid recommendations. We've had two traffic engineers weigh in. We've had the complete streets ad hoc weigh in. and i will say that everybody keeps talking about this having been done a few years ago because of construction and that was it but the actual first experiment with this was in 2020 during covid and that allowed us to shut down front street during the summer and allowed people to walk down it and i still to this day get so many residents and people saying why don't we close down just front street in the summer like we did that year that was so great and that's a totally different debate too but i think that that is another thing showing that when we, if we adopt this and start looking at things, it's gonna open up bigger conversations and possibilities as well, like potentially having more on-street, you know, making all of Front Street pedestrian friendly in the summer or something else that none of us have even thought of yet. And so I just, this is a traffic order that we'd be making permanent. We could also in three or four years say, look, money is dried up, there's nothing here. At this point, because we can't do what we really wanted to, a commission could say, let's change it back to one way. But this is what we're saying, this passes tonight, we're saying, this is what we're willing to explore, but not have it as a pilot. This is what we're really, truly willing to try and commit to and move forward with as a city. That's where I wanted to add a little bit of the perspective, because I appreciate the acknowledgement of 8th Street being a lot of input and a lot of effort and a lot of money, and it was, and I think that that could be the result of this if we can do some more input and things as we're gathering for some of the information and trying to get some of that funding to complete what the Complete Streets Ad Hoc is looking at and our bike and walking community as well. So I just wanted to add that little bit of perspective from the time in the trenches. Go ahead, Ken.

i will just say that you made a great statement about why you should support what i said the idea that we have to turn this into two-way before we can figure out how to make it work i think is the backwards way of doing this that is irresponsible with money And I think that the right way, it's understood that the study data says modern trends, all these different reasons, a recommendation from our Complete Streets Committee. I appreciate it. I very much appreciate it. We need to do this the right way and the right way is to create a plan, implement the plan, obtain the community input sessions. I think that's what's gonna make this successful instead of saying, nah, we're just gonna change this because we want to.

Well, somebody who's classifying my words for me, I'm going to clarify a little and say the whole point of this was until we make this permanent, we can't take any of those steps. And so that was the impetus of what I was saying and how we got to 8th Street the way we did. So if we say no to this, we're not making it permanent, why would we invest money in studying something? If this isn't permanent, why would we invest any money on making it better? It would just go back to being one way and people can get doored by cars again. So I appreciate where you're trying to go with that, but I'm also going to say that I think that if we're going to have a plan, we have to have a traffic controller. And that was part of what I was saying about the process there.

We've said a lot about how the traffic controller can be rescinded at any time. Yep.

Anything we do can be rescinded at any time.

I understand that, but I think that argument does not support that we have to do this before we can do any planning. We can plan to redo State Street, and during that plan we can have the discussion of the curb-to-curb reimagining of the track flow directions along with the multimodal integrations. That I believe.

I guess I would say if we go back to one way, though, we are going to be looking at how do we make it one way. we won't be looking at the complete street anymore. We won't be looking at other alternatives. That's what we'll be looking at. And so that doesn't lend itself to having this. Or we're gonna be asking taxpayers to pay for money for a study for a street that's been designated to turn one way that we're now thinking about changing back to two-way again.

This whole process has been very messy. I will not disagree with that at all. Sausage. No, this is gonna be a tasty one for sure. I really don't have anything else to say.

That's okay. Others? Go ahead, Jackie. As I listen to all of this input, I'll tell you that I came in prepared to support permanent conversion to two-way. And the more I listen, the more I'm thinking that what I'm being asked for is a tradeoff between short-term pain for long-term gain And where I stumble is that there's no timeline associated with that short-term pain. The more I hear, and I'm listening to Commissioner Treadwell talk about our lack of metrics and data and quantitative results from this pilot, and I'm talking about funding availability, and we're talking about how long it will take to have safety for pedestrians and bicyclists on State Street. And I'm losing faith that we're going to get there and that we're going to just live with short-term pain. And I'm sorry to share my anxiety with you, but this does not seem like a well-organized, progressive plan that... is going to come to fruition. Thank you, Jackie. That's all. Thank you for sharing.

Other comments right now? Seeing none, I will open this up for public comment. If you have any public comment, please feel free to address us at the podium, line up if there's a few people who want to do it.

Noah Roth, 309 West Front Street. first i just want to address uh you know i think this process like we've said is a very iterative process and this is the first step in that and as part of the complete streets committee first of all i appreciate the opportunity to be able to review this and give input but there are multiple things that as you have all said uh we do need to take next steps on and But we can't do that yet until we have this traffic order and that's why this is important. And so I also just wanna like iterate that when we look at any sort of street, it's always part of a complete network. And so we were reminded of this back in April when we had all the flooding and South Airport Road was closed. And we felt the effects of that on our local traffic system. And even though we weren't directly impacted by that, We still felt it. And that's because all of our roads together make one larger network. And State Street is no different when it comes to downtown traffic circulation. And so when we talk about bringing State Street back to one way, we're affecting all of downtown circulation. And when we talk about bringing it back to what it was four years ago, as we've said, downtown is very different than it was four years ago. And so all of the development on State Street and all of the development in the west end of downtown relies on this being two way now. in order to get around downtown efficiently. And so when we're looking at going back, we're gonna have effects all over downtown. Front Street, for example, we're gonna have an increase in traffic on Front Street if we go back to one way. We're gonna see all westbound traffic funneled through Front Street. And Front Street is our most active pedestrian street in the entire city. And so every single car that we send down there is one additional opportunity for a conflict between a bicycle, pedestrian, or a driver. And so, You know, if we go over to like Union Street, too, we're looking at all of that development that's going on in that west side of downtown. When you look at the apartments that have gone in, the apartments that are going in actively, and especially the potential parking garage, this is hundreds of daily trips that is using this two-way street, you know, as it is right now. And so if we look at how traffic would flow in a one-way configuration, all westbound traffic would have to flow through that Union block. This means those two intersections on Front Street and State Street, that's hundreds of cars, additional cars that are having to turn left. Hundreds of additional drivers having to make a conscious decision of if that crosswalk is clear or not. And we're adding all of these variables in that don't exist right now in the two-way configuration. And they also didn't exist four years ago because downtown is so fundamentally different at this point. And so I would strongly support moving forward from this point with the two way configuration rather than going back. So we can finally start to have these conversations about all these potential improvements that we keep throwing around and talking about for months on end and actually getting shovels in the ground and making these safer streets happen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Justin Reed, Traverse City resident. You know, it doesn't matter if it's two way, one way. The traffic gridlock that was mentioned, well, that happens every summer. And it's not in that area. It's just you can go from Pine all the way down to Division. That is full traffic. And that is gridlocked certain parts of the day. That, you know, traffic does not disappear. It does not go anywhere. And that's just how it is.

that no matter what changes you do summer traffic is going to be here it's going to be good luck during certain parts of the day that's just how it is thank you thank you any other public comment on this item seeing none i'll bring it back to the commission any final thoughts seeing none i'll call the vote all in favor aye opposed no roll call please

Commissioner Anderson? No. Commissioner Shaw? Yes. Commissioner Treadwell?

No.

Commissioner Funk?

No.

Commissioner Boehmer? Yes. Mayor Pro Tem? Yes. Mayor?

Yes. Motion passes. All right. Sorry. All right. We'll now move on to the TIF 97 verbiage. This has been brought back to us. Benjamin, do you want to kick it off or do we want to do it?

I'll turn it over to the esteemed city attorney, Mr. Kelly.

Thank you. Thank you. So at the commission's last meeting, July 6th, you were presented with a resolution which is required under your charter and attempting to be consistent with the implementation policy of this commission as well. That ballot proposal identified that there would be a 70% capture by the DDA TIP 97 plan and a 30% was identified as being a reimbursement and there was a lot of discussion by the commission of whether or not that should be identified as a share back and how to identify that. Since that meeting two weeks ago, there's been a significant amount of input comments by residents, input by residents, you know, staff here at the city as well as at the agenda review. I prepared a revised resolution that really is consistent almost word for word with the commission's implementation policy. And in order to accomplish that, so we basically took out the reference And in order to be as consistent with the policy as possible, we only identified that the capture of the DDA would be the 70% which is actually incorporated into the plan. That was the most first significant change. The second significant change is the policy as well as the charter amendment requires us to come up with a projected total captured by the DDA. And as you know from the previous meeting, there was a lot of discussion on what is the percentage increase that should be used. There was a conservative amount of, I believe, 2.4% per year for the 20-year period used in the previous resolution. This resolution actually adopts the historical increase of approximately 7%, so the number has significantly increased. And that's what the resolution that's in front of you here today. It simply states that there is a collection of 70% of the capture and that total amount is on a basis of a 7% per year increase over the life of the 20 years.

Do we have questions for Mr. Kelly right now?

Okay.

Do you have a motion?

I'll make the motion. Thank you. That the resolution approving ballot language for a tax increment financing TIF plan, which schedules a ballot question asking voters if they approve or disapprove of the Traverse City Downtown Development Infrastructure First and Development Tax Increment Financing Plan for the November 2026 election. With the ballot wording as outlined in the resolution submitted with the packet materials for the July 20th, 2026 meeting of the city commission as provided for and consistent with the amended city charter and city of Traverse City implementation policy for Charter Section 28 TIF amendments which acknowledges placing this proposal on the ballot is a ministerial action be adopted. Second. Oh my gosh. Wow. That is terrible.

I was going to say support, but I think Lance got it. Okay.

We'll let you find out. But thank you very much, Heather. That was a Herculean task.

For an editor, it was a painful task. Sarah does a pretty good job.

She does. Okay, do we have any further discussion on this? Go ahead, Heather.

I do. I would have preferred to see the number rounded up to the next whole number because I think that better represents the nature of an estimate. But if there's no support for that, I am perfectly happy to accept it as is. a satisfactory The ballot language is now totally satisfactory as far as I'm concerned except for that one little thing. Jackie and then Lance.

I'd like to second that and say that I think this is a very good faith attempt to create a realistic estimate based on our experience over the last 30 years. And the clarity of the language, the clarity of the thinking, I think is going to allow voters to make good judgments. So thank you. Thank you, Jackie.

Yeah, I would just say that thank you for your ability to listen to us and update the language based on what you heard in the feedback from the last meeting. I think this is a good compromise.

Ken, will you put your hand up?

COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS ALIKE HAD CONCERNS AND THE CONCERNS WERE ADDRESSED AND I THINK EVERYONE IS SUPPORTIVE AND IN AGREEMENTS THAT THE LANGUAGE IS APPROPRIATE YOU KNOW THAT THAT WAS OUR GOAL WHEN YOU WHEN YOU SEE THE NEWSPAPER THIS IS ARE WE DOING QUESTIONS ARE WE DOING COMMENTS THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE SO YOU CAN MAKE OKAY THANK YOU I WAS LOST I JUST WHEN YOU READ SOMETHING IN in media and it says that commission doesn't support something, it doesn't tell the whole picture every time. And the important thing was we had to delay this so that we could get this right. Our responsibility was to make sure the language on the ballot for the voters was as appropriate and accurate as we could possibly get it to. And that's what we wanted. That's what the delay came from. We're just, we're making, talking about sausage last night, we're making better sausage, just like with the Parks Master Plan. And we're taking the extra steps and the time to do it right. So I appreciate this process a lot. Thank you.

Well put, Ken. I appreciate you talking about it. That's a very good point about taking the time to do it right. Thank you. Laura?

So I'd like to echo the comments that have already been made and thank everyone who worked so hard in making all of these revisions and really taking the time to get it right. It's our responsibility to place this before the voters in a way that's clear and fair and objective and easy to understand. And I believe that this language accomplishes that goal and we got it right.

any other comments am i sensing that there's maybe consensus to round that number up i think it's good i do i do understand that the zeros at the end may be more reflective of an estimate but i think that i'm content with it we just wait this right now so we can get something voted on and get it on the ballot okay okay

Seeing no other comments right now, I'll open up for public comment on this item. Any public comment on this item?

Again, Jesus Villa, Travis Heights. I have a question. So I'm going to vote no for the TIF election. But I have a question. like okay what happens if like everyone votes like against like do the city has a plan because i mean what i'm seeing what i'm thinking like my what i'm thinking right now is that like the city wants this to get approved But like, I mean, because the DDA, I mean, Facebook, TIFF is good, blah, blah, blah, but what about, no, I mean, the city like has any independence analysis that like will like release or you know, are you gonna campaign? Because I mean, without this TIFF, I mean, they will owe a lot of money to beta, NMC, the library. The thing is, I just found out about this because I read something and investigated, you know. Not everyone knows this. uh you know the residents are still and i still confused like wait like what happens if we both know like i don't know if the city has like any plan or is planning on releasing like you know because i mean zero percent to thirty percent but like last we were talking about the stormwater fee and then the pavement there there's no no money for uh or well like snow removal The deficits, and there's money going to 300 people, 315 residents in 140 acres. So it's a no brainer for me. But I would like to see if the city has something to say. And I know you're not going to say, hey, but at least, I don't know, a flyer, a paper, or something. That's my concern. That's my wife's concern.

Thank you, Jesus. Any other comments on this item?

Judy Nelson, 429 Garfield Avenue. I support the ballot language that you have. I would have preferred 140 million instead of 139, 900 and whatever it is, because I just think it's easier to understand, but it's okay. I think, I do thank you for taking the time to get it right and for actually doing what the implementation policy says with the projected total value, et cetera. I do want to sort of point out that we need to stop saying shared back, refund, reimbursement. None of that is accurate and we need to get this campaign and what we tell the voters accurate. The DDA doesn't own that money. That money is the millages that go to the taxing authorities. They own that money and the DDA is not refunding it or reimbursing it or sharing it back. So I just think we need to stop. We need to watch our language and find a way to really say instead that Didi, that the 30% is the money that originally was intended to go to those authorities and will still be going to those authorities. I don't know if I'm making that clear or not but that's my point that we need to really be careful about the language.

Thank you, Judy. Any other public comment on this item?

Here, DDA's attorney. Just wanted to read you a section of the Tax Increment Financing Act, which is section 214, and underneath that portion of that section, pardon me. Subparagraph 4 provides that the authority can enter into agreements with the taxing jurisdictions and the governing body of the municipality in which the development area is located to share a portion of the captured assessed value of the district. So the statute itself provides that money is shared. So just I would advise to continue to look at the statute when you're looking at these interpretations of how the plan adoption is supposed to move forward.

Thank you. Any other public comment? I'm going to say seeing none, I'm going to bring it back. Just to help, Jesus raised a couple of good points. We do not campaign as a city or as a DDA. both Benjamin Marentette and Harry for the DDA and city addressed some of this, the financial implications during the budget discussion. So if you go back and watch some of the budget meetings, that is discussed in those meetings. So just wanted to clarify that. Okay, bringing it back, Mitch.

uh to echo some of what you said our role is to uh in accordance with state law our city charter and our own policies to pass language since now we have a proposed tiff creation modification or extension this is a modification slash extension uh so it does meet one of those criteria that has uh put forward effort to get on the ballot as required in our charter, and now we have to evaluate language for fairness. After extensive discussion two weeks ago, we have language that is at least more consistent with other language used. Is it fair? That ultimately comes down to individual voters. I could argue that using the same formula for projected revenues for a lot of millages is uh less fair to this because this is a much longer span of time than say a five-year millage proposal and thus has a larger chunk of total money um especially towards the end of that when yes uh revenues will be higher but also due to the ever-present uh costs of inflation everything that the city want or the dda wants to do from trash collection to policing to road construction will cost more as well But this is the language that follows our own city charter, follows our implementation policies, is compliant with state law as best as we can know. And hey, it was a compromise between the people behind the desk and various interested parties in our community.

Thank you very much for that. And just actually I realized I crossed one thing out before I said it. Also just wanted to clarify that the City of Traverse City collects all taxes and distributes them to either the DDA or our millage taxing jurisdictions. The DDA does not actually collect taxes at all. So just wanted to clarify that too as part of our answer. So with that, I will go ahead and call the vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, everyone. Now on to our new business, Hickory Hills Recreation Area. Benjamin, why don't you kick us off with that, please?

Yes, I'm excited to present this item to the city commission. The city-owned Hickory Hills Recreation Area is a community treasurer. It's aligned with multiple strategic action plan pillars. including building a thriving year-round economy, creating a complete community, strengthening placemaking and neighborhood character, fostering regional collaboration, and finally, and significantly supporting environmental sustainability. The Hickory Hills Recreation Area, I want to point out, has received a lot of generous financial support from private sources in the millions of dollars over the last several years to make investments into Hickory Hills Recreation Area. I want to say that, like any park, Hickory should not be viewed as a break-even type of an operation. All parks need public taxpayer support. And I'll just say, for instance, we don't look at the balance sheet for the open space or F&M Park and those types of things. other park land uh with that said since i became city manager i've identified that the operating model that we have in my professional opinion despite good intentions hasn't worked well this requires thinking differently about how we approach things and i believe it is our responsibility to one of our treasured community and park assets to do so And the primary driver for my recommendation is to elevate the user experience and better honor the financial support both publicly and privately that Hickory has received. With that said, while this approach would in my opinion greatly enhance the experience and service level, it also represents an $83,800 decrease in city funding. That decrease in city funding could be even greater. if additional revenue is realized through the incentive built into the contract. So at the end of the day, I believe this positions us to, or positions Hickory to better provide better and more service at less of a cost. The employee team and I did pursue a parallel track as we were approaching this winter season, which will be here before we know it. And that was one, continuing with the same model, including hiring a Hickory Hills manager who would be a full-time city employee along with other one other full-time employee as well as other Parks and Recreation Department employee support. We do have two finalists for the Hickory Hills manager position who we've kept informed along the way. Or the other option that we've pursued in parallel is to try something new and bold, which would be to engage North Country Alpine Services, who I've already retained under my spending authority for a one-month arrangement to help us tee up the next season for success. So we've projected, I'm not going to get into all that, but I will say Hickory presently has two full-time employees allocated. One is the Hickory Hills manager and one is the general union employee. If this approach is approved, I will not reallocate that FTE that is the Hickory Hills manager elsewhere in the organization. I would see that as double dipping. But the other FTE could be reallocated and my intention would be to reallocate it permanently or not permanently but in a large way to our Parks and Recreation Department for deferred maintenance, urban tree, canopy which you heard about and also potentially to supplement winter sidewalk snow clearing operations with a headcount that we already have. And so it is my strong advice, also supported by the Hickory Hills Advisory Committee, that we need the assistance of North Country Alpine Services to best position us for a successful winter season. This would be a one-year agreement where they would also be preparing as part of their scope of services documentation to assist the city with pre-season, post-season operations. And at that point in time, once we've moved, we've had this experience under this one-year agreement which would go through April, so not really a full year, we would evaluate do we want to continue with that type of an arrangement in which case we would bid this out though i will say at this point i know of no other organizations that are positioned to do this work or we could return to the former or the current model or a hybrid of the two but i want to also share that i um reviewed this proposal at a high level with the Hickory Hills Advisory Committee and it was supportive. I do think that we are at a point in time where it is absolutely critical that we move forward with this in order to position us for success otherwise Despite, you know, what mother nature decides to do, which we have no control over, I do predict that we'll have some of the similar operational issues that we've had in the past. But either way, we need to either move forward with this recommendation of mine or I would move forward with filling that Hickory Hills manager position. I believe my recommendation is the better option. And that's all that I've got for now.

Do we have questions for Ben?

Go ahead, Heather. I do. So, I got to get back up to the top here. So, we are going to save $83,000 which is going to go back to the general fund. Correct. And we're also going to be able to reallocate $190,700 in parks and rec department to go into maintenance and other things. Correct. Correct. correct so 190 yeah yes 190 yes so the um the north country alpine services will retain 80 of revenue over 512 000 so that means if i look way down here at the budget on page five it's way down in here i think it's in the proposal okay yeah it's in the proposal I had it and now I've lost it. Oh, no. Yes? Yeah. So that includes payroll and taxes and those are all the things that we're paying. We're paying them plus all these other things. And the estimated, well, the annual budget is $512,000. So anything that goes over. That number that I just said, which I can't remember now. The 512. So they get to keep 80% of the revenue. Is that how this is working? We are actually paying all these things, $512,000, which includes their operation fee. Correct. And anything that goes over that, they get to keep 80%.

That is correct.

But we are also saving money on the other side.

We're also saving money and we get to keep 20%. They're incentivized to enhance revenue operations and We're looking to them for guidance and recommendations along with the wonderful support of the Hickory Hills Advisory Committee on further enhancements. For instance, I'm excited about the idea of a tubing run at Hickory. It is not only exciting and fun, but they are revenue generators, which can further assist us with elevating the experience and potentially reducing that subsidy.

I have one more question. A letter came in asking about marketing for Hickory Hills, for the lodge. But isn't that part of the agreement we have now with the special event coordinator?

And that agreement does go until May of next year. And then if we continued with this arrangement, it's likely that part of the service would be absorbed by North Country Alpine Services. We'll just see how it goes.

Thank you. Other questions or a motion?

I can make the motion.

Go ahead.

I move that the competitive bidding process be waived and that the mayor and city clerk execute a professional services agreement with North Country Alpine Services with the terms as generally outlined in the city manager's July 16th, 2026 communication and also supplemented by the proposal as included with the official meeting materials for the city commission's July 20th, 2026 meeting. for the operation of the city-owned Hickory Hills recreational area with funds available in the Hickory Hills fund with such agreement subject to approval as to its substance by the city manager and its form by the city attorney.

Second. All right. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Ness and Commissioner Shaw. Any further discussion on this? Mitch and then Jackie and then Laura.

through the whole hiring process for the manager and now that we're down to two filings, those candidates have been appraised that we could be going in an alternate direction.

They have been by our human resources department, yes.

Jackie? Use of North Country services obviously represents an entirely new business model for Hickory. And I wondered in terms of evaluating various scenarios, was there a worst case scenario presented and evaluated and what might that have looked like? And what's the downside here? What risks are we looking at in addition to the benefits?

Sure. And I'll ask Michelle Hunter, Parks and Recreation Director, to fill in any gaps here. But, you know, the model assumes a certain amount of revenue, which is what we built our current budget on. So it's not really a shift in that regard. Um, the, um, the risk, uh, is, and I don't see this as a risk, really a compelling one. I wouldn't be bringing it forward. Is it something very new? Uh, it's the city, uh, moving away from the traditional approach of it's our employees. running everything, but they do, they will be accountable to the city. Uh, and if there was an issue and let's say mid season, it just wasn't working out. Uh, we will be all hands on deck, uh, and, and, you know, making it work the best that we can. Uh, I don't see a, uh, a compelling downside. I mean, we looked to, um, we thought through this critically, uh, again, the, the revenue the overall financial picture could not be as rosy if we have terrible weather meaning well some might call it great weather but not good weather for skiing and making snow so it could be that the financial And I really don't like to look at parks in that way. But just because we're talking about this could not be as great, but it is still based on the entire model is based on what we had built the city budget on using city employees. And I do want to point out that by not. Filling that Hickory Hills manager position, not only is that the immediate savings that you see, but we're not incurring the legacy costs associated with a full-time city employee.

Sure.

I hope I answered your question okay.

Yes, if I could ask a follow-up. And I should probably know this from the budget process, but how does the assumption for revenue going forward compare to actual revenue from last year?

I'll ask Ms. Hunt to address that.

so revenue from 2025-26 was about 360 000 and the revenue projection for this upcoming year is about 419 000 and then when we especially when evaluating this proposal the key was to the point that benjamin brought up is to look to the future for the revenue potential And that is going to happen more than likely in the subsequent years if we continue with this model. So year one could look different than years three and four once we get our feet under us. Is that helpful?

It is. Thank you. Laura, you were next.

Yeah, I'm super excited about this proposal because I think it has the potential to represent a bold new chapter for Hickory Hills. And Jackie, to answer your questions, I think that this proposal is low risk and high return. After last season, we all know we experienced delayed openings and we had equipment failures and ongoing operational challenges. I think it became very clear to those of us who were up there quite a bit that we needed to start to think differently about how we operate the ski area. And as the city manager said in his cover memo, if we continue to do the same things, we really shouldn't expect a different result. And our community deserves better than what we delivered last year, and I believe this proposal gives us the opportunity to deliver that. And just remember, every winter night we have the equivalent of an entire elementary school scattered throughout the park. It is truly one of Traverse City's largest parks, not just in terms of acreage, but also in terms of use. Why do I think this makes sense? Operating a ski hill is a highly specialized area, especially with today's challenging climate issues and the related shortened seasons. Rather than asking city staff to become ski area experts, just because we decided we want them to be ski area experts, we have the opportunity to partner with a local professional whose passion and experience are operating successful ski areas. And this will allow the city to focus on governance and oversight while experienced operators focus on delivering an improved experience for our residents. So again, I'm super excited about this. I view it as low risk, high return, and I hope we move forward with this proposal.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Jackie and Mitch. I have been fascinated to see Traverse City Tourism participate in some recreational facilities in the area recently. And I just wonder if there is any opportunity to engage them at Hickory also. It could be a good way for some success for the new person.

Yeah. I appreciate that point.

Mitch?

Yes. I understand why Hickory Hills has decided to go this route as recommended by the advisory committee. But I am disappointed as I often am when I see something that had been handled in-house and then going now to a private contractor. Yes, they may bring more expertise and qualified experience to handling a specific task, like with our wastewater treatment plant, but it also has at least the optics of removing a layer of accountability. They are not direct city employees that are at that hill that are ultimately working in a city park and accountable to the voters do i expect uh mismanagement no i think that the contractor has a very good presentation before us and it will likely be an improvement over the management scheme but it is something that i am concerned about um and feels that diminishes it as a city owned and operated ski hill which is a rare thing even in northern Michigan.

Just one thing if I may respond with respect to the level of accountability I just want to respectfully say and I don't mean this to be I don't have the right word but it's actually in a lot of ways I see it as being this arrangement having more accountability and easier to make accountability oriented changes because frankly if we have an issue, it's a lot easier to terminate a contractor than it is a union employee, for instance, or a city employee in some regards. So I just wanna, I don't like going there, but that is the truth.

Laura? I'd just like a chance to respond to Mitchell, and I am sensitive, Mitchell, to a big change like this in terms of culture, and Hickory has been one of our city parks for 75 years, and we're coming up on that anniversary this year, but Hickory remains a city-owned park. It's going to remain a public park. The city will continue to own the land and the facilities. It will approve the rates and the policies. It's going to oversee the contract, and we will hold the operator accountable for performance, as Mr. Marintet indicated. What changes is who's managing the day-to-day ski operations. we've contracted with experienced professionals to provide specialized public services in other areas and really this is no different and so I again I'm excited about the potential for this change at the city park yeah I'm just reminded a little over a decade ago when the county decided to stop running a

its own pool at the Civic Center in contract with the YMCA, which, yeah, Easeling Pool still exists, you can still go swim there, but the rates have increased, open swim times have gone down, and there have been a number of people that are less happy with how that operates. On other things, for, say, the line painting on our city streets, we are looking at how do we bring that back in-house. For trash collection, that is something that historically was city employees, but for many, many years now is a contract service. But do we always have the level of service that we want from that? It's always a balance of what our resources are and what we can do.

Just to clarify some potential misunderstanding though, Hickory Hills is ours, even if there's a contractor running it, the contractor will not get to pick the price and it's still voted on by the city commission. And that is very different than what happened with the county and how the rate fees, they handed all of that responsibility over. That is in no way part of what's being proposed right now and I want that to be very clear for the public to understand. that we are not handing over that duty of ours to anyone else we at the end of the day make that rate and the staff advises but at the end of the day the seven of us vote on what that becomes or doesn't become correct so just one don't want that to go like wildfire any other comments okay seeing none oh any public comment on this item please

Hello, Tim Pulliam, 516 West 11th, city resident, also a Hickory Hill Advisory Committee member. I'm super excited about this. I love Hickory. I'm there almost every day, all of the seasons, hiking, biking, skiing. I know North Country Alpine Services. I've worked with them on and off for a number of years on all sorts of projects around the Midwest. Good guys, local, and probably most importantly, passionate. They absolutely love skiing. They love winter activities. And it's great that we have a whole team of people that love Hickory as much as I do that, you know, definitely plans to hold them accountable. But at the end of the day, waking up every day and loving what you do is probably the best way to keep yourself accountable. And I really believe that they'll be up every day and they'll be making sure that the pumps are ready, that the snow begins working, that the rope toes are safe, and that the children have an awesome place to come and experience skiing the same way my kids did. So I'm super stoked for it. And In a year if we don't like it, you know it's not that hard to change, so I know they have a lot of support of the Community, they have. Both our support is a hickory hills advisor committee, but also the business operate in town that handles things i'm very familiar with. What they have to do and how they need to do those things things like the snow making pumps and the free drives you had problems with last year i'm confident that they would have been right out there that night and having that stuff fixed so. Excited. Thank you.

Thank you, Tim. Any other comment on this item?

I'm Molly Stanifer. I live at 615 6th Street. So I'm a city member. And I am a board member of the Grand Traverse Ski Club, who provides that affordable accessibility of ski youth programming. We bring the 400 of our community youth to the hill. So we have a good relationship with Hickory Hills. And I simply want to say on behalf of the club, we strongly support the proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Paul Wilkins, City Residence 610 North Madison Street, also on the Hickory Hills Advisory Committee. I support the concept, the model to bring in this consulting firm to take a look at a very complex issue of managing the ski hill. The devil is in the details. I know the city staff will do their best to work out the details. A prior person said if we need to renegotiate in a year, let's do that but I think we don't want to hesitate moving forward on this proposal. Second thing I have to say is marketing. I absolutely appreciate all of your service and the position that you're in but I don't think any of the commissioners or the mayor would be where you're at without active marketing. A passive website. isn't going to get you where you want to be. And we've been very passive as far as our marketing effort to the Hickory Hills Lodge. I'm bullish on the lodge. It's a great venue and it should be utilized a lot more. If we can somehow team up with Traverse City Tourism and get them to help promote a dual beneficial operation where we're filling hotel rooms for destination weddings and utilizing a great venue for the lodge, We need to do that, but marketing is it. And there is no line item that I see for marketing expenditures right now. So like I said, you wouldn't be there unless you know marketing and you know the importance. Thank you.

Ann Marie Buerkle Thank you, Paul.

Good evening, Rod Kivel. I'm an East Bay Township resident, but I am also been acting since 2011 as the patrol director for the volunteer ski patrol at Hickory. Last year, our small patrol is all volunteer. We put in 541 hours joined amongst us. Over the last 10 years, we've put in over $5,500. We are bullish on this too. We want this to happen. I look at this more of a proof of concept. And I think as we've all talked and heard, these things can be changed. They can be administered, that type of thing. But I see, I've been there every, a lot of days, not every day, but a lot of days since 2011. And after the last couple years, we've got to change our way of doing things. Again, the patrol is well aware. Our volunteers are well aware. I've provided them with a full packet. Our patrol supports this thought and I'll look forward to it. We're going to come across probably some things because there's some interaction, some liability with the volunteers, that type of thing that we've got to make sure we cover. But I think that otherwise we support this in its entirety. Thank you.

Thank you and thank you for you and your team's time.

yes thank you anyone else for public comment uh seeing none then ben i know you want to address one of the comments yeah i just wanted to with respect to marketing i agree uh that we've been very passive and that's part of the reason why we engaged a special event coordinator who has a marketing budget and also is incentivized to drive up the use of the lodge and same is going to be the case with north country alpine services so We definitely can do more and that is absolutely the intention. And I do like the idea, I'm just going to say I appreciate the idea that's been shared about TC tourism, so thank you.

And really quickly, just because I know that people are saying for a long time, when was that, when did we retain the event planner again?

Within the last couple months. May.

Yeah, I was going to say, I thought it was May as well, so give us a little time to ramp it up, but it's heard loud and clear and we have already engaged someone for that, so I just wanted to clarify. So, all right, with that, I'll bring it back to the commission. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you.

Yep. And now our last item, let me get this off my screen, for new business is a request from Commissioner Anderson to issue a recommendation to the city commission regarding ADUs. And so, Jackie, do you want to kick that off?

I will. Thank you. This is simply follow-up from our last regular meeting where we – approved the use of the attainable housing program tax incentives for small landlords and There were a couple of follow-up items as a result of that endorsement first that we request the Planning Commission to review and make any recommendations for updates to our current adu regulations and ask that they get back to the city commission by september 30th i was pleased to see that it's already on tomorrow night's planning commission agenda there on top of it and then the second portion was to simply reaffirm our support as a commission and request a timely action in exploring pre-approved adu plans that might expedite the process of having these small landlords who we are incentivizing to be able to actually economically move forward with development. So those are the two aspects of this item. I hope it's appropriate, and I'm happy to relay any information to the Planning Commission if you have comments for tomorrow night. Yeah. Question. Go ahead, Lance.

I love this, first of all. I think it's great to simply reaffirm that we want this to be done. And we all know that there's around 2,200 units that we are lacking in the region. But September 30th, do you think that that's too fast for the Planning Commission? My only question was like is that a little quick?

I was surprised at how substantive the packet information was on that topic already. Okay. So I think that it's aligned with the priorities of the planning commission for 26-27 and so it was sort of on the radar but I think this is maybe. elevated it as a priority a bit. But I think in terms of just an evaluation of where we stand currently and suggestions, I think that's a doable timeframe, aggressive but doable. Laura and then Heather.

yeah i it it's aggressive um it's it's almost august september 30th is is right around the corner and i i'd like to see this set up for success and give the planning commission the time that they need to come back with a recommendation that they're comfortable with and that they've done their due diligence on and that they've had plenty of time to contemplate and ask questions about so i While comfortable with the topic, I'd like to see the deadline extended.

Did you have a suggestion?

End of the year.

Heather, you were next.

End of the year, maybe by November or something. But I agree, let's give them a little time. But I totally support this. I'm a big Strong Town supporter and Strong Town says if you want people to do something, smooth the path. So we've done all this upzoning hoping that developers will come along and provide affordable housing and unsurprisingly in this market, it hasn't happened. I think that the plans, the pre-approved ADU plans is a great place to start, but it's not the whole picture. It's not only that we need plans, but we also need construction is very expensive and permitting is very expensive if we're going to commit to this sort of bottom-up kind of infill which is supporting the people who already live here to add housing to their then we should consider pairing these free ADU plans with waived or reduced fees. I don't know who does that and who would be responsible for it, but particularly for long-term rentals. I love this question from Strong Towns. Who builds your town? Is it SOX? or Midtown or Eastwood. By providing these plans and some relief from the permitting structure, the answer to that question would be we built this town. Take a look at Port Angeles, Washington. They have done this. Good. Ken, did you have your hand up?

No.

No, I did not.

Okay. Mitch?

Yes. I would agree that September 30th is a bit of a well, more than a bit, is a very tight timeline, and I would suggest going back to the end of the year. This is something that was on our timeline already. I feel that I understand where Commissioner Anderson is coming from in putting this on our agenda, but it is already in the master plan. It is already in the Planning Commission's goals. So to suggest that it wasn't on the calendar as, hey, this is something that we are working on, it is there it just has to fill in with everything else which right now our planning department is down our planning director for the next few days and there will be some transition as he comes back to the office but not just that but the planning department is embarking on the process of rewriting our zoning code to make it a little more internally consistent but that is a going to be a big project and the Grand Traverse Commons Joint Planning Authority is embarking on a new master plan since our last one was in 2009 and yes it's been updated since then but the Commons has changed a lot since 2009 and that requires a very extensive rewrite process yes we have outside consultants for that but it also will represent a significant workload for our planning department staff can they still do this absolutely but it will be something that i think the end of the year is a more reasonable timeline to make it happen uh than just september 30th i agree with commissioner shaw that this is one tool but it would be more effective if it's paired with waiving uh permitting fees or other costs that are associated to the extent that we can unless we are outlaying funds from our general fund to pay the county we can't waive county building permit fees we could choose to go that way but that gets even more complicated uh yes other communities have done this but the biggest barrier to housing is the cost of building in the first place permits and architectural review is part of that but it's a smaller part i will be interested to see how this unfolds though it does run the risk of uh what i think is one of the greatest parts of our current adu policy which is preserving neighborhood character In our current language, any ADU has to be a certain percentage smaller than the principal residence on that same parcel, and it has to reflect the same architectural styling of the principal residence. If we have pre-approved plans, then it could be, yes, it could be a very nice looking ADU, but it could be larger than a small one or two bedroom house in Traverse Heights. that's going in next to, and it could be something that doesn't match at all a brick or stone house that is going behind on Boardman, I mean, in Boardman neighborhood or Central neighborhood. So we'll just have to see how this process unfolds.

Hold on, before we get too in the weeds on this, the motion here is to recommend this to the Planning Commission where this discussion will happen and it will be brought back to us as well. I've heard some consensus that September 30th seems like too soon with everything else going on the Planning Commission. So if somebody would like to make a motion with a date in it,

Do we have to make a motion with a date in it or can we discuss the date? We've said by the end of the year.

I'd like to have it opened up with a date and then we can always amend it because we are kind of getting into a lot of discussion here. Knowing that also it can be done before that date. This is just a drop dead. So for a motion. I can make a motion. No, motion. Motion first then discussion.

Please, yes. I move that the City Commission approve a request to the Planning Commission to issue a recommendation to the City Commission by December 31st, 2026 regarding any proposed changes to accessory dwelling unit ADU regulations slash ordinances and to create a proposal for development of pre-approved ADU plans in support for the element of the City Manager's OKR work plan approved by the City Commission calling for such plans.

Second. Thank you for that, Lance and Laura. And now we can start the discussion. I think we're all kind of moving in the right direction. So, Penn's had his hand up, then Jackie, then Lance is yours. Yep.

Okay. Initially, as part of my like questioning and wondering about this, a planning commissioner actually made the recommendation of September 30th. So, I wasn't dismissive of that regardless of how aggressive it may seemed. Another commissioner from the planning commission said that they did think it was aggressive. So I'm comfortable with the overall consensus of giving more time. December 21st is our last regular business meeting of 2026. That's what the date I would have suggested rather than the 31st. Nobody's gonna be in this building the 28th through the 1st. So I was just gonna say December 21st, but I'm supportive of this and with the extension towards the end of the year.

I'd love to not meet on the 21st if we didn't have to.

would just say logistically if your hope is to have something to you by that December 21st meeting you're gonna need the recommendation from them a little bit before that yeah you know if you're getting that specific with dates because having them make the recommendation up to the date where you'd want to be considering it isn't gonna work public hearing and then actually adopting it yes I agree but yeah by

We'll have it by the end of the year, if not before.

By the end of the year. I was just going to say the date I would suggest would be the 21st rather than the 31st.

Jackie? And another date that I think is important for us to consider is when we believe we'll be in a position to be able to offer city residents the benefits of the attainable housing tool. Can anyone give me guidance on that? I mean, this to me is a signal of prioritization from the City Commission to the Planning Commission. So I remain flexible on specific dates, but I would kind of hate to see us being ready to go with the attainable housing tool and not have finished our work on the ADU regulations themselves.

I can't really give you an estimate right now. We're just diving into it in my office. So maybe I can follow up in a couple of weeks with you.

okay maybe maybe maybe what we do then is is take the approach that ken was headed toward which is to sort of back into it to say if we'd like to you know have have have this you know through the city commission action before the end of 2026 that then maybe we aim for december 1st or something like that there's potential for that lance did you want to speak first before we pick on that

I'm not opposed to it. I was just going to make comment that the reality is these plans for a normal person can cost $30,000 to $40,000 just to have created. And then you've got the gamble of not getting approved and not actually getting – Maybe you need a slight variance or something and then you're not approved right. So that is a significant burden almost 1020 1015% off of the actual cost of one of these. type of units, so this will hopefully allow for more development. um in in the city and in quiet development right not just um development for development's sake but like uh you know being able to build a property on on your long lot and do it at a better rate that makes sense financially where we can actually add incremental housing without adding to the footprint

Yeah, just to throw in really quick, I agree that I'd love to see it happen as quickly as possible. Our attainable housing, though, is being worked on might be done well before even the planning commission could put something together. And so while I want it to be as close as possible, I don't want us to be trying to tie bar them too much because also by the time it gets through and it comes out, there might be people already applying because they're like, I've got this place, I already know what I want to start working on. And this helps with ADUs, but the attainable housing can also be a $5,000 change to an already existing duplex or something. I agree and I appreciate the sentiment and I do want us to see this urgency a little bit behind it like you're talking about, Jackie. But I don't want us to get too much to tying it to just ADUs because I think that we could trip over ourselves in that sense. And also, I want everyone out there to know that this applies to ADUs and improvements on our existing structures. So please, if you're already thinking about it, please, please, please, once we're ready, just jump on it. Yes, but I appreciate your point on that. Lance, you had your hand up.

I was just going to say, I'm sure the city manager has heard us loud and clear on the direction. Heather, go ahead.

Yeah, and I was just going to follow up on Lance's comment about quiet infill and the cost of plans. I see this as a great tool for garage conversion. I think we've got a huge, we've got so many garages out there that aren't even being used, really. They're full of junk. And garages are mostly the same size. You know, you have a single garage and you have a double garage. But to sit down and try and figure out how to put your bathroom in there, most people don't know how to do that and they have to pay for it. So, this would help a lot with that.

Great. So, we have the motion to go ahead.

I was just to kind of balance what Commissioner Anderson had said and what Mayor Shamrow had said. we are mildly getting into the weeds i'd love to have a date as soon as possible sounds great by the end of the year sounds great because i don't want to dictate the planning department and the plan the planning commissions times i just um i think we might be overstepping the touch with that But we obviously have made our concern known that urgency is a key priority here.

I would join you in that, Ken, in saying we're giving them until that date. But hey, if they're ready to go and bring it to us sooner, we're more than happy to take it sooner. So absolutely. All right, any final comments here? Any public comment on this?

My name's Ross Hammersley. I'm a city resident. We live at 400 Buffy Street. I also happen to be the city attorney for the city of Frankfurt and we have passed both the residential housing facilities act ordinance as well as attainable housing facilities act ordinance and have been implementing those for the last year and a half what I would say is just briefly is that. Part of the process that the statute provides is that the homeowners have to get their plans approved and then it's gonna come back to you all actually as the governing body of the municipality to approve the exemption from the tax that they're supposed to get as part of the statutory process that is involved. So it has to come back to you and then that whole packet has to get sent to the state tax commission so i'm not trying to be discouraging at all but my guess would be that that's not a likely process that's going to complete itself by the end of this year for too many homeowners in river city and it's probably more likely to be something that you're going to be setting up for a really banner year in 2027 rather than in the rest of this year so that's my only two cents thank you ross any other public comment on this item

Seeing none, I'll bring it back. Jackie? Just then to be sure if I can restate based on that last public comment, it sounds as though availability of the pre-approved plans actually is part of the critical path. It can be, yeah.

for for something like others interpreting that it'll definitely be right right right right so somebody just making you know repairing a kitchen to upgrade it and put it forward we'll still have to submit their plans but they wouldn't need this design so yes right so there's so there is an element of urgency oh yeah yeah yeah for sure thank you okay but approve a pre-approved plan from the city that an applicant that a resident

submits to the city to apply for, streamlines that process, right? For an ADU, yes. Boom, right to the state tax jurisdiction. Hence the priority.

Yep, definitely. All right, I'm going to call for the vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Look forward to seeing that coming from the Planning Commission. Glad to hear you guys are already jumping on it tomorrow night, so thank you for that. Okay, moving on to reports. Anybody have reports from their respective boards? Laura, and then we'll go down the line.

Yeah, there's a report, an annual report from the Hickory Hills Advisory Committee in your packet. That's something that the advisory committee, when it was first reconvened a year and a half ago, was really clear about wanting to accomplish. And so that report is in your packet. The committee is great. It has all of the stakeholders around the table every month with near perfect attendance. And the collaborative effort I think is proof in what we're seeing in terms of a change in delivery model.

Great. Others? Yeah, me. Heather, go ahead. Yeah, I read that report, and it is a clear and comprehensive document of the history of performance and use of funds and programming and priorities into the next year. It's a great document. Thank you very much. Hickory Hills Advisory Board. I just want to mention that I went to the Coast Guard changing of the guard, as Amy called it. Thank you. Commander Hahn flew in on his helicopter accompanied by the incoming Commander Lee and that is how the change happens. There was a brass band. There were probably 300 people there. It was terrific. I highly recommend it in two years. Commander Lee and her wife and their dog all live in Traverse City and welcome and congratulations.

Yes, thanks for representing us there, Heather. It's very appreciated. Mitch, did you have your hand up?

Yes. Don't normally have reports from the Grinchers Common Strength Planning Authority, but after the Garfield Township Board has opted to close a section of Red Drive, that's a dirt road outside the city limits, to vehicular traffic, there are a number of discussions going on. about changing many of the private or patchwork ownership roads through the grand travis commons into ultimately a public ownership scheme which could involve the city taking ownership of part of cottage view drive and other streets in that area

but there's a lot preliminary discussion preliminary discussions when I'm hearing it's very preliminary but it's something that if it advances will come to this board for discussion yes of course thank you any other reports all right seeing none we'll move on to public comment we have a reserved public comment for Willard I'm gonna say Kylie I might be wrong so please feel free to correct me and approach the podium you have 15 minutes once you get up there and get settled

Hello, good evening, greetings, lovely evening, a little smoky out there but we're moving on. I'd like to start with there is no gap between my mind and yours and only minds can unite in truth and there's a law that governs choice. And that law is set and there can only be two choices. One is a truth and the other is an illusion. And there can't be a range of limitless choices, so you'd have to find one and then get to that one, and that one worked when all the others have failed. Where the truth is simple, anything complicated is typically of the ego, which is based in an illusion, in an illusory judgment. So... then the range that is set there's no compromise each choice that you ask for brings you everything of what you believe whether it's the illusion or it's the truth and minds cannot unite in dreams they can only bargain I've read that that The possible root of the creation of this reality was based on the mad idea in heaven of compromise. And no one laughed because it's a mad idea. It's an insane idea. Typically, apparently, they would laugh in heaven. They didn't laugh, gave rise to this reality where we believe we're separate from each other. We're in bodies. I give us that. You're over there. I'm over here. Only bodies can attack. You can never attack another mind. And bodies can be destroyed. And it's clearly evident that bodies can attack each other. And then they can be destroyed. So if it can be destroyed, then it's not real. It's not eternal. Time cannot contain eternity in the sense of what is eternal has no death. So death is an illusion as well. But if we want to get into like the concept of loss and gain, there is no gain in loss and that's where the ego likes to negotiate to tell you that you're going to lose, you're going to have enough pain, whatever that phrase was, enough pain to get to the gain or whatever it was. I've heard it all over the media as well. But it's a mad idea. So in the Bible, it spoke of that Adam fell asleep. And nowhere does it ever say he woke up. So we're all probably descended from that point. So we're still in a dream state. So all we can do is compromise with each other, where one gains and another loses. And that's not a very enjoyable reality. However, our choice is simple. We can choose the truth, which would be a benefit. All of us. And I got some. So there's a concept about learning. Learning is invisible. And I could make a case that I think we've been taught badly. And we're defending those beliefs that we've been taught to the nth degree. No willing to, I guess apparently at some point there is a threshold of pain that you can handle. And then you will have to say, man, there's got to be another way. there's gotta be a better choice. Maybe let's choose love, which extends gratitude, forgiveness. I love the phrase, forgiveness is the fragrance a rose emits when it's crushed underfoot. And I've definitely been crushed underfoot. In this town of four and a half years homelessness, I've spoken to the board many times. The Goodwill Inn, Safe Harbor, Jubilee House, all these churches. It's not effective. It's not working. They don't end homelessness. They promote it. They create it. They gather people. They bring them here. And it's a simple solution. And no one would... No one has difficulty making up his mind to let a simple problem be resolved if it is seen to hurt him and also very easily removed. But you don't see that it hurts you because you perceive others as separate from you in the sense that whatever you deny me, you deny yourself. Whatever you take from me, you take from yourself. There will be nothing left. So there is a thing where you join together. Mind joined can only join in the truth. So. I'd like to cover some issues related to the millage, whatever they're talking about asking for more money. The Goodwill Inn and the street outreach and then the task force. I looked at the numbers, there's 168 homeless is the average number for the homeless. $500,000 a year right now is the IRS information about Safe Harbor. Goodwill Inn is astronomically at $35 million in 2023. Back in 2011, they started at $9 million, so their assets have grown 209% since 2011 to 2023. And then Safe Harbor's assets have grown an incredible 2,149% since the same, well, about the same range 2014 to 2023. And they sell these 7,000 bed nights and all these individuals. You know, there's about 180 something people listed for their homelessness at the Goodwill Inn. We're talking $35 million. And you can't end homelessness. The numbers that I've talked about before, they get $126 per person per day from the federal government. They're only allowed to stay there for I think it's 10 months. You can't be there the full year, whatever that is. So that's about 50 grand a year. The total time I've been held captive or in the experiment is about $200,000. And guaranteed, I wouldn't be homeless if I had that kind of revenue to support myself. And even some solutions, basically, you can 3D print a house for $3,000. And then you can get an electric bicycle for $1,000. I mean, that would solve the problem. You could build houses or build some kind of shelter similar to a storage unit, like a parking garage where you don't need, you just need a key with a door to have things accessible to yourself and not in some, like a gulag setting where you're forced to leave and go walk the streets and figure out how to deal with your day while they get paid, you stay alive. That's like gulag. That's what even Stephen Miller was in the news saying that that's what they're going to create is a gulag to punish whatever they want to punish. But you're only punishing yourself in the sense that that doesn't work. So they got plenty of money. They have 389 employees, right? So they got way more employees than they even got guests. And they just circle them in and out. I mean, it makes absolutely no sense that they claim that they need more money. and that the problem is so easily solved but it's not solved if you view it as separate or you want to, the character of sale, the homeless as well. They say they're alcoholic, substance abusers, mentally ill, murderers with a guy on the lake that was killed that I believe he was on his way to report a guy that was underage that was staying at the Goodwill Inn that he was a fraud, whatever. and like all this weirdness that they do with this trafficking and people from all over the place. I'd also like to mention there's this, I've had three instances when I was homeless that they spoke about contracts that they had signed. One was Brandon saying he runs, I think he's still there, I haven't seen him in years, but I haven't been in that network. He runs the food rescue is working his way up to you said he wanted to be the run the whole program. But he said at one point I started bakery well I was at the homeless shelter I've rented the commercial kitchen from the goodwill in. And then I was I started all this out is in the middle of cherry fest was very hard to be a new account for a business to come in, so it was pretty difficult for me to get the thing rolling. So my motorcycle, all this stuff. So he said, I could tell you exactly what to do to be a success, but it violates my contract with the Goodwill Inn. I'm like, well, tell me something. Give me something. So I'm like, what was his contract? And then there was another employee that now comes in my work that I've seen that she used to exit me all the time and all this weirdness that they go on we don't need to get into. But she even said that there was a contract that she had to sign that they couldn't speak to any Goodwill guests. for three years after their termination or even after that person had left homelessness. They were banned from even speaking to them. They couldn't associate with them. They literally had to walk the other way, and it was weird, but now she talks to me and says how sorry she is and all this weird whatever stuff, and then there was another homeless man himself really intoxicated and let it out and said we were having all these issues, and then he said, I wish I had never signed that contract with Ryan Hannon. So what are these contracts? You know, it sounds like some kind of a secret society, whatever, the vow of silence, and you know, you look at this, whatever, the oldest religion on the planet is the Luciferian, whatever it is, and they have the thing where they cover the eye, they do the thing over this, which is 666, and then they do the thing of this, the vow of silence, they can't talk, if you speak out about it, you'll be killed, and all this weird stuff. and then so then you're like okay this is very odd what's going on with this contract why can't they help you why can't they do anything so there's something going on and then you look at the logo of the goodwill inn and they got like this one eye thing going on with that you know i don't know and then i looked up the into the records and found that the goodwill inn did a name change it used to be asgard uh industries the original articles of incorporation nineteen seventy two Asgard Industries. Asgard is like Thor, right? The Thor, the mythological dudes. And then it changed to something with Asgard Goodwill Industries, and then here with blah, blah, blah in 1993, they changed it to Goodwill Industries of Northern Michigan Incorporated, and here to attach to whatever all this stuff. So, I mean, there's some weird stuff going on. I've looked even further in there. There's one business dealing called with the Evil Queen, and it's like a foreign LLC out of California, but she's somehow linked to the candle factory that's gone. I don't know. And so there's some weird stuff going on. There's some other stuff with the Illinois. There's like the property dealings and who owns a property there out of Illinois and Chicago. So, you know, out-of-state stuff. It just doesn't make any sense that all this money is going all around. Their goodwill is all over the place. And then you got Jeff Bezos gave goodwill in for his ex-wife. I'm blanking her name right now. she gave the after divorce she gave the goodwill in 50 billion dollars the local one here got 5 million so i spoke out about this at the last right after covid they're coming in for the arpa funds they're asking for 800 000 in arpa funds i came and presented you know the information like this and then they gave them 400 000 so i'm like well at least they stopped them a little bit So and then you kind of look at the pattern like all right well then Bezos, what's Bezos doing? Well he's part of the the whole Trump techno whatever thing take over the government and now they're making shadow websites and all this stuff and you just kind of wonder like what is going on but I pointed out even Dan Buran was on the news saying with this five million dollars we're going to be able to end homelessness for so many people this is going to be fantastic. They didn't do any of it. So they scoffed at me during the meeting when I presented this, then had Ryan Hanna come up and present and they said, what do you do with the $5 million? He said, well, $2 million went to the food rescue and our trucks and this and maintenance, all this. So, you know, where all this money is going around and it's a simple solution, but you've got to kind of, Have some mercy for other people and compassion and forgiveness and grace and gentleness. The waves at the beach bow at your feet. You know, the trees extend their arms out to provide you shade from the heat. You know, they drop their leaves so it softens your walk on the earth. And the snow is like, you do not have a life. You are literally life itself. Every living thing is part of you. Like that is impressive, but we're here acting as if we're all separate and going our separate ways, living our separate lives. We're all this individual and justify all. And then the majority of people I've spoken to while I was homeless, they're like, oh, everything's corrupt. I'm like, well, that's not the answer. You can't just keep saying that's the answer. like the gentleness, the heartbeat. It's a very interesting view. If you identify with the body, you're identifying with the ego, and then ego is like, you know, he wants to destroy you. The basis of the ego is like these real dark, back-cornered things. It doesn't understand the Son of God. It's afraid of him, so he wants to destroy him. So that's the... Kind of the M.O. for the ego is to destroy. Not only does it want to do that, it wants to destroy you because it doesn't want it to be exposed. The whole thought system is based on an illusion. It's not based on love. Love is everything. God is invisible. Learning is invisible. When you learn something, it's invisible. It's nothing you can, it's not tangible. Truth is invisible, but it's everywhere. It's in the space between us that we think is there space. It's the truth, and it comes willingly as soon as you surrender your judgment, and judgment leads to condemnation, and condemnation, judgment is, you can't judge. You don't know all the facts. There's no way that I could judge any one of you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective, Willard. We appreciate it.

You're welcome. My pleasure.

I'll let you collect your stuff there.

Yeah, so if I got it all organized, it'd be even better, but we're there. We know how that goes. Have a lovely evening.

Thank you, you too. All right, now we will open this up for general public comment. So this is the normal three minutes.

Justin Reed. Yes, so I live in the commons and I know that part of the master plan was to make public utility, making private utility into public utility and that would be converting the private streets to public streets. I know that John Hughes wrote a letter to the Joint Planning Commission meeting about how the Village Association does not have money to repair the roads. Simply the fact that part of the process of that development of the property was a master plan right and a joint planning commission to go ahead and execute to having that private relationship into a public relationship. Um, so, um, you know, I can't go ahead and say, you know, 16 years ago, I can't, I can't, um, hold the state commission to that. However, um, there needs to be, you know, um, like I said, that there's going to have to be a point of discussion to where, um, where there's going to have to meet the road to the rubber on getting this done. And, you know, it's not all of the stakeholders in this situation have the money to go ahead and keep maintaining the roads, the private roads in the commons. And also, last commission meeting that you had as far as a study session goes is you were talking about the plowing. An example is Marquette. Marquette has a five-year capital improvement project that is involved with their plowing. And also a heavenly ordinance on fines. So, you know, I hate this, but comparing sometimes to state and local things. Now you can think out of the box. That's great. But there's a difference between city ordinances in Michigan and there's also differences in how states operate because not everybody else has the same setup. Every state is different. So, thank you.

Thank you, Justin. Any other public comment tonight? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back and wish you all a wonderful evening. And with that, we will close the meeting.

I said evening and not meeting twice, right?

I saw my brain went a little fuzzy for a second there.