Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, well, never mind then, I tried.

No, that's true.

On that one, it's already seven on my clock.

Yeah, it's seven.

Hi, Mitchell.

Okay, I'm going to call to order this regular city commission meeting of Monday, August 17th. I'll please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As always, we begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather as the territory of the Ottawa and 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 responsibility to do the same. So with that, I will go ahead and have Sarah do our roll call, please.

Commissioner Boehmer?

Here.

Commissioner Anderson? Here. Commissioner Treadwell?

Here.

Commissioner Funk?

Here.

Commissioner Shaw? Here. Mayor Pro Tem Ness? Here. Mayor? Here.

And we're going to have a brief from legal here.

Good evening, everybody. Good evening, everyone, and good evening, members of the commission. And it's my pleasure to meet you. My name is Nancy Owens, and I work with the Kelly firm. And I will be lucky enough to be able to attend and support you at some of your meetings and initiatives moving forward. I look very much forward to that, and thank you for having me here. Thank you.

And then we'll roll right into announcements from the city manager, please.

Yes, good evening. I've got some announcements for this week, the week of August 17th. As was reported in the most recent Bay Brief, I'm thrilled to say that the wastewater treatment plant's rooftop solar and battery energy storage project is substantially complete. And we anticipate that that will save the city nearly $100,000 a year in energy costs, which is also important for our environment, not just for our financial resources. So I'm thrilled that those early indicators are showing that daytime energy usage is matching previous nighttime energy usage. So that is excellent. And we'll share more metrics once we've got some more solid data collection. I also want to extend gratitude to our summer interns, Alec Bittinger in our IT department, Evan McGee in our planning and zoning department, and Lauren McNeil and our engineering department who have all helped the city over the last several months. We hosted a lunch for them today and the leadership team and appreciate all of their work, their passion, and they're already talking about maybe returning here someday to work. So that's excellent as we work to build our pipeline. And then I just wanted to share very briefly that the mayor, the mayor pro tem, the deputy city manager and I are on the joint operating committee for the governmental center. Our counterparts at the county, so the county board chair, vice chair, the county administrator and deputy county administrator have been meeting to discuss the facility study that's underway for the future needs for this campus, the governmental center campus as well as the law enforcement center campus. Don't have anything substantial to share but it's been a while since we've at least mentioned that work is underway. There's more data collection to ultimately have some internal communication discussions that are necessary and then to present some initial findings to the city commission which will be done by plant Moran real point and timing on that is to be determined but I just wanted to give that brief update and that's all that I've got other than after Sarah I have another announcement musical chairs in that respect All right. Thanks, Sarah.

There you go, Sarah. You're welcome. Good evening. Meetings scheduled for this week are the Complete Streets Advisory Committee will meet Tuesday, August 18th at 8.30 a.m. here in the Governmental Center on the second floor committee room. The Arts Commission will meet Wednesday the 19th at 3.30 again in the second floor committee room. The City Commission interview ad hoc for Parks and Recreation interviews will meet on Thursday, August 20th at noon in the chambers. And the Downtown Development Authority will meet on Friday, August 21st at 9 AM in the chambers.

Thank you very much for that, and then we'll hand it back to you.

Great, so Heidi Sheppey, our city treasurer finance director is back there in the corner. And I want to just announce and underscore the fact that the city received the distinguished budget presentation award from the Government Finance Officers Association. This is the highest national recognition for ongoing commitment to meeting the highest standards of fiscal transparency and management. To earn this distinction, the city's budget document satisfied rigorous nationally recognized criteria demonstrating outstanding proficiency as a policy document, financial plan, particularly now that we have multiyear budget forecasting and we have a strategic action plan that the city commission is committed to as well as leadership and all of the employee team to see that acted upon. Operations guide and public communications. So I just want to congratulate Heidi and her team and why don't we give them a round of applause.

Good job. Well done. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then with that, we'll switch back and do the consent calendar, please, Sarah.

It's like a game of volleyball. The purpose of the consent calendar is to expedite business by grouping non-controversial items together to be dealt with by one commission motion without discussion. Any member of the commission staff or the public may ask that any item on the consent calendar be removed 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 20th, 2026 meeting of the city commission approval recommended. Two, consideration of authorizing a confirming purchase order for the sinkhole repair in lot A, approval recommended. Three, consideration of authorizing an emergency confirming purchase order for the old town elevator door operator replacement, approval recommended. Four, consideration of authorizing blanket purchase orders for water treatment plant chemicals. Approval recommended. Five, consideration of authorizing a purchase order for two connections to the East Bay slash Acme Force Main for emergency contingency purposes. Approval recommended. Six, consideration of adopting the resolution establishing authorized signatories for municipal employees retirement system of Michigan, MERS, contracts which is a housekeeping matter, adoption recommended. Seven, consideration of authorizing the healthcare savings program withdrawal and asset transfer agreement with the Michigan employees retirement system of Michigan which is a housekeeping matter, approval recommended. Eight, consideration of authorizing an agreement for the employee performance review platform, approval recommended. Nine, consideration of authorizing an amendment to the contract for the 2026 Monroe Street, Cass Street mid-block crossing and Ramsdale storm sewer repairs projects to include Park Street sidewalk repair project. And consideration of authorizing an amendment to the funding agreement with the Downtown Development Authority articulating the funding from TIF 97 that will be provided by them for the Cass Street mid-block crossing and Park Street sidewalk repair project. Approval recommended. Ten, consideration of authorizing an amendment to the construction agreement and authorizing an amendment to the consultant agreement for construction engineering services related to the galvanized water services replacement project which will fully complete the replacements. Approval recommended. Eleven, consideration of authorizing an amendment to the agreement for catch basin cleaning to extend the agreement by an additional year for fiscal year 2026-2027 as provided for in original bid. Approval recommended. Twelve, consideration of authorizing an agreement for the Duncan L. Clinch Marina Efficiency and Assessment Project, approval recommended. Thirteen, consideration of authorizing a three-year agreement for elevator service and maintenance agreement for elevators at the Hardy parking structure and Old Town parking structure in Carnegie Building, approval recommended. Fourteen, consideration of designating Mayor Amy Shamro as the city's official voting delegate for the annual meeting of the Michigan Municipal League, approval recommended. 15, consideration of appointing city financial analyst compliance officer as employer delegate for the municipal employees retirement system annual conference. Approval recommended. 16, consideration of clarification of the July 6, 2026 motion regarding housing districts in connection with the attainable housing program as recommended by the city attorney in increasing the public hearing notice allocation for the mailing by $1,200. There was a revised quote that you were sent. Approval recommended. Okay, would any commissioner like an item pulled from the consent calendar?

Jackie and then Mitch. Question number nine and number 16, thank you.

Mitch? Two, eight, and 12.

Okay, any others? Would any member of the public like any item pulled from the consent calendar that is not nine, 16, two, eight, or 12? Seeing none, I'll bring it back for a motion.

I move that we accept the consent calendar as amended.

Support. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. OK. We'll start with item number nine. Jackie?

Thank you. I'm sure this was in the documentation and I simply missed it. But just to clarify that the Ramsdell and the Monroe, of course, are outside the TIF district and that funding is not coming from TIF monies.

Correct. Because it cannot, right?

Exactly. Thank you very much for that. And then on number 16. No, no, you have to have a motion, because you pulled it.

Or we have to, yeah. You pulled it, so it's now an agenda item. Do we have other questions, or would somebody like to make a motion?

I do have a further question about it. So it's specified in that agenda item that this was for sidewalk repairs along Park Street in between Park and Front, correct?

Correct. Park and State. Park and State. Between Park and State. It's at the northeast corner.

Northeast corner of Park and State, yes. And it turned out to be about $70,000 after all the cost estimate and the contingencies. Why didn't we put that out to bid and why did we lump that in with a project that was already kind of going on and just have it attached as an amendment versus putting that specifically out to bid?

Sure. And I'll ask City Engineer Ann Pagano to speak briefly to that.

Good evening. Basically, so we could get the work done this summer, we did have a bid previously for the other work. So, you know, we had already sort of gone out to bid for another project. So, we're hoping to do a change order to add this work in to get it done this summer. Because I don't know if you've been out there, but it really does need to be fixed as soon as we can get it done.

Yeah, I walked in today and I was surprised that it was that bad. So, happy to see it get fixed. I was curious about the procedure of it more than anything. Why do the change order versus putting it out to bid? Sure. I'm always a fan of efficiency and speed, so.

Definitely. And this is, I think, in that vein, it's a change order at the unit prices that they were already working at. Correct. So it is still within the bidded prices. It's just expanding the scope of their work using that same pricing.

Correct. And I have a quick question because this question has come up often of, you know, when we're already working on a project, we often get the question, why don't we go out for a bid when the project's always going on? Just in a ballpark, and I'm asking you because you're up here and you tend to get a lot of these that are, because they fall under engineering. If you do go out for RFP on something like this, realistically, is that at least a month or so until you get like responses and be able to analyze it? Just so that everybody has that info the next time it comes up, that can go through their head automatically as like, oh, That would probably take another three or four weeks or five or six.

Yeah, it would have taken a lot longer because we didn't really put a full spec plan together to put out to bid. So you can see in the attachment, it's just like a PDF, so it's really simple. We would have had to put together a really detailed package, so it would have been a lot of staff time. And then we typically put it out to bid for a month. Then by the time we bring it here and get it approved and then get all the contracting, it literally would have been like a three-month process.

So thank you just for clarifying that because it does come up. All right. Other questions or would somebody like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

I make a motion that the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute an amendment to the contract with Elmers, Crane and Dozer incorporated in the additional amount not to exceed $63,023, which includes contingency of $7,000 for the park street sidewalk repair project, such contract subject as to its substance by the city manager and formed by the city attorney with funds available in the DDA TIF 97 fund and further that the mayor and city clerk execute an amendment to the funding agreement with the Traverse City Downtown Development Authority articulating that it will provide the additional $63,023 in funding for the Park Street sidewalk repairs project with such agreement subject to approval as to its substance by the city manager and formed by the city attorney.

Support. Okay. I'll give that to Anderson.

And may I just ask, I'm sorry I'm just noticing this, but if we could revise the dollar amount in the funding agreement with the DDA to be $70,023 so that covers that contingency if we end up needing it rather than just the base amount?

Sorry, if I may, the 63 includes the 7,000 contingency.

Oh, it does, excuse me. Yeah, sorry about that, if I wasn't clear. It does say which includes, it is clear, I wasn't clear, thank you. Okay, so we're all good, we don't need to amend it.

Yeah, my bad, my bad, thank you. All right, any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next item is item number 16. Jackie, you had this one pulled?

Yes, I did. And again, please accept my apologies if this is already in the documentation. But I did want to be sure that our use of the attainable, funding approach is only applying to residential zones within the city. We haven't included the HR zones or anything else.

That is my understanding, Leslie, is that correct? All residential districts according to our acting planning director.

And that was the motion that we passed as a commission for only those zones too.

Correct, that is true.

Many thanks. Did we include R2 or R3?

R2 is in there. R2 is in there.

Yeah. We just, what we, as I recall in our motion, and correct me if I'm way off, but was we only wanted to send to ours. So no HR, no commercial, no D, no other zoning other than just the ours. So, yes. Many thanks. Yes, of course. All right. Any other questions or a motion? Go ahead.

I'll make a motion. I move that the Commission concurs with the proposed Attainable Housing District as submitted with the official meeting materials for the July 6th, 2026 meeting of the City Commission and further that the Commission approves any necessary documents required to complete the required public notice in an amount not to exceed $36,200 and further that a budget amendment For use of general fund balance fund 101 in the amount not to exceed $36,200 be approved and further that the public hearing regarding the establishment of the districts be set for a date not less than 10 days or more than 30 days after the mailing of the public notice and further that the motion shall apply solely to the proposed attainable housing facilities districts under the Michigan Attainable Housing Facilities Act, MCL 207.901, And the motion approved on July 6th, 2026 be superseded.

Thank you, Lance. That was quite a Herculean effort. Thank you, Jackie. All right. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Item number two, and I can't remember, sorry, if this is, yeah, I was going to say, is this where Mitch started or Jackie ended? So Mitch starts. There we go.

Yes. I understand the specific about lot A. However, That was not by any measure the city's only cost incurred as a result of the historic flooding. We also had losses to Lot K. We had losses of trees in the vicinity of Union, North Union Street Bridge. We had staff hours that had to be devoted to handling woody debris going downstream. Though there wasn't any leaks or spills, there was additional staff and efforts at the city's treatment plant. Will we see additional items coming forward for the remainder of these items that are related to the city's response to our flooding and thus have to be accounted for in the broader FEMA request?

I am thinking at this point probably not, but we'll see. I know that we have I think approximately half a million dollars in documented. I'm sorry?

So far we're up to about 300,000 in damages and staff time, consultant time that we are tracking and submitting to FEMA for reimbursement.

Thank you. Great. Does that answer your question? Yes. Okay, great.

I've been glad that at the last two Friday Night Lives, FEMA has had a booth. It's not for us and the government, but for residents along River Road or other places, it is nice to see a responsive federal agency.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

Do we have other questions or motion?

I'll make the motion.

Thank you, Ken.

I make a motion that the city manager be authorized to issue a confirming purchase with Elmer's, Crane and Dozer for the completion, completed work in lot A in the amount not to exceed $79,675.46 and further to authorize the city manager to apply for reimbursement through FEMA.

Second. Thank you, Heather.

Any further discussion on this item?

Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. And then, Mitch, you had number eight pulled.

Yes. It is the city's manager's sole discretion to hire, evaluate, and perform corrective action to employees that directly report to them. And it's not our job as commissioners to micromanage or say that different action should be taken. However, this does in the memo talk about transparency and visibility. Will there be not direct access to the behind the scenes issues but some at least top level reports of what is coming, were there, staff members that might not be named but at least an identification of you have identified staff issues and are taking appropriate action.

Absolutely not. There will be none of that. All the staffing reports ultimately with the exception of the city attorney to me. The idea with transparency is transparency with the employees on what their expectations are. They'll be co-created for each individual employee and their supervisor. The criteria will be, I say co-created to an extent. There will be discussion and the employee will be very clear on what the criteria is well in advance the evaluation I think that that's only proper it's not fair to just you know all of a sudden you're being evaluated on this criteria that you would never reasonably expect maybe not reasonably expect to be evaluated so no there will be no such reporting to the public or the City Commission personnel matters are for legal reasons and employee reasons kept between the employee and the employer unless no part of this would fall under FOIA It could, potentially. I mean, the reality is our personnel files with certain exceptions can be FOIAed. However, we aren't going to proactively share that kind of information because it diminishes our ability to professionally manage our staff.

Is this for, like, how directly involved is HR Director Christine Bosley with the evaluation of other department heads?

She's not really involved. I mean, she's consulted depending on dynamics with the employee, if it makes sense. But generally, the criteria is established. Like for instance, the direct reports to me that are department heads, it'll be between me and them. And those department heads that are reporting through our deputy city manager, that'll be between her and them.

Is this just for the department heads?

No, this will ultimately, it's initially just for department heads, and then it will filter down to all employees throughout the organization.

And at that point, though, would the other employees that are not department heads, their department heads would be the ones managing those expectations and the criteria, just to clarify that?

Yes, so I'll be creating department level work plans for each department, given working with the department directors, and then it's their responsibility to carry that out throughout the organization. throughout their department on behalf of the entire organization.

Does this supersede, is this going to supersede their existing job expectations and the outline of what they already do?

I think we're getting into a little bit into the weeds. This is really a management matter and not a governance level discussion. What's before you is really just whether or not you want to approve the use and allow me to purchase this software for evaluations. The process for evaluating employees is not the purview of the city commission and nor should it be.

Do we have other questions about the software or a motion? Sorry, I might be using that wrong. Go ahead, Lance.

I'll make a motion that the mayor and city clerk execute a three-year agreement with Quantum Workplace and amount not to exceed $45,000 for employee performance review platform with such agreement subject as to its substance by the city manager and its form by the city attorney with funds available in the human resources department budget.

Rebecca. OK. Thank you, Lance. And thank you, Heather. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

Nay.

Roll call.

Commissioner Anderson? Yes. Commissioner Shaw? Yes. Commissioner Treadwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Funk? No. Commissioner Bomer?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem?

Yes. Mayor? Yes. Motion passes. All right. And lastly, Mitch, you pulled number 12.

Yes. This is looking at a number of aspects of our Marina operations. However, one thing I do not see listed is parking. That had been discussed in my previous City Commission. I believe Mayor Shamro is the only person that had served when parking came up among Marina discussions.

Let me test my memory tonight, huh?

But I'd say it does fit into our overall picture of both how a marina operates and how it fits into the broader usage of our public lands, our waterfront, our parking areas. Since Clinch Park, where the parking lot and parking areas are, is not just used by people at the marina, but also for people using the beach, using the splash pad, potentially shopping downtown or going to the farmer's market. using the boat launch because they have a boat that they want to put on the water that's not using the marina. So I would see that as something that could be looked at and I would like it to be a consideration in terms of both how our marina functions most efficiently but also how that functions as a component of the city's overall parks landscape.

We will ask that that be part of the scope and I know Ms. Handy is here and I, or Marina Harbor Master Shane Dillaway is here as well but I'll ask Ms. Handy to make sure that that's included.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions or I'll take a motion?

I move that the city and city clerk be authorized to issue a contract with Edgewater Resources in an amount not to exceed $60,000 funded by a $28,000 grant to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Water Raise Program and a 32,000 local match from the Marina Fund for the Duncan L. Clinch Marina Efficiency Assessment Project. Such contract subject to a substance by the city manager and it's formed by the city attorney with funds therefore available in the Marina Fund.

Support.

Thank you, Heather, and thank you, Mitch. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right, so now down to our first item of old business, which I think is something that a lot of people are going to be glad to hear. We've got an update here on the Carnegie Building, so if you want to handle that, please, Ben.

Yes, I'd be happy to. Thank you, Mayor Shamro. At the direction of the city commission, the city manager's office issued a request for proposals for use of the city-owned Carnegie building at 322 6th Street. The city received a proposal from the current occupant, Crooked Tree Art Center, as well as a proposal from the Traverse Area District Library. At the April 20th city commission meeting this year, the city commission approved my recommendation to extend by one year the lease with Crooked Tree Art Center. So to take it from an expiration of October 31st, 26 to October 31st, 2027 to provide some time for the city and Traverse Area District Library and Crooked Tree to explore through facilitated sessions whether there was a path toward joint occupancy. We had two sessions and those I think went, you know, rather well. There was open-mindedness. But as you know, and it's included in the packet and it's been reported on, since then I received a communication from Cricket Tree indicating that they're requesting to have the lease extended by one more year. So this would take them through October of 2028. And at that point in time, they would vacate the building because they are looking for a permanent location with, as they say, adequate space. to accommodate their long-term program expansion plans. And since receiving that communication, I met with Michelle Howard who's here tonight. She's the executive director for the Traverse Area District Library. And she indicated that the library remains interested in their original proposal beginning in November of 2028. And so, it's my recommendation that the city commission approve a one-year lease extension through October 31st, 2028. with a final year lease payment to increase by the Detroit All Urban Consumer Price Index for the period December 25 through 26 with all other terms to remain the same. And I just want to say that I expressed this to Crooked Tree Executive Director Angela Morris that the city appreciates the services and the valuable programming Crooked Tree has provided for the last several years there and that they'll continue to provide during their remaining time there. And I also appreciate the library's desire to provide valuable services at that building, including making historic collections available for viewing. And so that is my recommendation and the motion in the packet would authorize that one year extension. And for the city attorney and I to begin negotiating a lease with the Traverse Area District Library. we'd begin that effort relatively soon we have some time but we'd begin it relatively soon and that lease then would be brought back to the city commission for consideration but you can expect that it would largely reflect the proposal that the library originally submitted

Also, just wanted to note that this does also protect the voting. Yes. This is as a precinct, so a precinct polling place. So I know that's very much part of our community and that neighborhood as well. So it's going to be read through a hefty verbiage by whoever has to make the motion. But in addition to that, we are also still protecting that as this moves forward. So do we have any questions right now on this? Mitch?

Yes. I understand the purpose in the dates outlined, but are those hard dates or could there be some flexibility if, say, Crooked Tree finds a new space and is able to make that transition sooner? Yes. Because I am a little uncomfortable seeing a hard deadline where one lease ends and another begins. That is 14 and a half months in the future when plenty of stuff is yet unknown and a lot can happen.

The answer is absolutely. The reality is we have to establish dates in these legal documents and the crooked tree has the ability to terminate the lease earlier as does the city for reasons that are acceptable and they can certainly vacate the building and there's essentially no penalty to them for doing so if they desire to sooner and then. If that happened and it made sense for the city and the library to accelerate their occupancy of the building, that's definitely a conversation we would have, and I would bring that to you for your decision.

All right, go ahead, Lance.

Yeah, so for the lease negotiation with the library, I can't recall the exact proposal. Did they have, was the rate that they were proposing, did they propose a rate, first of all, a payment amount? And was it covering more than essentially our operational costs? Because right now it seems we're, we might be a little, we're short on operational costs.

I think those are details that we have yet to work out. Okay.

Perfect. I have thoughts.

Other questions or a motion?

I can make the motion. Go ahead. I have one more question. Are we operating off the original proposal that the library submitted? Yes. Their plan is in that original proposal?

It is, yes.

So over the next two years, they will still be able to access the archives in the lower level?

That's an MOU that we will, it's something that the city manager has the authority to sign that and we're going to work with the library on that arrangement. And I'm certainly very, I didn't touch on that, so thank you. I'm very interested in taking the library up on their offer to speed up the assessment of the Kahn-Foster collection. It has moved slow. There are reasons, some personal reasons, but it has moved slow and it's just a matter of looking at our budget and what's in there now and if there isn't funding, This year, I intend to include that for the next fiscal year.

OK. And in the letter that came from the library, there was a mention of the rotary 50-year anniversary. That, I think that's next year. It is. OK. And Cricutry could still be in there. So, they're.

We're going to make it happen. OK. Yeah.

So, they're not, Cricutry is not going to feel discombobulated because there's some kind of.

I don't think that they would because it's not going to interfere with their operation. OK. Great.

Other? Yep, go ahead.

Ready? Yep. Okay, it's long. I know.

Thank you for doing this in advance.

I move that the mayor and city clerk be authorized to execute an amendment to the lease with Crooked Tree Art Council for occupancy of the city-owned Carnegie Building at 322 6th Street to extend the lease by one year through October 2028. with all terms and conditions to remain the same, with the lease payment for the final year to increase by the Detroit All-Urban Consumer Price Index for the period of December 2025 through December 2026 with such amendment subject to approval as to its substance by the city manager and its form by the city attorney. And further, that the city manager and city attorney be authorized to negotiate a lease with Traverse Area District Library for its occupancy of the city-owned Carnegie Building at 322 6th Street to begin after the November 2028 general election for voting purposes, with the recommendation to be presented to the city commission at a future meeting for consideration by the city commission.

Second. Thank you, Heather. All right. Any further discussion on this? Lance?

Yep. So I just want to be clear. I will support a future lease with the library. But I do kind of want to just outlay some terms I'd love to see. This kind of brings back to my question. Since you're going to begin negotiating that, I feel like we could maybe give some direction on it. Right now we're not paying for the full operational cost of the building with the lease terms so i'd love to see a contingency in there that even goes higher. We have $600,000 in deferred maintenance I don't think the city should be on the hook for 100% of that if we've got a tenant, we can negotiate a pretty good agreement. And i'd love to know. If the if we confirm if the library's interest in the space is reflected in their current facilities master plan. And if not, if they could update that before the this happens. I just like to see this reflected in their master plan. Okay, got it.

Um, So when you're saying, though, about the, you know, as far as the facilities costs and similar to what we were talking, we were basically saying similar as we were having that conversation with Crooked Tree as far as responsibility. Okay. Correct. I just want to make sure because I know that both Crooked Tree, the library, and actually when we were talking about Con Foster, our desire to have nonprofits in there or community service doesn't always align with current full market value for rents. And so just clarifying that we're all on the page of good for one, good for the other.

Yep, yep. I just want to make sure we're covering our costs, at least covering our costs, and then there should be some sort of contingency for unexpected issues that can arise. It's just what I would like to see.

Laura? So in terms of laying out some of these assumptions, it's my recollection when we are looking at these RFPs and evaluating them that our intention was to cover our operating costs.

That's right.

In the building and not to cover deferred maintenance costs. And I think we had some discussion. around some of those deferred maintenance issues like the windows and some of the other facility issues at looking at potential grant funding for those and not making that an additional burden on the leasee. So I just want to make sure we're all on this aligned on that.

Grant funding often does require a match of some sort though. So I feel like we do need to have a fund of some sort to do that type of matching and this is an opportunity to. at least create a small one and show in good faith that the organization is willing to help with the building.

I would, I guess this goes back to my original point though of we had this discussion when we opened up the conversations with, when we opened up the RFP and even we had conversations about Crooked Tree and or the combination of Crooked Tree and the library and all throughout this. So I, what I'm curious from Benjamin then is, I don't want us to go back and re-litigate that. We already had this conversation. So are you feeling like you have a clear, I guess I would say articulate to us right now, because it's been a minute, where you were heading into the discussions with Cricutry and where you would see that being similar here then to clarify all of this?

My intention, the recap that Mayor Pro Temnes provided does match with my recollection was that the commission's discussion at the time of issuing the RFP was to work to have the operating cost covered similar to what we did with the Con Foster building slash former Bijou by the bay. So as I leave this conversation, unless there's more said, I think that My approach is going to be to stick with that, but to explore if there's anything that makes sense along the lines of what Lance said, and I can certainly do that. Thank you. That's all I ask.

Yep. Yep. Great. Okay. I just want to make sure we were all on page for that. Mitch?

Yes. I suppose this is a question for Crooked Tree if they were present. But is there intention with a permanent larger space to remain in downtown specifically or Traverse City generally or Grand Traverse region or yet unknown?

That's a fine question. That can't be part of our deliberations though because we're focusing Are we approving it for their requested period with the options to be negotiated if they hopefully find some great space and maybe find it early and all of that. So that's, you know, during public comment or at any point if anybody wants to get up and share that, that's here. But that's not our purview of this motion, though, so. Other questions or comments? Right, we have a motion, don't we?

Yes, we do. Laura read the marathon.

I remember Laura reading it. I accidentally crossed it out, which I usually don't do until we vote. So I apologize, Laura. I literally negated what you had worked all that time on. Any other comments on this? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back for a vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right. I'm excited for whatever space the Cricket Tree has coming forward. They're a great part of our community and excited for the next couple years there and what happens to our library. So lots of good things in our community. Okay, next, thank you for bringing this forward Commissioner Shaw. So I'll hand it over to you about a resolution in support of childcare micro centers.

You can kick it off. Yes, I think the resolution language is actually pretty comprehensive. But to summarize, the childcare micro center is a model that allows state regulations for home based childcare operations to apply to places outside the home like a church or a township hall or a library. Maybe not a library, but why not? And it could fill a substantial gap between the home-based childcare and traditionally licensed stand-alone daycare centers, which can often be significantly costly, plus with a lot of regulations, which are barriers to setting one up in your home. So the microcenters provide an opportunity to partnership with local businesses. Just nice. And meanwhile, Networks Northwest survey showed that 70% of parents in the region struggled to find childcare. And so boosting childcare capacity gets, also boosting childcare capacity got the most votes for urgency in our strategic plan, public community input. So this Senate bill that I'm proposing that we support was introduced in December 25 by John DeMoose, and it expands the definition of what we already have under the family home care rule to include child care micro centers. As of now, it doesn't appear to be really going anywhere in the Senate because there's not a lot of cooperation across parties, but I think most parents, regardless of party affiliation, truly desire quality child care. So I hope you will join me in supporting this resolution.

Do we have any questions for Heather? Go ahead, Lance.

Do you know if any committee meetings have been scheduled at all on it?

I do not. It just says stalled. Stalled, not going anywhere.

Help and reinforce like, hey, we want this. And then I guess last question, the resolution kind of has the staff inspecting our own facilities. Do we know if we've done that before, if the facilities could be micro centers?

I know that there was some initial exploration of using the lower level of this building. But it wasn't, at the time, supported by the county, who is the majority owner. But that's certainly a conversation that could be revisited. There's new people in seats now, as well as looking at city facilities that are solely owned by us. I don't believe that's been done yet.

I do think bringing it to the county, there's probably appetite there. Mm-hmm. Good.

Great. All right. So do we have more questions? Or Heather, since you brought it forward, if you'd like to make the motion. I would like to.

Great. I move that the resolution in support of childcare microcenters and expanded access to early childhood care be adopted.

Second. All right. Thank you. Heather and Lance, any further discussion?

Just a brief update to let everyone know that the Planning Commission has also, of course, been reviewing zoning options to be sure that we aren't inadvertently exerting any barriers against child care options in the city. And then I believe at the time of our strategic plan adoption, there was some interest among this body about the tri-share. Yes. And so any kind of an update from the city manager at some point that's convenient would be appreciated.

I can even share something really quick right now. We were even talking about that just this morning, the deputy city manager and I. And this is part of the city manager's OKR work plan that you approved. And so Valerie Handy, our deputy city manager, is going to be working with our human resources director to present a recommendation to me here relatively soon. And so I'll be happy to report more back once we've got more information.

Outstanding. Thank you. Yes.

All right, and just to, you know, as we're looking at it through planning, and not that they don't know this, but we did a really comprehensive update in, I think, 2017. And so just as we should be able to just do like 2017 to now to see if there's anything that's missing versus having to do a whole scope of, a large scope of action on that, so.

Thank you. And as I recall, one of the pieces of that update was making sure that you didn't have two child cares next to each other or even it might even be you can't have two child care centers on one block. So that might be a place to start too.

Yeah, I think that was actually one of the things we eliminated. Because it used to be like you couldn't have them within 500 or 1,000 feet of each other. So I think that did get eliminated, but always worth double checking.

I don't know, there was a lot of pushback on that. Children's voices are loud and very disturbing.

We did hear that commentary, yes. All right, any further comments from the city commission? Any public comment on this item? Seeing none, we'll bring it back. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? And I meant to say this before, but we had our funny conversation there about children being boisterous. I would say, too, that anybody who might be looking at this vote, and from what Heather summarized very well, we just want to see something like this move forward. And we appreciate John Demuse putting it forward, but if it comes from someone else or there's another similar thing in committee, this is what we are endorsing, is this flexibility that Heather outlined. Put that on the record now, because thank you, everybody, for voting for that. All right, next we have our public hearing here for our, I'm not going to read them all. Rezoning. Rezoning of 314 8th Street. Do we need, do we have a presentation, or do you want to just open it?

I'd like to just ask Leslie Sichterman, the acting planning director, to just provide a brief overview. And I know that she also corrected something that she had indicated at the planning commission meeting last week. And if you can just reiterate that here for everybody, that'd be great. Thanks, Leslie.

Good evening. So this is introduction tonight and then at your next regular meeting, I assume it will be back on the agenda for final action. This was a rezoning brought to the Planning Commission by the Land Bank Authority. in cooperation with the housing commission for redevelopment of the copy central site on 8th street this property is currently zoned c2 and all of the property around it on this side of the of 8th street is all already zoned r3 They need to do a little bit of property line adjustments around this property given the circumstances surrounding the property that the land bank also owns. And in doing that, they're going to create a situation where there's split zoning on this property. So we want to make sure that we don't get into that situation which does get tricky. in regards to enforcing zoning and in addition to that some of the standards in the current C2 district kind of pose some issues for them in trying to develop the property for residential use. So the intended use is residential multiple family. That use is permitted in both the C2 and the R3 districts. But the mistake that was my mistake at the planning commission level was the staff report indicated The current zoning district allows only a 30-foot height limit for residential use and the proposed district allows 45 feet and that's actually not true. I misread the ordinance and confirmed with a few sources after that that actually it's the same height restriction in both districts. So again, there's very minor differences between the two districts and this kind of brings it more in line with our master plan and with the other surrounding uses and zoning.

Thank you.

Okay. And so do we have any questions? Go ahead, Ken.

Page 3 of the staff reports, the rezoning request staff report where it has the colored map and it shows the C2 inside the C3, that's not the flume, the future land use map. That's as it is right now, right?

That's the current zoning, yes. It's kind of a little bit of an island on its own there. Other questions or a motion?

Heather? I'll move that the amendments to the Traverse City Code of Ordinances which would rezone 314 8th Street from C2 Neighborhood Center to our three multiple family dwelling district as recommended by the City Planning Commission be introduced and scheduled for possible enactment on September 8th, 2026. Support.

All right, thank you. I'm going to do Heather and Laura on that one. Further discussion?

I thought that it might be valuable to just give a thumbnail summary of some of the public input that was provided during public comment at the Planning Commission level. And many of the folks that we heard from were residents of the Riverine condominium complex that is right next door to this property. And they expressed some concerns regarding traffic impact, sharing of parking facilities and they were hoping to have I think more of the insights about the potential development that would appear with a site plan which of course we at the Planning Commission at that point didn't have and we're evaluating strictly in terms of was this aligned with the master plan. Did I get that kind of right or can you elaborate on that? Yeah, I think so.

You know, it is hard to separate the site development particulars and the rezoning issues. It's hard for them not to kind of mesh together. At this point, we're only considering and discussing the rezoning of the property. So the differences between the two districts do become important and again that height difference was a concern to the neighbors and my apologies for that. But those two districts are the same. This is actually a little bit of a down zoning because all of the use is currently allowed in the R3. which they're asking to go to are already allowed in the C2 district. And then additional commercial uses are allowed in C2. So it's just kind of a quirk in our zoning, and it works better for them. But I think that is a good summary of the concerns that the neighbors had, and we'll certainly try to address all of those at the site plan review process.

And when we have our own public hearing, you know, I would expect that we may get some feedback from the neighbors also. I also wanted to mention that I found it quite encouraging that the owners of the property, of Copy Central's property, really did want to see this affordable housing use, and that was their desire, and I think beginning the conversation with the Traverse City Housing Commission, that was part of their motivation, so just FYI.

So just really quick, Leslie, to clarify, because you said that it's the same. You were correcting yourself that it was the same. So what height does that fall at?

45 feet.

So no matter which zoning it is, whether it changes or not, it will be allowed for up to 45 feet. Exactly. And does that change any kind of parking requirements either?

I'd have to check closer at the parking requirements. I don't think it changes those requirements. Some of the site development standards like the amount of, you know, the placement of doorways, active areas, The design of the building that do apply in the C2 district don't apply in R3. So some of those and the setbacks are a little bit different. They're actually a little more generous that is smaller in the existing zoning. So it's a little bit of give and take. Okay.

So yeah, that's what I just want to clarify because again, this correction is out there. I want to make sure that because that was one of the major concerns that we're not losing that forest for the trees of it'd be 45 feet no matter which one it is. Okay.

Jackie? And Mr. Fulmer, the head of the Traverse City Housing Commission was kind enough to share a few details that I think had been shared with the land bank authority. presentation and essentially was expecting the eventual site plan to have virtually one parking spot per one apartment allocation. But I should not speak to him. I'm merely reporting something that came up at the Planning Commission. Thank you. That's good, Chair.

Any other questions or comments? Go ahead, Ken.

Is there a parking requirement for C3 development where you have to have at least one parking space for every one unit?

I wish I knew that off the top of my head. I don't. I can get back to you on that. But generally, there is room for residential multiple family to not have one unit, one parking space per unit. In past projects with the housing commission, they have tried to scale back the parking and have found that to be problematic. So they are committed to having at least one space per unit at this site.

On that same vein, I guess, would that Parkview apartment, it's right on the corner of South Civic Center Drive and 8th Street, was that a Housing Commission project? Yes. There.

It's a cautionary tale.

That parking lot is a nightmare.

Right. So based on that experience, they are making sure that they have a little bit more parking available for the units at this site.

Thank you, Leslie.

Yep.

Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Seeing none, any public comment on this item? Please feel free to approach the podium and line up if there are several people who would like to.

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 has elapsed, the timer will beep. And finally, we request that all language be respectful to all parties.

Good evening. My name is Ken Newberry, past president and present board member of the Riverine Site Association, 601 Riverine, apartment 106. Thank you for the opportunity to address all of you and for your consideration that I know was provided at the last planning committee meeting. I'm not here to argue in favor or against the zoning thing. I will say one thing as I was sitting here hearing about the 45 feet or 30 feet. When you're at Riverine, you're down the hill. So that means you're at least 20 feet below. So a 45 foot building is more like a 65 foot building in terms of the perspective of height. So you think about when you're sitting at street level for the downtown state street projects and all those other things, that's 45 feet. We're looking at a 65 foot, so when you look at the consideration for the plan, that's something at least from a perspective of what it's like for marine owners. And I know it's affected some of our people who are worried, who are moving now as a result of the project. So it has some adverse effect in terms of the housing values that we have. But I'm here really to talk about what I call the seven P's. You all know it. The city commission version tonight is really prior proper planning prevents problems for pedestrians, pedalists, and people in cars. As you know, 8th Street is very busy these days, and especially at rush hour, peak rush hours, and with all the bypasses. We find it's extremely difficult to get out of our lot most times. If you want to turn to the west, it's a nightmare most times. And the only time you even get sometimes out during the peak rush hours is somebody is courteous enough to be able to let you in. I often take my sunglasses off. I look like a poor, sick, old person. I say, oh, would you please let me in? And it does work sometimes, I've got to tell you. But the fact is, we want to be able to make sure that we have safety. Bicycles come down there at breakneck speed downhill. If there is a curb cutout, I know that was discussed at the last meeting, it is an extreme safety problem because the bikes go down there, there's no place for them to go. If a car comes out at a blind 45-foot building is behind them, they're not gonna be seen. We have that concern right now with Riverine. People have to stop and look and make sure that they don't hit somebody. There have been some past accidents in the years past. And so I urge that whatever site is developed, a plan is developed, that those considerations for safety and for traffic are actually recorded in that whole area. Finally, there are some things that you may not notice. We noticed, for example, in the big snowfalls we had last year that a pile of snow, maybe 10 feet higher or taller, was placed between Lake Street and 8th Street because they had no other place to put it. So when you're putting a building there, which is maybe fine and meets a noble objective, One of the things you're not paying for is the fact that you're going to have to haul that snow away. It's got to go somewhere. And I only wish I'd known McGough's and some of the others around there that had not been consulted to this project at all until just recently. It would have been helpful so we could provide some of the input. And I know I feel comfortable knowing that going forward, we'll have some input in the site plan as it develops. And I think finally, you know, A couple other things. We asked quite a while ago, speaking of safety, and I know it's a different issue, but about lighting. It's very dark coming past the bridge at night. Bicycles still come by there at night, and we had at one point been approved by the city engineering department to have a light place there when the bridge project was going on. It didn't happen. Thank you.

I'll let you finish your one sentence. Please don't go on beyond it though.

I'll just do it really quickly. I am trained as a doctor in community psychology. When you talk about work.

Sorry, I just wanted you to finish. We cut you off just saying we want a light. Can you just finish describing the light very quickly and then your time had a lot. That's okay.

I'm fine. Okay. I think they'll continue without me. But thanks for your time. Thank you. Yes.

Again, if several people would like to speak, please feel free to line up at the podium as well.

Hi. My name is Charlie Kern. My wife and I live at 283 Midtown. I went to the planning commission. I thank Jackie for her work. She was very respectful and helpful. You know, we're the neighbors. We're the ones who live there. And we have the direct view of this building. Now, we just want to be heard, be listened to. I also, in my opinion, I'm not interested in the zoning per se, but I am interested very much so in the height as our riverine neighbors and Lake Street neighbors also. I mean, that's a humongous change for us. I don't want us to rush through. hoping for input into the site plan. But I know we want to maximize the workforce that's all, you know, affordable and other things are all for that. But, you know, I mean, it's an apartment boom all over town, outer Garfield, Hammonds, by TC West. So we need workforce housing. We support that. You know, 45 units with 47 parking spots, there's going to be overflow into our lot, Riverine. I mean, you really, you might have in that 700 foot spot, which are going to be the apartments, two or three people might have cars there. I mean, they're going to pile people in. you know, apartments happen. So you're going to have maybe a lot larger number. So our concern, you know, is the parking. But I'm really concerned about the height, the visual. Commissioner Anderson even mentioned the word. I mean, we don't want to make this into a canyon view down A Street. We live there for a reason. We want to maintain some of our community and, you know, things that attract it. It's not a 45-foot. I mean, could we do 30? Could you do 25 units? I mean, it doesn't all have to be kaboom right in this one spot. So, you know, the other concerns, you know, we'd like the input to the site plan. also as our neighbor mentioned, to have trees in front. I mean, have the setback, you know, 19, 20 feet, you know, six, you know, eight trees in front, block some of that view, have some grassy land. Just don't, I mean, I don't know what the consequences are in 15, 20 years, who's going to own that. We know what happened. Trailside 45 and some of these others, they turn into condos. I mean, but we're still going to be there living if this commute turns into somebody maximizing their profit and, you know, we're all into business being good. I agree the 20,000 cars per day on 8th Street and we already have a problem. Now, we're going to add more people turning right and left. hardly get out of our unit, now you're going to add in all that. So my hope would be limit this height, be respectful, listen to us neighbors. We live there. We look at it every day. You know, I mean, it's a noble cause by the land bank, but compromise. Just kind of make it more reasonable so it can be a win-win for the workforce, the land bank, the neighbors, those of us who live surrounding it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Do we have more public comment?

My name is Jeff Watts. I live at 303 Midtown. I just want to say what Charlie just said. Please give us some consideration in the site planning. Again, 45 units, 47 parking spaces. She's already said, you know, that wasn't enough. As the other two gentlemen said, turn onto A Street at morning or it's virtually impossible to go left or right. And now we're adding more bodies. I would also remind the Commission that the Tart Trail goes right between the proposed site and Riverine. There are a lot of bikers, there are a lot of walkers on that site. That should be considered too in this site plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment?

Good evening, Richard Robbins, live at 720 Center Place in Traverse City here representing the Grand Traverse Safe Streets Alliance. We're very interested in this development. It's going to be very tricky to put together something I think that works but from a, our alliance is with cyclists, with trail organizations, it's with the disabled, it's with the runners of our community and it's with pedestrians. And this has a great opportunity but it's also a, we see it as a pivotal location because 8th Street on the south side kind of terminates from a pedestrian biking at that point. And there's a great opportunity out in the future years how that ties into Lake Street, that ties into 7th Street, that takes us across, as a crosstown route. How that plays out in the future, we're not sure, as we all are not sure, but the types of decisions we all make on that property are going to be real future limiting or beneficial. not to mention the challenge we have right now with the cut through traffic that uses Lake Street to Oriana to 10th to 12th out to division on a continual basis that I think our engineering and streets division need to kind of address at some point. But anyway, the reason for my comment is it's a tremendous opportunity, but at the same time it's going to be very tricky and I'm looking forward, we are looking forward to also having some input and community collaboration to making this, whatever it's going to be, a success for pedestrians, the disabled, cyclists and pedestrians. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other public comment on this item? If there's public comment, please come to the podium, please.

Carl Fulmer, Director of the Traverse City Housing Commission. I just want to thank the City Commission for allowing us the opportunity to come before you. I do want to clarify parking is an issue at Parkview Apartments. Those are 46 units and we only have 26 parking spaces. And we're about 9 to 11 spaces shy based on And I wasn't here when that was designed, but I can tell you it's a problem. Right now, we have a draft site plan that we had to compose a site plan when we asked for the rezone. I met with planning department staff three or four months ago to ask their opinion of how we should rezone. And because Copy Central is the C2 that's kind of in an ocean of R3, they preferred that we choose to rezone to R3. And so, part of the issue with trying to limit the height is we purchased the property based on a C2 zoning. The land bank purchased it. If the zoning and density were less, I would, Would have hoped that the price tag would have been less too. So there's certain things that we certainly will abide by what the city wants us to do as far as the underlying zoning goes, but we respectfully request that copy central's parcel be rezoned to R3.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other public comment at this time? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to bring it back. I wanted to clarify really quickly based on the public comments. Carl's sitting right here, so he is the developer with the Housing Authority. However, so he's taking notes on the, and Leslie's here, and there's a site review, so as far as the curb cuts and the lanes and our bicycling. And believe me, as far as making the person who makes rights to make left all the time who lives about two blocks down by Woodmere from you guys on the cycle track, I understand exactly what you're talking about when it comes time to try and make lefts and all the conflicts. So that is all being noted. I wanted to underline, though, that whether we change this or not, by right, that property is 45 feet. That was the correction that Leslie made. So I just wanted to really underline that, that I know it got during the discussion at the Planning Commission that might have seemed muddled, but that was the clarification that Leslie made for this packet and just clarified for us in this presentation is even if we don't change a thing, it's still 45 feet. And if we do change it to R3, that it also is. There's a lot of other conversation to be had. Not to point out Carl, but Carl's right there if you want to grab him later. So I just wanted to clarify that we are hearing what you're saying, but just in case later on somebody says, well, I thought it was going to be 30 feet, that's off the table now. So I just wanted to clarify that as we have this discussion. All right, any other questions, Mitch?

Yes. First, in the interest of disclosure and in keeping with the city's ethics policy, I am the vice chair of the Housing Commission, though I have no financial stake in this project nor any other Housing Commission project. We are looking at a zoning change right now. The site plan is regardless of that. It is changing from C2 with any potential uses, which could include a restaurant on the ground floor, offices on the subsequent floors, residential above to a height of 45 feet, which could have five times the vehicular and foot traffic that a residential building has. It can be to R3 and any uses that are allowed under that, which has the same height, similar setbacks with regards to this property. I do hear concerns about parking as we've addressed with our previous projects, and that's why the site plan has been modified. But I would interest the public in this case and in any other case throughout the city, if you see a view shed or some attribute that you want preserved that isn't currently preserved in current zoning, there are options that you could buy that property, that you can buy Development rights that you can buy air rights if you want the property next to you to be developed to a lesser height That does not What happened here? It was one property under a set of ownership and a certain set of zoning Changed hands and now there's a person a proposed change of zoning All right

So with that, I'm going to call the vote. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. OK. So last on our list here is the Coast Guard appointments. Looks like, sorry, I'm losing. I lost who the chair was on this one, so.

I don't think it's indicated. Okay, well there we go then.

So thank you to the ad hoc committee then of Commissioner Funk, Shaw, and Treadwell. Looks like you've got, I don't know if anybody wants to do a quick summary of it or just make a motion. Go ahead, Heather.

Yeah, we didn't actually meet because there were only three applications. Oh, yeah. And it was three current members wanted to come back. Fantastic.

Yay. All right. So then we'll just take a motion then and thank them for their service.

I'll make the motion.

Go ahead. Oh, you got it.

I move that Polly Kearns, Jessica Bertzman, and David Barr be reappointed to a three-year term expiring August 25th, 2029 on the Coast Guard City Committee as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Commissioner Funk, Commissioner Shaw, and Commissioner Treadwell. Second.

All right. Thank you, Ken. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, any public comment on this? Seeing none, I'll bring it back. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you for that summary.

Yeah, it's nice when we have interested people who are given the chance to re-up. Any reports from our commissioners on their boards? Go ahead, Heather. I do.

We had an EDC meeting. Economic Development Corporation and the latest draft from McKenna came in and this involves the development of a county planning department. The department will not dictate or administer local zoning or dictate planning but what it will do or we hope it's going to do is coordinate information about projects between townships, villages and the city plus what MDOT is doing, what the road commission is doing, Utility work going on. So this is part of our pillar three of our strategic action plan to convene organization in the region. And also coordinating these kinds of projects across the county will help with grants hugely. So it's terrific, it's terrific. We didn't actually get to discuss the report because we ran out of time, so we'll be discussing it in the next week or so. That's great. Let's see. Now, this is interesting. There was also a motion to approve a letter of support endorsing the designation of the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station and surrounding Great Lakes operating area as an official U.S. Coast Guard testing site for robotic and autonomous maritime technologies. This was approved. The agenda item came. came accompanied by a letter of support signed by Senators Slotkins and Peters and five of Michigan's 13 reps. Just letting you know, this is talk about change. Sewer systems and increased activity over there and hopefully not noise. Finally, parks and rec. There were some issues concerning the purview of the commission during August's meeting and deputy city manager, she will be attending the September meeting to answer questions. Great.

And thank you for that, Valerie.

Yeah. Any other reports from our commissioners? Mitch?

Yes. As Jackie has alluded to, our two big issues on the Planning Commission meeting last week were the zoning for the 8th Street property that we just discussed and we had discussion about the potential relaxation of childcare zoning and how childcare can be addressed through the zoning framework. So it's an issue that's multifaceted, but as a city, we're able to examine it through multiple lenses.

Thank you both for your work on that. Anything else from our commissioners? All right, seeing none, I will open up now for final public comment. You can comment on anything under the sun. Doesn't have to be what we talked about tonight.

Richard Robbins, again, Traverse City, Grand Traverse. Well, actually, I'm going to put two hats on today. I'll put the hat on as the Director of Advocacy for the Cherry Capital Cycling Club. Thank you so much for the paint this year. It has been tremendous. Have you noticed the increase in the cyclists in this city this year compared to previous years? And I observe, anecdotally, but observe a lot. I bike everywhere, that the lanes have been tremendous in separating and establishing in the minds the culture of separation between vehicles and bicyclists. So thank you very much. I got a couple stats for you. You see these are very interesting stats. You might want to take some notes. 230 million Americans, U.S. citizens, are 16 years and older. 230 million. 87% of those, about 200 million, have a driver's license. 24% of the US citizens 16 and older identify as either casual or active bicyclists, which is 55 million. And all studies show that approximately 50% of those who are casual or active riders are in this category called interested in bicycling more but concerned for their safety, which is about 27 million. Take those numbers, those percentages and take them down to our 15,000 within Traverse City. The more we can take people out of automobiles, feel comfortable riding, all of our initiatives are going to help with our traffic congestion and it's also going to be a better lifestyle. Now I put the other hat on. I want you to take your commissioner hat off and I want to invite you on August 27th at Silver Spruce, the Grand Traverse Safe Street Alliance has a meeting from 6 to 8. We are moving to what we call hyperlocal. So we're asking members of the neighborhoods, all the neighborhoods will be represented, to have groups of five, ten people that are going to work on a quick work session in order to identify what is the most difficult or dangerous for walking pedestrians disabled in your neighborhood. And we're going to bring those back to the Complete Streets Committee as well as to the Commission so that we really get engagement by our local So for all of you, I invite you to take your commissioner hat off, join your neighborhood, and come join us on the 27th at Silver Spruce. It'll be a very quick, rapid-fire kind of approach, and it'll be very refreshing. So anyway, thank you very much.

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

Justin Reed, 630 Cajun Drive from 1B, Charleston, Michigan resident. So over at the Silver Drive and from North Ed, there is an issue with watering a pond. If you're going just past North Ed, just before you hit the curb if you're going to Myers, there is, a water issue on that road. That road has currently been cape sealed a couple of times and is cracking and the water is coming from a creek, a felt culvert that's on Red Drive and that's part of Garfield Township. And I am probably planning to take some more photos and end up sending those out to the city commission I have not had Garfield Township yet say when they're going to end up fixing it. They're saying that the owners need to fix it and say back and forth between Garfield Township and the owners. That road, bread drive, that portion that goes, that's unpaved, that used to be just a farming road during when that was a state hospital. And the culvert is fairly old there, and there was a master plan 16 years ago, and there was some schmacks and everything else about that. And unfortunately, if no action is taken upon Garfield Township, It's going to affect the infrastructure on Silver Drive. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Bill Tweetmeier. I live at 300 East Bay Boulevard North, Traverse City. I'm a city resident. How many hours do I get to address? I do have a handout for you. So I'll give you the abbreviated version. There's one for each commissioner, one for the city manager, one for the city clerk. So I've been itching to address this commission since this article appeared in the newspaper last month. About the governmental center, the full facility repair estimates top seven and a half million. What really concerns me is what I've highlighted in yellow. Now, these pages are numbered 1 through 10. I'll go through them quickly. You'll see the number up at the top right-hand corner. This is page number 1. I'll read to you. There are still disagreements with city leaders on a cost-sharing agreement for the current repairs underway, Alger said. That's Nate Alger, county administrator. While the city and county assume a 50-50 split ownership of the building, maintenance costs are often calculated based on a split of the county's 76% occupancy compared to the city's roughly 24% occupancy. He goes on, there's a difference of opinion on what that looks like. We are still navigating that, Elder said. We don't want to hold the process up with a discussion about if it's 26 percent or half of the cost. We want to move forward with the project. We'll continue to talk with them on whether it's the percentage of building occupancy or your co-tenant concept, he told county commissioners. So what I wanted to bring to your attention is that's factually inaccurate and is factually incorrect. And so I'm going to kind of bring you through this. Go to page two. This is the audit from 1980-81. And then page three, which is the very next page, I've highlighted the joint venture between the city and the county. And I'll read the highlighted area. The city has entered into a contract with Grand Traverse County for the joint ownership, construction and operation of a governmental center. Under the terms of the contract, the total cost payable by the city in cash amounted to 935,000. That was our investment in this building. The county's investment was 2.9 million. That's how they derived the percentage. Go to page 4. You'll see an audit from a subsequent year in 1985 for the city. Flip one more page to page five and I'll read the highlighted area. Beginning June 1st, 1978, the city entered into an agreement with the county of Grand Traverse for the joint ownership and operation of the governmental center.

Thank you.

Okay. All I wanted to say was please make certain that you're not hoodwinked or bamboozled by the county.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, as always. Even in retirement, you always are watching out for us. We appreciate that. Anything, any other public comment at this time? All right, seeing none, I'm going to bring it back just to let everybody know it's August and things are light here. Obviously, a lot of our road things and everything we've already voted on are happening, so staff is not late. But this is our only meeting in the month of August, so our next meeting will be Tuesday, September 8th, the day after Labor Day. So that will be our next meeting. It'll be a business meeting. So I just wanted to give everybody the heads up that we will not be seeing you from this location as this group for a couple weeks now. So everybody, I hope you have a great official rest of your summer. And we'll see you guys on September 8th. And have a great night. I think we still got some daylight left. Oh, I got, they gave me this. I'm going to turn.

I thought it was going to.