City Council - Regular Meeting

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. If we can take roll call, please.

Mayor Beagle is excused. Deputy Mayor Gottschall?

Here.

Councilmember Behrman is excused. Councilmember Grendlin-Fox? Here. Councilmember Kennedy?

Here.

Councilmember O'Day? Present. Councilmember Simmons? Here. We have quorum.

Thank you, are there any changes or additions to tonight's agenda, Mr. Assistant City Manager? I have none, sir. Any from council?

I have one.

Yes.

Looking to add to a new business, number eight, a discussion on planning commission and zoning board documentation, if possible.

Number eight, discussion regarding planning and zoning documentation?

Correct.

Do we have any others? No, good, okay, thank you. We have no presentations. First, we have approval of minutes. The only set of minutes is the regular City Council meeting minutes from June 9th, 2026. All those in favor of approving, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say nay. Minutes are adopted. We have no correspondence. We have city manager's reports. We have the finance department quarterly budget and investment report from December 31st, 2025 and the departmental reports. Does anyone have any questions about either item? I do have a few questions. Related to ordinance enforcement, there was a point on there that says we spend time on two animal investigations for eating feral cats, allegedly. It doesn't seem like a great use of our time, I don't think, and strikes me as a little overreach-ish. I don't know how anyone else on council would feel, but I mean, you're feeding animals. It's kind of like people that have bird feeders. They're outside animals. I guess I don't understand my word.

yeah here I don't I know a little bit about those the situations I don't know all the details but I can tell you it's complaint based that's not that uncommon that One neighbor gets upset with another neighbor for feeding animals, whether it be cats or whether it be squirrels or birds or whatever. So the report is intentionally vague because we're not trying to put out, like, hey, at 123 Main Street, we got this complaint and kicked it out. You know what I mean? So the write-up is broad. For what it's worth, I don't think that we don't do a ton with it, but it depends on the circumstance. There are issues where someone could complain, and it's creating a health, safety, welfare issue. So if nothing else, that's really just a notation that, hey, we got this complaint, or we got it twice in two different situations, and we looked into it.

Okay. Does that make sense? If we can just... ensure that we're not really spending time on certainly hopefully not fining anyone over that. I would not be happy to learn that. One of the others kind of relates to something that came before us from a former resident. There was a point that discusses three apartment and rental complaints related to bed bugs, mold, and compliance and inspection matters. I know it seemed like a majority of council wanted to discuss rental rules or whatnot when our former resident was here. At a future meeting, if we can get an update on or have it put on an agenda to discuss those. I know when that was the hot topic a few months ago when we had that complaint, I did some research. Different cities are handling rentals a different way than we are, including forcing 100% rental inspection every year, which we don't do. So I don't know if maybe it's time to adjust what we're doing to catch that kind of stuff, but I don't... to see that we're still having mold issues potentially or at least complaints isn't good. That was the primary issue I think that the former resident had mentioned. Then under economic development, thank you for the write up about wake boats and that information. That was another one, if we're keeping kind of like a to discuss list, that seemed to be on it as well, so I'm not sure if we can add that to a future meeting to take action, because that report seemed to say that 500 feet minimum was like the distance from shore and doing a little bit of measuring on a satellite image that puts you at about the center of the lake pretty consistently so you wouldn't be able to use it in Loon Lake and I don't know if we need to adopt an ordinance banning it or at least discuss it because we did have a handful of residents out from Birch Park to look at that and yeah.

I would say, really for both circumstances, And I can't recall for the rental ordinance specifically, I apologize, if a consensus was provided. But really, whether it's a motion or just a clear consensus of council and direction of what it is that you're looking for, we can certainly do that. Or if one of you choose to, hey, we want to add something to the agenda. It's just we need a little bit of context. So specifically, if there was a request, hey, we as a body would like to review the rental ordinance, we can easily put together, hey, here's the ordinance, here's what it says. I need a little more context of what it is that you'd like to do so that we can make sure that we're meeting your expectations. Does that make sense?

Can others speak now to say whether they would be in favor of discussing either of those or both of them? Sure. Okay. Does anyone want to address those? Go ahead.

I would also like to have something on a future agenda to discuss actually both of those issues. And I understand you want more context, but as far as the context that was brought to us by the residents,

Sure. Well, that's why I tried to, and I think with the rental ordinance, we kind of did the same thing where, like, we give you some level of update. So, and I'll give you an example, right? If the direction was, hey, you know, we'd like a draft wakeboard boat ordinance, you know, brought for us, okay, that's a little bit more specific. Because, like, in some cases, some of these things, like, whether we need to work with the city attorney on it or, you know, or is it even broader than that, just like, hey, you gave us this opinion, can you... Can we just have an open space to talk about it? That's what I'm getting at. What due diligence do you need done?

Okay, I think I can be a little more specific. So I would like to see the ordinance on rental responsibilities. And then any recommendation of how to enforce those, because I know it's one thing to have the ordinance, but it's another totally different animal to get the enforcement of that. And then as far as the wake boat, I know in reading the article that you had attached I thought it said something to the effect of basically that the enforcement by the state and there was something in there about it being political and basically it sounded like there was no enforcement But if Deputy Mayor is talking about the 500 fee, then that's a whole nother issue. So if we can look at what our options are that we could legally enforce and then respond to that 500 fee issue. Does that help?

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions during city manager's reports? No, we're good? All right, moving on to the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless council members so request in which event the items will be removed from the consent agenda and added to the regular agenda at the end of unfinished or new business. On consent agenda we have a recommendation to approve an agreement for auxiliary sheriff's deputy services with Oakland County Sheriff's Office and authorize the mayor to sign the agreement on behalf of the city. All those in favor of the consent agenda please say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Consent agenda is approved. We have our first call to the public. The rules for the call to public are that the public shall address the council during the call to public which shall be included on the agenda immediately after correspondence and again immediately after new business. The first call to public immediately after correspondence shall be limited to agenda items only. A person shall not address the council in excess of five minutes unless the time is extended by a majority vote of the council present. persons wishing to address the council shall identify themselves and their place of residence and shall state their reason for addressing count the council all comments by the public shall be made directly to the council do we have any members of the public wishing to speak

Hi, my name is Pete Bailey. I'm here because I am the president of the Birch Park Town Club, and I have .

So if we don't mind, that is not on our agenda tonight, so that will be on our second call to public. Yep, thank you. Any other members of the public for the current call to public? Seeing none, call to public. is closed, we move on to unfinished business, which there is none, so on to new business. The first item of new business is a recommendation to approve year-end budget amendments and requests for commitments of fund balance to comply with the Uniform Budget Act 621 and Governmental Accounting Standards Board pronouncement 54 and more accurately reflect fiscal year 2025-2026 revenues and expenditures. Is there a motion? It's a board. We have a motion and a second. Any questions for staff members? Yes, Council Member Graham-Lafaz.

I have two questions well one is more of a request so is there a way that when we get this next time that it can be split out revenues and then expenditures so we can see where we were on the revenue side as well as the expenditure side

It is split out. The first two pages of the budget amendments are the revenues and there's a total revenues line at the bottom of the schedule on page two. And then the expenses are after that for general fund page three through six. Maybe I'm looking at the bottom.

But it doesn't say general fund. So I see what you're saying, but can you put a heading on there, revenues? I can. And then expenditure? I don't know if anyone else felt that way, but to me it seems easier to follow that way. Thank you. Sure. And then my question was, under the insurance retirement fund, so i understand the interest income which which is going to be budgeted we actually it looks like made more or we're estimating more but then the the insurance retiree insurance contribution and retiree insurance contribution for the um employer both were off do we know why

I do not know why I have to look into that. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, which page of that?

Page 11 of 11.

Okay, it takes me a while to get there. Do we have any other questions for staff about this? Everyone good? Okay, we have a motion and support. All in favor please, or do I need to reread it? So we have a motion to support to approve year-end budget amendments and request for commitments of fund balance to comply with the Uniform Budget Act 621 and Governmental Accounting Standards Board pronouncement 54 and more accurately reflect fiscal year 2025-2026 revenues and expenditures. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. Motion passes. We have new business number two, a recommendation to accept the bid from Hartwell Cement Company of Oak Park, Michigan for community center concrete replacement for $26,874 from community center account number 401805971350 for $6,989 from Gilbert Willis Park. Capital Improvement Account, 401-751-986-541. And for $12,555 from Parks and Recreation Landscaping Account, number 101-751-963-540. Do we have a motion? We have a motion to support. Are there any questions for staff about this item? Council Member Kennedy.

Just one thing that I wanted to ask is a couple times I seen out where we get an estimated cost based on a pricing that someone might not honor. Is there a way that we can get like, hey, this is good for 90 days?

So, yes, yes, that's typical. What we did last May, if you recall, we went out and solicited bids for concrete work and we were able to get a number of bids at that time. And at that point, we were soliciting just for three inch, or I'm sorry, four inch, concrete for sidewalks and then eight inch concrete for roads and it was primarily for sidewalks and roads as part of our normal program and since then where we found additional work for this company, so we wanted to you know, I guess expand on the contract that we currently have with them so that we can get to utilize the parks and the community center work that we would like to do as well. So we put it out to bid. We got three bids back in May and this is just kind of an addition or an extension to that particular contract. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from council? I did have a question regarding the community center. Are the funds that we're using any of the leftover grant funds or ARPA funds that we had received or CDBG or is this just straight city funds?

This was straight city funds that was programmed under capital improvement for the community center.

Okay, thank you.

And this is the end of the fiscal year.

Okay, thank you.

We have the cash now.

We have motion and support to approve or accept the bid from Hartwell Cement Company of Oak Park, Michigan for community center concrete replacement for $26,874 from community center account number 401-805-971-350 for $6,989 from Gilbert Willis Park capital improvement account number 401. seven five one nine eight six five four one and for twelve thousand five hundred fifty five dollars from Parks and Recreation landscaping account number one zero one seven five one nine six three five four zero all those in favor please say aye aye those opposed say no motion passes thank you thank you Next, we have a recommendation to award the Gilbert Willis Park Court Repairs to the low and qualified bidder, Titan Pavement of Waterford, Michigan, in the amount of $66,860. Is there a motion? We have a motion and a second, thank you. Are there any questions for staff? Council Member Granville-Fox.

so a question about the the pickleball courts i was looking back at your report and it doesn't look like we have any um leagues or anything for pickleball oh do we i thought it said zero um they're just starting now Oh, okay. Do you know how many we have approximately?

I think there's four classes scheduled.

Oh, okay. Okay, awesome. Thank you.

Do we have any other questions? Council Member Kennedy.

Why wasn't laser sport surfacing qualified?

um because they did not quote um the other three bidders were quoting with an average of 2600 linear feet of practice with them and they quoted 1 225 okay that makes sense thank you that everything any other questions no okay we have a um motion to

Award the Gilbert Willis Park Court Repairs to the low and qualified bidder, Titan Pavement of Waterford, Michigan, in the amount of $66,860. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. Motion passes. Thank you. Next we have a recommendation to authorize the city manager as recommended by the wage and salary committee and requested by the library to increase the hourly wages of all part-time library clerks and the part-time library executive assistant position by one dollar effective January 1st, 2027 to maintain position differentials after the minimum wage increase on the same date. Is there a motion?

So moved. Support.

We have a motion and support. Are there any questions for staff and council?

Council Member O'Reilly.

I just want to make sure my question was accurate. I just want to make sure the difference between the subject and the recommendation. whereas it indicates in the subject effective January 1, 2027, and in the recommendation it says July 1.

Okay, our budget, we budgeted for it, and it's for January 1st in our budget, so we would want the January 1st date, yes. So for half of this fiscal year, basically? Essentially, yeah, to match up, and then... That was sort of a way to ease into the substantial increase.

Any other questions? good okay and I think I read that correctly the first time since I read off the agenda so we have a recommendation to authorize the city manager as recommended by the wage and salary committee and requested by the library to increase the hourly wages of all part-time library clerks he and the part-time library executive assistant position by $1 effective January 1 2027 to maintain position differentials after the minimum wage increase on the same date. All those in favor please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed please say no. Motion passes. New business number five, we have a recommendation to authorize the city manager as recommended by the Wage and Salary Committee to implement a 3% wage increase with benefits as previously established for all non-union employees and adopt a revised salary grade structure for non-union full-time employees for fiscal year 2026-2027, effective July 1, 2026. Is there a motion? So moved. We have a motion to support. Any questions for staff about this? Council Member Kennedy.

This is probably something that's been discussed before, but it's my first year doing this.

How often do these raises go through? We do annual adjustments, both to our union employees via their collective bargaining agreements, they're adjusted annually, and then non-union discussion happens annually as well.

And is it evenly applied across everyone? When it says all employees, 3%, is that just across?

It depends on the situation. So in this, yes, for all non-union, the recommendation is that all wage adjustments are the same. There have been years when for non-union employees there have been merit... merit adjustments or salary grade adjustments, there are no such recommendations this year. And then for, as it relates to the union contracts, it's different in each situation. Most of ours are right around that same 3%, I do believe. Police and Fire, and maybe, yeah, I think it's Police and Fire actually have negotiated 4% for this current fiscal year. Normally our union contracts are three years long, and those tend to serve as some level of basis. for our recommendations for non-union. But again, when they're different, we don't always do the same things.

Would I be able to get something showing me the past five years of wage and benefits and increases that went along with them for different positions?

different positions yes I mean yeah we could as an example we could get you the agenda items from the last five times that non-union wages were adjusted are you looking for Union as well no just not you and that'd be great okay thank you

I'd probably just plan on it being a bunch of 3% every year.

I believe, yeah, that's essentially what I believe it has been. Seems pretty standard around here. The scale adjustments have been different. Some years we've done, we've actually increased the scales at the same rate as wage adjustments, and other years, more often than not, we adjust the scales by less than we adjust the actual wages so that employees are moving through their salary bands. I'm just trying to get caught up as well. Sure, no, understood. Council Member Simmons.

Just question on the budget versus the expense. So just trying to understand. So I see our adopted budget has us at 110K and we're projecting this expense. Are there other things that are going into this adopted budget that it's just not allocated here? But why are we so far off for this?

So we don't necessarily budget for the exact estimated increase. So we budget at a different point than bringing this recommendation to you all. So that's probably the number one thing is that, you know, we wouldn't necessarily just say, well, what do we think 3% for everyone's going to be and just give you that exact number. And I think, and I guess you may be able to help me explain anything else that goes into that line item.

Yeah, so that line item is budgeted at $110,000. Just mainly because this is my first year and that's what was done in prior years and so that's what I did. I calculated non-union salaries and then part-time employee wages in FICA for that line item and it ended up being around, I think less than $80,000. Okay. Got it. Okay, thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions?

No.

Council Member O'Day.

Thank you. So just as a point of clarification then, because you just mentioned the salaries and FICA, do these line items or expenses include, is it salary and benefits then, or just salary? So for instance, when I say benefits, obviously I'm meaning FICA or retirement contributions, things of that nature that are all intertwined with the salary.

Okay, so for this particular line item where the $110,000 was budgeted, this is just for salaries for non-union salaried department heads or other staff that are salaried, and then also for part-time wage increases and then the part-timers, we calculate FICA for the wage increase and take it out of that line item for the 110,000 and put it in the appropriate department. So it is salaries and wages and then FICA for just part-time employees. The FICA for everyone else is already budgeted in the appropriate department.

Because we make estimates during the budgeting process because most of the benefits are adjusted no matter what, like health insurance and those kind of things. So those numbers are variable year to year, but if you remember back to the budgeting process, all non-union positions stay the same until you guys change them. And then that's where the budget amendments that result in this decision. Does that make sense?

It does. Quick follow-up to that then as I'm looking at this table here. It looks like... The account names are different, full-time and part-time, but the account numbers are the same. So is it $100,000, I'm sorry, $110,000 and then that's the budgeted amount and the sum of the two is 70-ish, 70-something?

yes they and they are the same line item i broke them out in the agenda item so that you could see how much is full-time how much part-time but in the budget itself it is a single line item gotcha so it's not that each one is budgeted at 110 and we're off by correct five okay gotcha okay okay councilmember grubman along the same lines as councilmember o'day when we see this next time can we

show what it is as far as the expected projected expense for the wages and then also fully loaded for the benefits so we can see the effect on what that 3% is on the wages, but I'd like to see what it is on all the other fringes as well.

Okay, yeah, essentially another column or a couple of columns. Sure. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, I think there, I know you had mentioned merit increases and there's a question about what it looks like. It typically is like two to three percent. I think three percent is probably what will come back for the last handful of years. We always hope to get merit increases. It seems like our past councils had wanted to go that route, but we hadn't. So I'm just wondering, at least it strikes me like the amount we give out outpaces the inflation amount that we bring in percentage-wise. So it's not necessarily sustainable. I don't know if we can get into a broader discussion at some point of, I know fringes have been mentioned, salaries, that kind of thing. Then I had received an email from a staff member today, non-union staff member, and the question was that the salary ranges were, and I'm just gonna copy this in my notes, salary ranges were increased 2% for 20 non-union employees. These ranges did not increase to cover the 3% recommended for two non-union employees. which is the community center supervisor and the parks and recreation director. The recommended salary does not include the total amount for a 3% raise as it does for the other 18 non-union employees. And then there was a note that this would be the sixth year that wage and salary has not made the full raise recommendation for the two positions, the community center supervisor and parks and recreation director, which affects their overall compensation and pensions. And a question as to why out of the 65 employees that there were only two that weren't being paid Given raises, so I'm not sure I know we have You're here from wage and salary, but I know that was news to me getting that email Especially when the wording on these and I had didn't go back to previous years, but like it says for all non-union employees So I'm just wondering is there any background on As to that, thank you.

Yeah, that is true. There are two positions that have topped out in their pay bands for multiple years in a row. So we calculate the full 3% for all employees. For those that hit the top of their band, their salary stops at that band, and the difference is paid out as a bonus. It's a one-time check that's given to them. So on a cash basis, they're compensated for that difference, but it is absolutely correct that it does not factor into their salary, which therefore for the multipliers, whether it's 401k contributions or pension or those kinds of things. Yes, that is the case.

So they are receiving an annual bonus in that amount, like on a cash basis, but when it comes to the other perks of your salary, they're not getting those benefits. Is that something that wage and salary is aware of, or is that just something that's been hit?

And if I could just add one thing. So as far as the bans, it sounds like, because I asked this question, it sounds like in Wigsom they those bands are moved, and correct me if I'm mistaking, but those bands are moved pretty much every year, and really the industry standard is every three to five. So we move them every year, so really they're getting the benefit of those bands moving every year, whereas, like I said, the best practice is every three to five. So they're really getting the benefit of those ranges moving. I'm guessing that those positions just have been here for a long time and at some point it came out.

So I guess I'm not, if we're adjusting every year but we're saying you can't qualify because you're at your band, like how does that get corrected?

Well, so basically you either have to, if you hit the top of your salary band, one of two things happens. One, either you're paid out the difference as a bonus, as we discussed, or there would have to be an adjustment to the salary band for those employees. You'd have to reclassify them, which can be done. It's a decision to be made, but within the context of how does that relate to other employees, how does that relate to level of responsibilities, how does it relate to you know the whole the whole system it's a little bit of a bigger or different question about should should a position be reclassified um but certainly a conversation city council or the wage and salary committee or whomever you know it's a conversation to be had do we have a rough estimate on how many employees are on like the lump sum payment

Oh yeah, just these two.

Yes, there are only two employees who top out in the non-union wage skills. Okay.

If this was, because I know we don't have full council, and who's, the mayor's on wage and salary, and you are, have we had a third edit, one opening? Okay.

I think the mayor is kicking it around. He asked me.

Okay. So yeah, I don't know. I know in the past we've done retroactive things, like if this is passed tonight, can we have a discussion and then do something retroactively to adjust for those two positions if a majority of council wants to do that, or how is that handled?

yeah i mean if it would really depend on the on the action that city council chooses to take um you know my my preliminary thought off the cuff is it could be a question you know basically sent to you know city council could make a motion and say we request that the wage and salary committee convene and you know rediscuss this um one of the best ways to deal with issues like this is to do wage and salary you know studies for your whole your whole system right the last time we did one was we did it in house back in 2022, I think, 22, 23. So it's been a few years. Fiscal year 26, 27 is actually probably a good time to potentially hire out and do a more comprehensive study. So that could be the recommendation. It really depends on what Council directs. My thought would be to basically send the question to the Wage and Salary Committee to look into it further. and bring back a recommendation, but it's at the discretion of council what you want to do.

Yes, Council Member Simmons.

So you had mentioned the bands raising every year. How is that determined? Is that a percentage or?

It's been a percentage. I don't know if it's been in the past, but since I've been on the committee, it's been a percentage.

Okay. It's comparable to the 3% or it is a...

It's usually some... So this year, it's 3% wage increases, 2% salary band increases. One thing that's in... One of the columns you'll see, it's the grade differential. So the salary bands are... basically determined by their differential from each other. So that's kind of where the rigidity of the structure comes into place. One of the things that has been done in the past is changing the differentials between grades. So as an example, grade 10 has a differential of 11.5%, whereas between nine and 10 and nine and eight has a 10.5% differential. Those are some of the things that wage and salary has looked at and recommended in the past, but that's how the structures come together. But yeah, it's all basically percentage based on, essentially it all ties back to what the lowest, the grade one minimum and maximum and then they matriculate up from there.

Thank you.

okay so keeping tally of like a to discuss list i think that'd be on it so i'll add that to my list but um i also agree i it was in our packet that every five years seems to be when we've been doing wage and salaries you think this is year five coming up i do believe so i think

And that is something wage and salary talked a little bit about too, about potentially being the right fiscal year to go out and try and do that again and see what broad adjustments we need to make to our scales. Okay.

So I kind of remember seeing some type of survey that you did last year, or maybe the year before.

We've done them. We'll do like one-offs. So as an example, if somebody is applying or if there's a request for a wage adjustment, we will pull data for individual positions to give the Wage and Salary Committee something to work off of. We have not done it for every position. The last time we did it for every non-union position was 22, 23, something like that. And again, that's all done in-house as opposed to, you know, and that's a different discussion of whether we do it in-house or hires out for the full version.

They're pretty pricey. I mean, it's something I think we need to budget for. If we want to do one, I would think we would budget for this next year and do it. Because I mean, they're there to...

Sorry, I'm literally adding that to my list. So any other questions or comments? We're good? Okay. We have a... Recommendation to authorize the city manager as recommended by the Wage and Salary Committee to implement a 3% wage increase with benefits as previously established for all non-union employees and adopt a revised salary grade structure for non-union full-time employees for fiscal year 2026-2027 effective July 1, 2026. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. Motion passed. Next item of new business is a recommendation to establish the temporary position of deputy chief in the police department, set the rate of pay for the position, and place the position in grade 10 as recommended by the wage and salary committee. Is there a motion? So moved. We have a motion to support, thank you. Any questions or comments for staff? Everyone looks good to go. I think we all understand the game plan here. So we have a recommendation to establish the temporary position of deputy chief in the police department, set the rate of pay for the position, and place the position in grade 10 as recommended by the wage and salary committee. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Those opposed please say no. Motion passes. New business number seven is recommendation to approve a memorandum of understanding with Walled Lake Consolidated School District regarding public infrastructure improvements associated with the new Wixom Elementary School located at 3515 West Maple Road and authorize the city manager to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the city of Wixom. Is there a motion?

Thank you for support.

A motion to support. Any discussion, questions, or comments? Council Member Cronin-Fox.

I'm glad we were able to work something out. appreciate the city moving on this and we sent out the letter and I think I think it was definitely the right thing to do I really wish that the school district were more willing to put up a little more money than what they are but it's a start so that's good my one question about the agreement is the non-binding nature So that just, it sounded, I wish that Council Member Bierman were here, this is his expertise, but can you talk about that a little bit?

I can. Yeah, so this document is essentially intended as a placeholder that does two things. One, it sets us up for a future interlocal agreement that would be binding. We and the district are not in a position to have that document fully formed. There will be a lot more terms about how this arrangement, how this transaction will work that need to be fleshed out. But the district, they've expressed a sense of urgency. We're still holding the right-of-way permits, subject to past city council discussions finding some sort of resolution. So this is basically an interim step. This says, hey, we're all on the same page, you know, that this is a, you know, the form of a tentative agreement that at least we're all kind of signed up for, we're all acting in good faith, and we will commit to getting a formal agreement done, but also would put us in a position for them to be able to get their right-of-way permits. They're getting to the point now where those permits not being issued has created some problems for them. That's not inherently the city's problem, but

It's not the city's problem at all, the way I look at it. This is the Wild Lake and South consolidated school district's problem.

Understood, I'm just, I'm giving the context of, so. Yeah, so we felt that this was at least an agreeable way to try to get this in front of you, because that was very important on the administrative side, too, is we did not want to make any assumptions about what an acceptable deal to you all would be. So really, this is the opportunity to get it out there. There is some level of sense of, like I said, there's a sense of urgency on this from their perspective. You know, if this version doesn't work or if we need a lot more time in kind of putting this all together, it could get complicated, but we absolutely can do that. It's the city council's prerogative whether you feel like this general structure works for you or not.

well and while i don't want to hold them up they've really caused in my opinion their own problems my concern is that if it's not signed if it's not it's non-binding i mean i would hope they wouldn't go back on their word but there's nothing that we can hold them to correct

Absent our legal counsel, I couldn't say for certain, but yes, we would lose some level of leverage by issuing right-of-way permits. You know, again, whatever those next steps could look like, whether that's legal action against the city, you know, those kind of things could be some of our next steps.

Did this come from them, or did our council draft this?

We drafted this, sent it to them, they commented, you know, they gave us the red lines and sent it back to us.

Did our attorney look at this at all? Yes. Oh, they did? Okay. And they thought that this satisfied...

Yeah, it accomplishes what we're attempting to do at the moment. The comments about it being non-binding are concerning. But for the intents and purposes, they were comfortable with it.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions or comments from city council?

I just wanted to add one comment. Really, kind of the key piece here, and I imagine that you guys got this, but I just wanted to say it out loud, is that this arrangement sets up a scenario where the city will financially contribute to a project that we hadn't inherently planned to do this coming fiscal year. I do believe that we have funds budgeted to do Maple Road improvements in future fiscal years anyway, so that will be a future discussion item for city council of the actual scope of work and bidding and all of those things. So you are also not committing to any of those decisions at this point. But I did just want to make that abundantly clear that there will have to be some financial adjustments that we didn't plan for three months ago as a result of this.

To your point, so I had my notes here, the permit issuance, I agree, when that was brought up by Council Member Grover Fox, I don't feel like we should be issuing permits without receiving funds from them for whether it's held in escrow or something, but I don't want to see us be in a position where they've got what they want and we get nothing in return. The other part of this is, If we approve this and then we request, though it's non-binding, they're going to want to stick to the $450,000 number as their cap. I think that's woefully inadequate. they received a quarter of a billion dollars in their bond and we're getting a rounding error in that case or a project that's going to cost if we lived by this standard we would be footing the bill for two-thirds of the headache that they're creating and to your point and i had a discussion with mr sigma about this i mean when we went out last fall or two falls ago with the road millage and we asked all of our residents to approve a new road millage so we can get better roads for ourselves that was with the understanding that they would get better neighborhood roads and better roads to drive on not eating up a million plus dollars of their tax money correcting an issue that the school district is creating for and once claimed they didn't budget for apparently with this kind of amount that's thrown out. I mean what is the ability to adjust this number if council wanted to after this or should that be something that's done now?

would not recommend any adjustments to this document only because it wouldn't be counter you know counter approved so then we'd have to wait to see what they say you will have the opportunity with because you'll have to approve an enter an actual interlocal agreement so you'll see something again we can certainly take the comments back that hey the you know our our perspective is it's been communicated already but having them hey watch the meeting video Our council is not comfortable with the amount that you guys are proposing. We can certainly continue the conversation because we still have that step of negotiating the actual interlocal agreement. They have been very firm on the $450,000 being the maximum that they have allocated for this project to be able to do this. It could be their negotiating tax. It could be a lot of things. I can't speak on their behalf. I can only tell you that that has been their stance is that that's the maximum that they have available to be able to contribute.

If we approve this, how soon are they expecting permits to be issued? Because that's what this says. We'll process that.

Realistically, then the next week.

So why would we want to do that?

It's a policy question, I will say. Honestly, I mean, this is our response to their request to come up with some way that we can get the permits issued while we work out the finer details of a cost-sharing agreement. Originally, we weren't comfortable issuing any permits without the full interlocal agreement. Then after kind of, again, additional conversation, we felt that all parties are negotiating in good faith and that a memorandum of understanding could at least get us going and keep them on track during the construction season. That's functionally their issue is that they've got contractors scheduled, they've got their own construction timelines that they're set up for and that all these delays create financial impacts for them. I can't verify whether that's true or not but that has been the point made to us and then what potential liabilities or situations do we potentially put ourselves in Again, I can't say one way or the other, but that's kind of the general gist of the direction that it's trending, if that makes sense.

Yeah, from the sound of it, it sounded like staff was... sounds like staff was on the right track of not wanting to do anything until the full agreement was approved and then we can negotiate against ourselves when they said they didn't like that idea I would prefer that we I think we do owe it to our residents to make sure we're not footing the majority of this bill because we didn't create the issue And the amount, the million dollars, doesn't even include the sidewalk we're gonna be putting in to help get students and their parents on the south side of Maple Road from the corner of Wixom there as well. So we're looking at significant costs on this, and I don't feel like this is in our best interest to issue permits within the next week and hope that everybody lives up to a non-binding memo. I don't see that working out all too well. So I don't know if anybody else has a take on that, but I don't know that I'm in favor of this. Would you prefer if a majority of council, again, I don't know where everybody is, would you prefer this were tabled or declined? Question?

I suppose a motion to deny, I mean essentially it accomplishes the same thing. If it's denied here, I mean it could theoretically come up at the next meeting anyways. At a certain point it's really a statement piece. Okay.

Okay, yeah, I'm going to be a no vote the way this is structured currently. Council Member O'Day. Thank you.

Do we know where they came up with the 450? Was it adversarial? I mean, I know you mentioned they weren't planning on anything and then came up with this, but.

Yeah, I mean, they're, I can't speak to exactly how their funding situation comes together, but the way it was framed to us is that that is the amount Within their total bond amount, they had certain amounts allocated for each individual project. I don't know if they had it really down to line item by line item, I couldn't say, but that was, like on their website, they had said like, oh, certain portions of these funds will be allocated for road improvements. That's the way it was framed to us, is that, yeah, we had $450,000 set aside. So I do believe that their perspective is, at least as it relates to their governing body, that that is the maximum that they have to be able to negotiate with. And their counterpoint probably is, well, based on our traffic studies or our belief that we don't think these improvements are necessary anyways. Broadly speaking, that was their stance in the beginning. So I guess that is why we feel that having gotten to this point, we feel that these have been good negotiations and that we've made progress from where we started and from where their stated written position via their traffic engineers was that they didn't feel that any improvements were necessary. So I do want to say it's You know, I believe the city manager, Brown, would agree. I can't speak for him, but I do believe that we think they've negotiated in good faith. They have addressed every other comment or question or concern that we have had. So they've been very proactive about trying to do that, and we've felt good. I think we feel confident that the terms of the memorandum of understanding as presented would you know would be finalized and formalized into an interlocal agreement i i couldn't say if you know if the city's position was we will only do this if it reaches 750 000 or you know pick your number right i'm not certain uh i can't say with any degree of confidence that we would accomplish that um and again they may choose to look at their other routes or whatever they may be able to do i again i can't speak for them

okay no that's fine um i guess then just a comment um i think i would be okay moving forward with it only in so much that um the city of wixom does in fact reap a benefit right i mean we are getting a brand new school that can attract new homeowners you know it can enrich the community so we do benefit from it in a way so you know it's kind of a cost of doing business a high cost of doing business said that but We do have benefits to it. Received benefits as well.

And these numbers are preliminary as well. So I'm not going to commit to you that, oh, it's going to come down significantly. I'm not saying that. We are still pretty early on in kind of the design phase, the scoping phase. If there are opportunities to lower the cost, obviously it's in the city's best interest to try and do so. So we will certainly continue to do that. But that is the other reason for sort of the temporary nature of this agreement is that where frankly the amount of time to put together a full scope of work to design engineer and to do all those things it's an amount of time that would be unreasonable for the school district in their opinion and I would tend to agree with that functionally. I mean, it can take months to do that. Again, that's why we felt that this is a reasonable, good faith point. We lose some leverage, absolutely, if the right-of-way permits go out. We have other remedies that we can choose to pursue at those points if we feel necessary as well.

That was Member Simmons.

Thank you. Am I mistaking my memory in the sidewalk? Did I read that they were paying for the sidewalk, or am I mistaking that in my mind?

They are paying for the portion of sidewalk on their property.

Just on their property.

Yes, which is the majority of it. I would say two-thirds of it of what needs to be added, and then we would be responsible for the balance. Got it.

In their redlining, is the non-binding nature, is that their redline, line 8? I don't remember. Or was that part of what our attorney came up with?

I honestly I don't remember I think I do recall I think they probably modified that section to some extent but I think we some extent I think we went into this knowing having the flexibility of again you guys may also want to change your minds given the lack of terms in here so we may have had some some aspect of non-binding nature I'm pretty confident they modified it to further protect themselves though and

We're still in the concept that a lot of this work is not work that they have to do, right?

I would call it a debate. If this were a private development that was subject to the city site plan review, we would have a lot more leverage to dictate. given they're not, we lose that leverage in that sense. So we believe that it is, there's traffic studies believe that it is not. Sure.

Okay.

Council Member Kennedy.

Just to explain my thought process on this. If we vote on this right now, it's going to be a no for me just because it keeps saying non-binding will not be held through the whole way through. And it feels like kind of a lot of nothing. just to put it in paper but say but either one we can just not do it that's just where i stand any other questions yeah me again so i think that the

I don't know. It's tricky because I do think the non-binding nature is the holdup of the conversation and it does just seem like with that edit, everybody would feel a lot better. And the tone for me is I appreciate them putting up this 450, whether or not they have more to give. You know, it's up for grabs. But I think the conversation, I think we have to at least lock in the 450. And the non-binding nature of it makes it feel like we're not. So I feel like we have to get that resolved. I don't have a problem with this memorandum. do understand it's going to take time to get a scope and I don't necessarily feel like they have time so I'm in favor of a memorandum but I think we have to get to the nature of possibly and maybe memorandum is the wrong word we need to get to the nature of something that is committing them to whatever this figure is that won't allow them to back out. Not necessarily more money for me, just this is the number and we're in it.

One option you could have, and I don't know how this will go, but you could amend your motion to approve the memorandum of understanding but strike section 8 regarding the non-binding nature. That gets approved by you guys. We take that back to them and say, here's what they were willing to approve and we'll see what they do. That's a choice you could make. I mean that'd be a relatively simple way to go about it if you felt comfortable.

Is there anything else in here that we wouldn't necessarily, I mean you had mentioned that you thought maybe we agreed to that because there was stuff in here that we might like flexibility on. If we strike that for the whole document, is there actually stuff in here that we're gonna have an issue with down the road? Or should we strike that in relation to just which section relates to the money? Section five. So strike non-binding in relation to section five? I mean, your own comments said we might like the flexibility, so that raises the question of that we're handcuffing ourselves.

Yeah, well, and I mainly was just referring to, you know, we could get three months down the line, we're bringing you a design engineering proposal, and you guys might say, I don't want to do that, or we might bid the project, the bids don't come in in a way that we like, and I'm just saying those are kind of the points when you guys may want to exercise flexibility. By the time we got to those points, we probably have a full inter-local agreement in place. So I couldn't specify. There's nothing, in my opinion, looking at this other than the non-binding nature that really commits the city to a ton, other than issuing the right-of-way permits. That's essentially it.

Do we know when the next school board meeting is? I do not right on hand. I can look it up. Do we have any other comments or questions from Council? Council Member Grumman-Fox?

So I could make a motion then to approve this with that amendment?

I think you would make a motion to amend the original motion because you have a motion on the table to approve

memorandum of understanding you could propose a motion to amend it to strike to prove it striking section eight yeah i have um a motion to amend the original motion to approve the memorandum of understanding striking the non-binding language throughout the entire mou that's it yeah is that good that's good so that's your motion is there support

Support.

Thank you. We have a motion in support. Is there any discussion relating to the motion to amend? Give everyone a second to process.

I have one question on that. When it gets... Everything struck regarding non-binding. How much is that going to change how this reads? Like would I need to see it again, or is it going to be pretty simple the same terms?

I believe that it will be pretty similar. I can't say for certain without kind of fully rereading and looking at it, but I don't, I think really you're just striking Section 8. There might be the term non-binding in one or two other places. I don't think it's going to materially change many other sections.

Well, I mean, it talks about this is a demonstration of the party's commitment. Other parts, this is nothing in here, it's not binding to it, that we're doing this with consideration of this. I feel like it changes a lot of language, so I just want to make sure we're following that.

Correct, because even if you strike the non-binding portion, it still is committing us to seeking a full-blown interlocal agreement and working out the terms of how the money will work and all of those other terms. So it's still committing us to that structure. Again, it gets a little murky. It's hard to say how it fully works here at the table. But again, I think really the intent comes across there. We'll see if they even sign it. And I think that's really the intent of what council's attempting to find out here is we're saying we want this to be binding. And if they're willing to say, okay, we'll sign it with that section struck, then great. If not, then we're back here having this conversation again in some other form because they wouldn't agree. Go ahead.

Any other council comments?

so I am trying to like race read because I the binding to me I'm in agreeance with whoever said I'm just trying to make sure we're not striking ourselves in the binding nature of what it is. When I read this originally, my concept is that if they're giving us score 50, there are things across this budget and across next budget that some of these things have to be done at once and some of these things don't that we can add on. So we're looking at a complete project cost now, but some of this stuff doesn't all have to be at once. So this project could be... million to today or a million this year and something else down the line as we add on to it and that's you know whatever that is but I don't know my gut says that we need to just have a new document Like, I don't know if striking, binding, I think we should just go back and say, we're good. We just, it has to be binding. Council wants to know that the 450 is there and we want a document signed saying 450 is there. Like, that's just, that's what the issue is, is it not? So, like, I think all of this language, whatever, we need the 450.

that's got it I don't I don't know if that is what this striking that makes me nervous but so the process would be we're gonna vote on the amendment if you don't agree with the amendment you can vote against the amendment then we would have the normal motion as it was presented originally to vote on my personal feelings on this I I I agree, I don't know how this would look without, and I tried to scan it a few times quickly, I don't see, as the assistancy manager said, I don't see the word non-binding a bunch in here. But I think, again, our number, or it comes down to the money aspect of things. We want to make sure that that's committed for permits. I would prefer that we change it to remove the cap of 450 and just call it 50%. So I guess I'm not in favor of the amendment to strike it without seeing what it would look like and I think that kind of brings us back to the wanting to commit money. I don't, the minimum, to me the 450, I hate to use the word minimum because it is way too low, but I kind of, I remember asking residents to pay more in property taxes for roads and this was not the intent of that request for residents so it gives me a little bit of heartache to misuse the funds because that's what it is. We're being dictated to by the school district at this point that if we want our traffic not to congest then we have to spend our own taxpayer money which they're also collecting a lot more of for the bond. So it just, I don't know. Any other comments about Council Member O'Day?

Thank you. As we're going back and forth through all of this and all the different scenarios, I'm just sitting here kind of playing the tape all the way through. If we strike all of this or strike it down you know and say the 450 is not enough and they come back and say too bad you know what we're at a stalemate i know we don't issue the permits then but that still doesn't solve the issue so to speak because then we're just going to be what staring at that uh half completed construction or you know what so what are what do we gain by not approving this as is. I'm thinking nothing. But...

It's a little bit hard to say. I mean, there's all sorts of things you can gain. I mean, I hear the points, right? That you're seeking to get a larger contribution from them. You're seeking a greater level of commitment. Those are the two primary points of the problem with the MOU in front of you. By denying it, it forces all of us to go back to the drawing board and reopen discussions. You know, does it give us some leverage? Perhaps. Does it open us up to potential liabilities? Perhaps. You know, we don't know what the district's next move as it relates to all of this. You know, they seem to be pretty firm. You know, and... There were some other comments, and I guess I don't want to get into all of our correspondence that we've had with them, but there were terms that they proposed to us that we struck out in response to their red lines. This also isn't just, hey, their red lines, sounds great, put it in here. There was back and forth on both sides on this. I'm just thinking. Ultimately, it is a policy decision. You guys need to be comfortable with decisions that you're making. It's our responsibility as an administration to go negotiate and communicate, hey, here's what our legislative body is telling us. There are consequences or potential issues on both sides of this. This is not a perfect outcome. This is an outcome that we've been able to agree to. That's probably the best thing I can say about this is after four months of discussions you know for us to be have gotten to this point is some level of progress because there's been a lot of back and forth both ways but ultimately it's got to be something that you guys are comfortable with okay um any other comments so for um i guess

for your comment and a part of what this is, I think our main leverage comes through permit issuance and it sounds like that would happen within the next week and then we don't really know We don't really have any other leverage after those are out the door and they can do what they want to do.

Well, but I'm sorry. I do want to say that having a signed agreement from the superintendent of the school districts to be able to go to a school board meeting to his body and say, hey, You guys have committed to this. Whether we can fully take you to court and sue you to sign an interlocal agreement, whether it plays out that way, I couldn't say. But there is some level of leverage that this document gives us, that it's a commitment to, hey, we're committing to act in good faith. We're committing to work together. It's not legal leverage, but it's, I'll use the term, political leverage. It's not like we're not getting anything out of this. We're getting some commitments that we have previously not gotten.

So has school board already agreed to this and we're executing the agreement or are we the first party to sign?

I believe we are the first party to sign. If I remember correctly, I think it was Dr. Lanz's intent to sign this on behalf of the district. I think his original intent was that Steve would sign it on the city's behalf, but that was not a scenario we were comfortable with. I haven't had a chance to look when their school board meeting was, but they haven't had a meeting since we got this together last week.

Yeah, their next meeting's not until August 20th either. So I don't know, like they're not meeting next month at all. So I don't know. I would assume Dr. Lanz would be signing this on their behalf. He has approval to do that?

I don't know. He might have all sorts of powers that we don't know about. Well, or maybe the authorization for the project, you know, hey, you're authorized to expend $2 million or whatever the number is. Maybe the interpretation is that falls under that scope. I don't know.

Okay. Any other questions or comments about the amendment motion? No. No. so we have a motion support to amend the recommendation to remove the wording non-binding throughout the agreement all those in favor of the amendment please say aye aye those opposed no motion fails sorry do you feel like me So now we revert back to the original motion as it was written, which is a recommendation to approve a memorandum of understanding with Waldey Consolidated School District regarding public infrastructure improvements. associated with the new Wixom Elementary School located at 3515 West Maple Road and authorize the city manager to execute the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the city of Wixom. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say no. No. Roll call, please.

Deputy Mayor Accio.

No.

Council Member Grumman-Fox? No. Council Member Kennedy?

No.

Council Member O'Day? Yes. Council Member Simmons? No. 4-0-1, yes.

Motion fails. All right. And then the final item of new business is a discussion regarding planning and zoning commission documentation. Council Member Simmons.

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I wanted to bring up a conversation, I guess, just to get council opinion and direction, I guess, for city staff. I brought up previously trying to, as our meetings are recorded, which anybody can go back and watch trying to get for Planning Commission and zoning board meetings to get the audio at least of those meeting of those meetings accessible for us to go back and listen to when needed. Understanding that the minutes are still the governing body of what happens there. I just think with all the things that we have going on, some of it convenience and some of it just being able to go back and listen, especially when there's a lot of public comment or things like that, the audio would be helpful to have. I am under the impression, I guess, that I guess I'm not clear, so I'm looking for information. If we're contracting out that work from whoever's recording those minutes, what the options are for that, and I guess just opinions from council if we're in support of that.

Any questions or I guess to answer, are there currently recordings made of planning and zoning that are used to process and create minutes?

So currently, the recording secretaries for both commissions use their own flash drive and they put them in our recorder here. And then they just, after the meeting, they eject the flash drive and take it home and put it in their computer and listen to the audio and type the minutes.

So there are recordings made?

Yeah.

Do we know what it would take? Can those be provided or at cost or how would that work? Or have we not asked?

I have no idea.

Ultimately, I guess it's a policy direction, right? If city council is to say, hey, we want the audio recordings made available, I think they'd be subject to FOIA anyways, right? I guess we don't have them in our possession, though, do we?

No, they're never given to me.

Okay. So if the direction was counseled to, hey, start getting those recordings, we can do that. The audio quality, I've never even listened to them, so I don't know what the quality is like. I don't know, you know, those kind of things. So that could be the direction. I guess the other thing is if the desire, if the direction from city council's body you know, hey, maybe we should be recording our planning commission's own board of appeals meetings like we do regular meetings. I mean, that's certainly a direction, too. We could go get a quote from Merge Live to see what it would cost, and we could bring options back for you. I guess it really just depends on what the overarching intent is. Is it simply, hey, I just want to be able to listen to the audio as a council member, or is it I want the meetings to be more accessible on YouTube or more accessible for the average citizen to be able to listen to? There's a variety of ways of how that can work.

customers so I mean I think the initial intent as not to incur any additional expenses because I understand with our lovely friends in the back that make us look so good thank you comes a cost I'm assuming the audio would come most likely with not a cost or a very minimal cost comparatively especially if it's already there so I think initially it's a to me a convenience for council to be able to have access to that information and at least have something to go back and listen to as these minutes get long as well too and it's just there's a lot to listen to there's a lot to know

if down the line we decide that that's something that we want to do from a video aspect I think that you know we can have that conversation later I don't think that's the conversation today but I could be wrong just be clear so you had said that the meetings are recorded and then they take they take that flash drive or whatever and then they go and transcribe them

Yeah, so they're here. I am not. So they have their own flash drive. After the meeting ends, whatever time, they just take their flash drive from here and go home and then do the minutes and then erase the audio from their own flash drive. Is this an employee? These are contracted recording secretaries.

Oh, okay.

Yeah. I don't know how they would... I send the audio to, those files are very large. If they're just using a regular computer, I don't know if they can send the audio to me. This is all stuff we, I'm just talking, not I'm thinking about it with you.

I mean, I support Council Member Simmons if it's something that we can do.

Just look into, for sure. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments?

So I guess in my thoughts, how many, I've never looked at your equipment over there, how many USBs can go in there? Like could we have their USB, their flash drive and one of ours running at the same time and then we don't even have to ask?

I was thinking the same thing as we were talking, and there's two, but I have no idea what the other one is. And I was only taught how to do this one task. Do you see my notes? Plug and turn on red button. This is how we operate.

So it might require a test run.

It might require a splitter. I mean, they're things to research. In 2026, it should not be complicated to get audio.

So that's a thought. Or just leaving a city flash drive there for them to copy and paste before they leave. That's how they would transfer it, is just move it on to ours as well so they can take their copy, but then we have the raw audio. But in principle, I do... I do agree that if council members want access to more information, and at times it's helpful with some of the planning commission discussions that go on, they don't get fully captured in the minutes, otherwise they'd be super long, I think we should have access to those. So in principle I do agree with that. Hopefully we can explore some options. Did you want to make a motion to that effect or do you want to see what we can get worked out and then address it from there?

I guess we can see what we can get worked out. I guess the information, I'm not necessarily interested in a motion, but if we can look into it and if it's something minimal, just rock it out.

Yeah, I was going to say, there's clearly a consensus of council to direct us to figure out how to make them accessible.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. takes care of all of our new business. Sorry you've stayed here for so long. So we have call of public number two. The rules for public speaking remain the same with the only change being now you can speak about any item as you choose. Do we have any members of the public wishing to speak? As a refresher, please state your name and residence. Thank you.

Hello again, I'm Pete Bailey. I am a resident of Commerce Township for the last 26 years. I'm currently the president of the Birch Park Hunt Club, which I understand has come under a little scrutiny. I'm here to address the safety concerns, other concerns, and answer any questions. Can you speak into the microphone, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Is that better? Yes. Okay.

Just to start out, I'm gonna give you my background, which will address the safety concerns. I'm a 32-year firefighter, 25 years at a full-time department. I'm currently part-time at Walled Lake. I was a fire captain, a fire inspector, and a nursing investigator. I retired after 25 years also from the Army National Guard. I was a helicopter pilot for the Guard. I was a company commander, maintenance test pilot, aviation safety officer. I did two tours in Iraq in a year each, mostly flying over Baghdad. I was the Grayling Army Airfield in Grayling, Michigan. I was the safety officer and airfield commander for a period. So my point is I'm well educated in safety and risk assessment. Birch Park Hunt Club, it's a small club here in Wixom. It's been here, I guess, well, it's been here since 1941, as I understand. Your record said 1950. That might be when we became official. But basically, we've been here 85 years. We cap ourselves at 75 members. We're a low-budget club, paid mostly through membership dues. We're based on, we started out on camaraderie, and promoting hunting and shooting safety and awareness. We used to have a bunch of outdoor ranges. Used to shoot shotguns out there long before I came around. Obviously the neighborhoods came in, changed things. So now we have an outdoor archery range. We have a 3D archery range which goes through a trail. We have a 25 yard indoor pistol range. Pistol range is kind of where all this began. Activities that we do, we have a lot of family get-togethers. Most of the club members are big family people. We have the archery. We have Monday nights, our target archery league. Thursday nights are 3D archery league. Tuesday nights are horseshoe league. We have indoor pistol range activities. I run a class a lot of Thursday nights. During the winter, we have an event every other Sunday morning. Overall, the range is not that utilized, so it lays quiet most of the time. We're very strict with our range. Safety is... Above all, when I came in, I joined the club about seven years ago. I've been the president for three years. I became a range safety officer and an instructor, NRA certified. We currently have eight range safety officers, which is more than 10% of the club. When I became president, I wanted to bring the safety of the pistol range especially up. and with a military background, I knew we needed to do more. So I brought in another member who has an extensive firearms background, worked here on Valley Guns for quite a few years, very educated, and I made him the range master, and he rewrote everything. We've got a very comprehensive document that states everything about the range, all the rules, and we've referenced other clubs, successful clubs, to make sure we're doing at least what they're doing. Every member who wants to use the range has to go through a vetting process. We make them show they're familiar with the SOP, have them perform firearm activities with us making sure one that they're handling the gun in a safe manner and that they can hit what they're shooting at and i've also required at least semi-annual meetings with the range safety officers to discuss any issues and discuss improvements in firearm safety I spoke with our neighbor, Roy, his last name escapes me. He accused us of a lot of safety violations. When I asked him specifically. We have a five minute limit.

Am I there already? We just hit that. Oh, okay. Is there an interest on council to extend the time?

I would. We offered it to the others. We should offer it to them.

Okay, so those in favor of extending, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed?

Thank you. I asked him what specific safety concerns he had, and he had nothing specific. He just felt that we had guns in there and it had to be unsafe. He asked a lot of questions. I addressed each one. I found no holes in our safety. Now I understand the aggravation of living next to a gun range. It is noisy when in operation. And I also told him that we would look into what we could do to be better neighbors and quiet it down. Obviously, we can't quite doubt the guns, but the back of our range that faces his house has an exhaust fan. And when that is turned on, it's basically a four-foot round hole that all the sound goes straight out. And I understand it's very loud. So I told him I would look into building a duct over that, baffling the sound, and it should cut it down substantially. That's where the conversation got a little weird. He got quiet and called me some names. And I guess it was I told him I would see if I could do this, but it wasn't gonna happen over the weekend, that it would take probably most of the summer. And he didn't find that satisfactory. We still plan on doing this. If nothing else, the whole neighborhood would benefit and we would improve our relationship with the neighborhood. Now the rental issues, We do allow the club members to have activities there on Saturdays all summer long. Those generally are small family groups, graduations, occasional wedding. And we did sit down with Mr. Benson and Maureen, I can't remember Maureen's last name, and discussed this. And we did agree to request permits for some of these activities. My understanding was that if the crowd was going to be over 35 people or parking that would extend outside our gates, then it would require a permit or if they put up a large tent. We've had none of that this year. Let me see what else. But we do have room for parking more than 30 cars in our lot. I think the biggest problem is that this man and his wife don't like the range that they knew was there when they moved in. And when they found that they couldn't shut down the range and stop the shooting, they resorted to a program of harassing and stalking us. I mean, there's a police report on them for two incidents of, after I spoke with Roy, some members went and used the range and he, two incidents, was out on his back deck with a bullhorn screaming, expletive said everybody. I spoke with Officer Mahala extensively about this, so. We want to be good neighbors. We like being in Wixom. We've been here a long time. Most of our members are Wixom residents. So we're gonna try. What questions do you have for me?

i don't think we have any questions usually we don't do too many questions during call the public we do appreciate you coming out to speak as well to address the questions that were asked by residents it sounds like you've had some discussions with them or tried to that was something that run through my my head is can we just get everybody to sit down but it seems like there was an effort to do that So I do appreciate you coming out. I think we can continue to have this discussion with the city and city staff to try to make everybody as happy as possible, but obviously not everybody is always going to be happy.

Correct, and just because someone complains doesn't mean they're right.

We want to get along. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak tonight? Seeing none, I will close the second call of the public. We move on to City Manager's comments. Assistant City Manager Benson, any comments?

Just a couple. I won't cite my own lumped report. It might have been my longest one this year, so I apologize for that. Hopefully it's useful. A couple things from Steve's report. Shout out to the Downtown Development Authority. They received a Main Street Momentum grant in the amount of $20,000, which was awarded at the Main Street Awards, Elk County Main Street Awards, a week or two ago. Very exciting. Those funds are coming from the Ralph C. Wilson Foundation. So we're excited about that Also, I just wanted to, you know, put on the record how exciting it is to have the Light the Night fireworks this coming Thursday. Hopefully, you know, all of you and everyone in the public can come out. Parks and Rec does a really nice job putting that event on and looking forward to another great event this year. Last thing is just a shout out to the various employees who are celebrating their workversaries. including our own Phil Langmeier in the audience. Four whole years, you did it. And with that, that is all I have.

Thank you. Council and comments. Council Member Kennedy. I have none today. No comments. Council Member Grover Fox.

I have no comments today.

Council Member O'Day.

Just looking forward to the fireworks.

Don't be afraid.

No, no, that was really all I had. And shout out to chief, both chiefs, actually. Fire and police. Oh, that's right.

Council Member Simmons.

I have comments, so. So first, I was able to attend the main event, the DDA event, the local event in Ferndale. And shout out to our DDA. I mean, we have a really good DDA. When you're sitting in a group of... room with all these other cities and we're like small but mighty and we're like louder than some of these bigger cities so I'm very proud of our DDA proud to be a part of what's going on in Wixom I got caught up at work so I wasn't able to attend the West End Commons groundbreaking but excited for that and the things that are going on there and great job to the DDA on winning money fireworks I'm very excited for to Deanna it's gonna rock it out and that's all I have thank you my comments I wanted to congratulate detective sergeant Caldwell for graduating the FBI Academy

Thought we had a pretty good time going until we got into that memo. I noticed driving in, there is an orange traffic sign that says road closed starting June 12th out front. Is that for the fireworks or what's going on with that? Because we're past that and I haven't noticed any roads closed. tried to escape and then everyone started laughing back there.

I contacted RCLC about that sign today as it showed up and their traffic safety advisor for RCLC did not know anything about it and does not have any plans in this area. The closest traffic items that they are gonna be doing is on Sleeth and Wixom Road. So it's a little late to put it there now, being that it was closed on June 12th. So we're gonna have it removed tomorrow.

That's funny. Yeah. Well, it is refreshing to hear that they aren't going to be closing a road in downtown Wixom for one of these years, so I'm sure our businesses and residents will be happy to hear that. With that, I think those are all of the comments. Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

We have a motion and support to adjourn. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say no. Motion passes. Have a good night.