City Council - Regular Meeting

Yes, Your Honor. I do have a minor change under City Manager's reports here. The police report was listed incorrectly as May 2026. It should have been June 2026.

So, corrected. Anything else?

No, sir.

Assistant City Manager Benson?

I have nothing, sir.

Any from the dais? Seeing none. All right. We'll move on to the approval of minutes. We've got two sets of meetings to approve tonight. The first is the Special City Council meeting minutes of July 28, 2026. Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

Support. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, I got a motion and a second to approve the special city council meeting minutes of July 28th, 2026. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Carries. Second set of minutes to approve tonight is the regular city council meeting minutes of July 28th, 2026. Do I have a motion? So moved.

Support.

Any discussion? Seeing none, I got a motion and a second to approve the regular city council meeting minutes of July 28th, 2026. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? We have one item of correspondence tonight is notice of hearing for the customers of DTE Electric, case number U-22124. Moves us on to the call to the public. The rules to the call to the public are as follows. The public shall address the council during call to the public, which shall be included in the agenda immediately after correspondence, and again immediately after new business. The first call to the 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 tonight shall identify themselves and their place of residence and shall state their reason for addressing the council. And all comments by the public shall be made directly to the council. Do we have anybody with a first call to the public?

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council. My name is Roy Madsen and I live at 1402 Trailside Boulevard. I am showing up here tonight after learning of the new lawsuit the city faces this morning. I am here with a heartfelt thank you to the council. Thank you for holding the line, standing by our side, and unanimously rejecting the data center waiver, even when the pressure of a lawsuit was always waiting in the back. When we look at the lawsuit filed against our city by Wixom Industrial LLC, who are backed by the massive Sansone Group real estate firm out of Missouri, we see it for exactly what it is. It is textbook corporate bullying. They expect a small city to fold the second a massive developer flexed its legal muscles. They thought that they could step on us, bypass our moratorium, and force their massive three building campus right next to our neighborhoods without our accountability. Your vote proved that our local government cannot be bought, intimidated, or pushed around. By putting our community's health, safety, and welfare first, you gave us hope. This lawsuit is not just an attack on City Hall, it is an attack on our community's right to protect its own backyard. It seems that the developers, real estate agents, and lawyers a part of their team underestimated the strength of this council, and they deeply underestimated the resolve of the Wixom residents. This community is united on the data center concerns we are watching, and we completely back our city council. We are a small community trying to raise families. Thank you, council, for your courage to say no. Stay strong, keep fighting, and know that the residents of Wixom are standing right here next to you. Thank you, that is all. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jackie. I'm from Neighboring Commerce.

Your last name, please, Jackie. Myers.

Thank you. I just first want to apologize to the council and any residents that might have been here and saw my initial Facebook post that I put out in a lot of the local groups today. The wording was really misleading, and I should have consulted with people that speak data center a lot better than I do before posting, which is something that I will do in the future and that I have done for this statement right now. So I want to acknowledge all of the hard work that went into the current draft of the ordinance. It's very clear that every word and line has been carefully considered and reflects a ton of effort to ensure that Wixom's ordinances are as up to snuff as possible. Many of the ordinances have been strengthened and are fantastic, including the setback increase in additional approval conditions to include both the Planning Commission and the City Council. It was great to see the points addressing tonal noise, the generators used in backup power, and the importance of noise studies that provide data on how adjacent municipalities may be affected. All of this puts me at ease that you're not only thinking about how this will impact Wixom, but the surrounding communities as well, which hopefully sets the standard for how all communities facing similar proposals will respond. That said, I have a few things I want to draw attention to. For the electrical demand statement, it's great that you're looking for and ensuring that the maximum electrical demand is independently verified. But these changes eliminate data points that would give a more comprehensive picture. And then there's the cooling and water use plan. I think you struck the line items regarding the plan for testing for bacteria and harmful chemicals, hoping that holding it to the applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations would be good enough. And I hear you, but I want to caution against relying solely on that as those can be quite broad and remove an opportunity for increased transparency and local control. Ensure that the developers outline a specific plan for water testing so that they can be held accountable to it. I'm also nervous that the water system emergency section was removed because I think it leaves a weak spot in the event of a water emergency or interruption, which we have been seeing increasingly here in Southeast Michigan.

I agree with everybody that has spoken thus far for the opening statements here, as well as the previous meeting, but I'd also like to point out that regardless of whether a data center happens here or not, one of my points that I made last time, which I will reiterate now, is that for every stone the developer or any of those under their power move, they are going to add that as another portion to a bill against the city if they try to sue. It's better to deal with this now than it is to wait till they get so far down the road that you won't be able to face the eventual avalanche of financial and legal power that comes behind having enough money to wipe out a small town like this. So stick to your guns, listen to the people, and at the end of the day, It's not just us that are dealing with it. It's going to be the next three, four generations or longer, just like those in Flint or any other place where they want to destroy, well, not destroy, but make use of public natural resources without any regard to future implications to the citizens that might partake in them. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, Stacy Johnson, Medina Drive. I think the citizens of any community should have a voice in what businesses are allowed to construct buildings and do businesses in their community. I think the council has the best interest of the community at heart. And from what I've seen, you guys are defending our rights. So I would encourage you to vigorously defend the lawsuit. I think it's clear that the citizens here do not want this data center. I understand there is a right to build, but there are less desirable options that some people would object to. I'm not going to list examples of that. I don't think it would be. Anyway, thank you. Please defend the lawsuit vigorously. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else for the first call to the public? Seeing none, I'm gonna close the first call to the public and move on to city manager's reports. We have two city manager's reports tonight. The first one's the fire report from June 2026. Any questions? All right. The next report is the police report from June 2026. Any questions? All right, seeing none, we're gonna move on to the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by city council and will be enacted by one motion. There'll be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case the event of the items will be removed from the consent agenda and added to the regular agenda at the end of unfinished or new business. Do I have a motion?

I have a question.

Oh, go ahead.

For consent agenda item number two for the police academy. I had a question for the chief about that. Maybe we can move it out. Or we can ask him now. Whatever.

We can move it to number two under unfinished business.

Perfect. Thank you.

You're welcome. All right. So I have a motion and support to approve the consent agenda as presented and moving item number two to unfinished business number two. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Moves us on to unfinished business number one, and that's the introduction of first reading of an ordinance to amend the Wixom Code of Ordinances, Title 18, amend section 18.09, industrial districts. Section 18.09.020, schedule of uses to address the permissibility of data centers in the M1 and M2 zoning districts. Amend section 18.09.040, standards applicable to specific uses to provide specific standards for data centers and uses in the M1 and M2 zoning districts. and amend Section 18.24.030 to provide definitions for data centers based on the revisions provided by the City Council on July 14, 2026. Do I have a motion?

Move to approve. Support.

Thank you. Assistant City Manager Benson.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, members of City Council and members of the community who've come out tonight. This presentation will feel and look somewhat similar to your and just for the benefit of everyone in the audience. When we talk about zoning ordinance, what we can and can't do, zoning regulates specifically land use. Any ordinance today applies to future projects, not just a specific proposal. So when you all are creating zoning ordinances, you are looking at the entire city. not any specific situation. It also needs to be clear that the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act prohibits cities from exclusionary zoning. So unfortunately, we do not have the ability to overly restrict. So the city is required to allow somewhere with appropriate restrictions for most types of uses. And so a balance really needs to be struck between the compatibility of any specific use, whether it's a car wash, whether it's a data center, whether it's retail, whatever, residential, whatever it is. Between compatibility and feasibility, these regulations should mitigate any impacts on surrounding properties. Well, allowing a reasonable opportunity for development, that's really the standard that communities get held to when determining the reasonableness of ordinances. That all being said, public concerns are an important part of the process, and we've been very fortunate to have a lot of members of the community participating in this process. And so all of these factors, both the technical side, the specific data and information that's been studied over all these months, all these pieces come together as you all make your decisions. So, Just to rehash what happened at the Planning Commission meeting, that was the first time we had a couple hundred people there. Planning Commission ultimately recommended the ordinance to you with some modifications. Specifically, they removed the previous versions of the ordinance had allowed for data centers as a special land use in IRO zoning districts along with M1 and M2. The IRO sections were struck and the minimum setback was set to 1,500 feet And this is just kind of a summary of some of the kinds of comments that we got at that time. I won't walk through the entire thing. Ultimately, you know, a lot of similar comments were given to city council. When you first had your first reading on the 14th, And as I mentioned, the adjustments recommended by city council, which are included in the meeting minutes and in the agenda packet for tonight, were incorporated to the best degree we felt like we could in the ordinance that you'll see tonight. So with all that in mind, I'll kick it over to our planning consultant, Mateo Pasalaqua, to kind of walk through the nuance of what this ordinance says.

Good evening, Council. Mateo Pasalacqua, Carlisle-Wartman Associates. So as Mr. Benson had indicated, we've had a few meetings to get to this point. And based on the first first reading that Council conducted a month ago and the direction that Council provided as to some proposed edits, I'm going to go through a few slides here showing what we changed. Again, it is not my standard MO to read word for word. However, just to ensure that There's nothing lost in translation. I will read the changes to you and then we'll be able to discuss afterwards. uh... so in section two and the planning commission shall review and approve any proposed data center site plan an application during a public hearing command the commission will then recommend approval conditional approval or denial to city council the commission may also table the special use application if they do more information is needed to review the proposal city council review the special and use a plain plain commission recommendation during a public hearing and approve, conditionally approve or deny the special land use. So a data center site plan will come to council for ultimate approval, conditional approval or denial. 2N1B applicant shall be required to provide a maximum electrical demand statement which will be independently verified by a third party consultant selected by the city and at the expense of the applicant. 2N1C, all discharge, meaning water discharge, shall comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations for pollutants. If water usage places a burden on the city's water system that would violate the terms of their agreement with the Great Lakes Water Authority, also known as GLIWA, the city may require the applicant to install a water tower upon recommendation by the city engineer.

And I did just want to add one additional note. I know there was a lot of conversation about the water emergency regulations. And I did just want to point out, while there's nothing specifically included in this ordinance, the city's water service system ordinance under chapter 13, specifically 1304.080, already authorizes the city to be able to Actually, I'll just read it, honestly. If for any reason the available supply of water is insufficient or threatens to be insufficient to supply the total demand of the water distribution system, the city manager and or the director of public service may regulate, limit, or prohibit the use of water for any purpose. Such regulation shall restrict less essential water uses to the extent deemed necessary to assure an adequate supply for the essential domestic and commercial needs for firefighting. Within 24 hours of such determination, the city shall cause the regulations to be posted at city offices and publicly announced by means of broadcast or telecast by the stations with a normal operating range covering the city and may cause such announcements to be further declared in newspapers of general circulation when feasible. These regulations shall become effective immediately after posting at city offices. I just wanted to make it clear that while it's essentially unnecessary to roll such restrictions into individual uses, We do have those levels of protection. The city also, because we maintain our own wastewater treatment facility, we do have a very robust A set of requirements that we are required to meet for our own discharge permits through the state federal requirements, but our own regulations to that effect. while there may be less references in this specific set of ordinances, I just want to make it clear that in general, for all uses, not just data centers, but across the board, we do have relatively robust regulations. And again, we can kind of go through the nuances of those if and when we need to. But more importantly, any application for any use, specifically heavy industrial uses, they've got to be able to meet these standards. So I wanted to make sure we covered that part of it FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOU ALL AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY. WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

SO FOR SECTION 2N1D, NOISE STANDARDS APPLY TO APPLICABLE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES uh... two and one d continued uh... just as a preface the there was some conversation about establishing some different types of noise standards the ordinance had originally used uh... like standard maximum sound levels in dvd bbc but there's also some conversation utilizing an ambient uh... style standard also two and one d was modified whereas in table one which refers to the set DBA and DBC noise limits. Table 1 provides sound level limits that are categorized by groups including residential, VCA, schools, places of worship, parks, recreation areas, and overnight hospitality zones. Should the post-construction sound study noise levels be greater than the limits shown in Table 1, sound level standards for that table shall apply. Should the post-construction noise levels be below the limits of Table 1, Table 2 standards shall apply. Table 2 outlines noise limits based on the existing ambient sound. So one kind of defers to the other based on what the ambient sound studies say. 2N1DA-NB requires the sound level measurements for both the pre and post noise studies to be taken at the nearest intermediate and furthest receiving property lines for all use groups in Table 2 utilizing a 360 degree format per ISO 3744. 2N1B1DB3 Manufacturer provided octave band noise source data is required for all specific models of equipment proposed for the project. 2N1DC, a post-construction sound study and test confirming adherence to noise standards will be required prior to the issuance of a temporary or full certificate of occupancy. 2N1E, only tier four or higher efficiency generators may be used. Noise limits established in the ordinance shall apply during temporary or emergency power outages. Text amendments, my apologies, to section 1809040 continued. 2N1H, a plan describing the procedures for facility shutdown, removal of equipment, and securing the site is required. Site improvements may remain after the site is vacated so long as the site is secured and maintained in compliance with applicable property maintenance codes. 2N1I, no on-site nuclear power generation is permitted. 2N2A, the setback for mechanical equipment, including generators from residentially zoned or used properties, as well as any school, park, place of worship, is now 2,640 feet, in parentheses, one half mile, and we have a visual for that at the end of the presentation. 2N2D, cooling water being discharged into the city's wastewater treatment system shall meet all applicable local, state, and federal laws. 2N3, any required on- or off-site infrastructure, utilities, public safety, fire, and or public works improvements or equipment to address the impacts of the development as determined by the city shall be provided by the applicant at their sole cost and documented in a development agreement. Two and four, continuous monitoring may be required on the applicant's property at the nearest receiving property line for all groups listed in table one and table two, that being the residential, parks, place of worship, so on and so forth. This may be done at the city's discretion at the cost of the applicant. Two and six, the planning commission may have the authority to revoke the data center's special land use approval after the applicant has failed to comply with any of the applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance or conditions of the special land use approval. PLANNING COMMISSION SHALL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER REVOCATION OF THE SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT. THIS LANGUAGE ALSO EXISTS IN SECTION 1818 OF YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO ALL SPECIAL LAND USE. SO THIS PROCESS WOULD BE THE SAME FOR ANY SPECIAL LAND USE IN THE CITY, NOT NECESSARILY JUST DATA CENTERS. Planning 2 and 7, Planning Commission and City Council may impose reasonable conditions to mitigate impacts on surrounding properties and public services. These conditions shall be recorded in a development agreement and recorded with the county. That, again, is pretty standard special land use language that allows some subjectivity or flexibility in considering the context of a development and whether or not there's special regulations, reasonable but special regulations for that proposed use. uh... so the next line uh... this this shows the twenty six two thousand six hundred forty foot septic from residential uh... park places of worship vca zones uh... recreation and hospitality zoned or used properties so again if anything is it's harder to see but parcels in red anything adjacent to a residential district is automatically prohibited from development of a data center and then any portion of the parcel covered by the aqua shading would not be eligible for data center development or equipment. If a parcel is half in, half out, the part of the parcel that's half out would be available for placement of data center infrastructure. The portion of the parcel shaded would not. So with that, I'll kind of turn it over to Drew to discuss the next steps.

So in the, oh, I should move slides forward. So in terms of next steps, really city council should discuss all of the proposed amendments and the impacts of these amendments alongside feedback and research from staff and city attorney as a part of this first reading and the second introduction and first reading. And you have a variety of ways to be able to move this forward. The one other thing I will note is that while we did not include, and we're happy to talk about to the extent that we can, the pieces that were recommended but were not included, as an example, our ability to regulate DTE electric rates, we can't. Things like that, we can certainly talk about those. But the other thing is there are a couple of recommendations that were included in this that we do have some concerns about and are worthwhile to have additional conversation about later. as part of this meeting.

Now I'm going to pick up from there, Mayor and Council. There's a listing there of the next steps and we're talking about approving it as it stands or modifying it and we're suggesting that we modify the zoning amendment ordinance. in a variety of ways. Most of it is technical language. There are some things that will be impactful from a standard standpoint. And I'm just going to walk through the different changes that are being recommended here. In the amendment of Chapter 1809.040, SECTION 2N1C. THERE WAS SOME FEEDBACK IN RELATION TO TWO GREATEST SPECIFICITY ON THE GREAT LAKES WATER AUTHORITY, AND WE JUST ADDED SOME QUALIFYING LANGUAGE THERE OR ITS SUCCESSOR OR A SIGN. AND THEN SECONDLY, JUST BELOW THAT, AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT BESIDES A WATER TOWER. SO IT WOULD BE WATER TOWER, OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT AS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY TO MITIGATE IMPACTS ON THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM IS BEING CHANGED, AND WE WOULD RECOMMEND AS WELL. D, in the next section there, that's another one that is being changed or being recommended for change by administration for a variety of reasons. This change is one of the ones that would be potentially more substantive depending on what you consider we had discussed previously. We talked about table one or table two. Table one had the decibel levels. Table two had the ambient sound plus one. restrictions and we're asking to remove the reference to table two. And there's a couple of reasons for that and that kind of trickles on to the next page of the ordinance where It talks about baseline ambient sound levels and more information that includes table two there. All of that would be stricken in association with that language change. And there's a couple of reasons for that. And essentially it comes down to the sound consultant that we're working with had some serious concerns about enforceability of an ambient plus one kind of level of restriction that was contained in table two and was more comfortable with the decibel levels that were outlined in table one. So that's where we're looking to go there.

Just to add some additional flavor, our primary concern with Table 2 is that it will be more difficult to administer and more difficult to enforce. So we are concerned that it may not put the city in the most defensible situation, mainly because ambient noise, it requires these studies from both the applicant, the city will need to have their own. It's not a standard that we use in any other situation, so this would be unique. And there are not many other communities that rely on an ambient You know sort of moving target as compared to a more specific Set of DBA and DBC standards is outlined in table one Because City Council requested that it be included we did include it But we did want to make sure that we pointed out, you know that from an administrative perspective. We have some concerns about that Yeah, just it's

too open to being challenged and requiring constant testing and things of that nature, which would be difficult to enforce. So that would be the next change that we eliminated in Table 2. Moving on under that same section, N1.2 site standards, A, that half-mile restriction of 2,640 feet. If you were to go back a couple of slides there, if you look at that map, there's a A REQUIREMENT THAT ZONING NOT BE EXCLUSIONARY. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP, ADMINISTRATION IS NOT COMFORTABLE THAT THAT WOULD BE PERCEIVED, THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE PERCEIVED AS BEING TOO HIGHLY EXCLUSIONARY BASICALLY. So we're advocating that we change from 2,640 feet to 1,000 feet. And there's a reason that we are suggesting that as well. And that relates to the fact that we have some existing standards that we apply to other industrial uses in the city. The largest distance setback that we require is 800 feet. this would be a modest 25% increase in beyond that 800 square foot level, which we are at that 800 foot level that we already have in place. We think that the fact that that 800 exists is something that would bolster the case for the 1,000 being reasonable when you consider the fact that data centers are a pretty novel use that we don't have a lot of experience with and there could be additional concerns with it and we want to up the feet from 800 to 1,000 feet on page six under 2A.

And just for reference alongside that, even if the minimum setback standard were changed, there is still language in this that requires that the setback be as far back as required for an applicant to be able to meet the sound standards. So that does not preclude a larger setback if necessary. And again, it basically becomes dependent in either case on the applicant's sound study. However, it's not as broad. So to City Manager Brown's point, we just have concerns that a blanket number at this size is very broad and maybe challenging.

And we have the language that's in the ordinance that, with this being a special land use approval, there's language that comes into play where Planning Commission, later on I'm going to talk about our next change here, which is under 4. operational noise compliance. If determined to be necessary by the Planning Commission, short-term or long-term, continuous monitoring may be required, et cetera, et cetera. So we've added, if determined to be necessary by the Planning Commission, short-term or long-term, and then continuous monitoring was already in place. It just modifies it to say that the Planning Commission, if they determine to be necessary, can add that requirement. And that affords a higher level of protection from a situation developing that would be problematic, notwithstanding the feet being 1,000 feet. It could change based on experience and could be changed by Planning Commission as part of a special land use approval review. So that's the next change was on number four. And that's actually the final change. And that's, as I said, that's what administration would recommend as modifications to the first reading and introduction that's before you this evening. If you choose to proceed on that front or if you choose to proceed with what's in front of you or some other combination, that would be up to mayor and council. But administration is recommending the changes that I just outlined to be made and then use that as the first reading and introduction ordinance amendment.

Any discussion? Deputy Mayor Gatcho.

Thank you. So I have a few questions and I guess clarifications from what I had originally said at the last meeting we discussed this. I do appreciate the attorney reviewing everything and the planning consultant working with them as well to see what was practical and legal of what I said because I know I said a lot last time. When it comes to the setback, I think it is important to consider that the residents aren't just, they don't just care about the sound, and we've heard from that. They do care about the sound, but we've also heard any potential pollution from generators, and we know that data centers can use a lot of generators, and that's a very well-founded health concern that people have. I get concerned about where we go to when we only consider sound. Yes, sound is a part of it and we will have sound standards, but it is not the only reason for the setback. The health and safety of the public and our residents should also be considered. Getting to the specific changes that were made and the balance of the language that exists. So in section two, the electrical demand statement. We had gone to the maximum demand statement and foregone or removed, redlined the average. I think the average still should be in there as well. The point of my, what I had requested last time was that we get an exact, not an estimate, or something with some leeway if it is an estimate, but they can't say barely none, oh, we guessed wrong, and then have something else. The I do appreciate your comment about the DPW director, city manager, being able to determine water emergencies and what happens then. One thing that is now on page five of the clean version, but It'd be subsection B and then within that the other subsection three. It says manufacturer provided octave band noise source data for the specific models of equipment to be used for the project as required, which I appreciate. I don't think we had that last time. The other part of my proposal was that only equipment, the only equipment that can be used is equipment that has manufacturer-provided sound output, and that's something specific that other developments have run into, is equipment was used that had no manufacturer-provided sound output, so they didn't, like, their sound estimates were a guess, because the manufacturer didn't have any actual information to provide. Okay.

Can I, if it's all right, I'll try to help with some questions as we go. Yep. Specifically as it relates to the manufacturer provided octave band noise. Duly noted on your point, I could potentially argue in the benefit of the city that because that information is required, if they're unable to provide it, then that is not, that could be a reason for denial or a reason to be able to not move a project forward. So that may be in the benefit of the city to, you know, we're specifying what the standard is. You have to give us this. And if you can't, then you either need to switch to some other type of, you know, equipment or it's grounds for denial.

I would just prefer it's explicitly stated rather than left open to interpretation when we're all not on council or on planning commission because ultimately the end result of what you just said is they have to change equipment and I think it's better if they just know up front when they're selecting what they want to use that it needs to have manufacturer provided sound information. The next section was section two and four. When we talk about the monitoring and continuous monitoring, and I know that even changed, but the phrasing on it says, it relates to where the testing should be done, says on the applicant's property at the nearest receiving property line, which are two different properties, so I guess I was confused about that or wanted that to be clarified, that it should be the... nearest receiving property, not the applicant's.

The problem with that is that we cannot legally require somebody to go onto someone else's property. So we had to write it in a way that they're putting it on their own property, but right on the line.

Okay. So on the applicant's property at the nearest receiving. Is there any way to, I guess, clean that up?

Yes.

Speak about the direction of where it is?

You understand what the intent is, so we'll tweak it.

Yes, I understand that. Yep, thank you. The last thing I think I had in my notes here was the public hearing for a notice of violation. It was mentioned, or it was, the language was added, but I didn't see a timeline for how quickly that public hearing would occur? Can we add in a maximum amount of time that a hearing would occur and when they would have to present, or are we not allowed to do that?

Well, there are functionally two separate things with that. One, using similar language and references back to Section 1818, so maintaining the same standard for the public hearings that are required for potential revocations of special land uses. So it is good to maintain the same standard or not have a different standard for one specific type of special land use. But the other thing is ultimately the city is the ones who are determining the timelines for it. As it relates to public hearings, the minimum would be the fifth required 15 day notice period is specified by the zoning enabling act. However, it may not be in the city's best interest to, you know, set. So just as an example, let's say you set it at 30 days. Well, what if between the date of getting a complaint and the date of, you know, setting a public hearing 14 days later, so 30 days total, it can get a little complicated and could put the city actually, you know, in, A DIFFICULT POSITION OR RUSHING TO PUT TOGETHER THAT. SO I THINK BECAUSE WE CONTROL THE HEARING PROCESS, WE SET THE DATES. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS NECESSARY. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE CITY TO SORT OF SHOEHORN YOURSELF.

I THINK YOU NEED TO BE PRESENT ON THAT. Special name use hearing, that is a statutory requirement, the public hearing for a special name use.

So the 15-day notice is the bare minimum. But again, the time between assembling the complaint, putting together the package of information, whatever, there's some time that goes into that. And it's really hard to say ahead of time how much time that takes for us to be able to put together the right information. let alone meeting the applicant's due process legal requirements.

Would we, I mean, if we have everything prepared and there's a 15-day notice, is it allowed to be day 16 then?

Yeah, oh yeah, that's what it would be. We would put it out no less than 15 days in advance. It could be more, but yeah.

All right, it was just my concern that it would drag on. People are going to listen to a screeching noise and we're going to be dragging our heels or they're going to try and push back and say we need more time. That was a concern of setting a limit for when it absolutely is going to happen and be remedied.

So the timing is at the discretion of the city. So the only slowdown would be ourselves. And if we have people that are living next to a screaming facility, I think we're going to be pretty motivated to take care of that as quickly as possible as well.

Okay. And then I... Let me just double check, but I'm good for now. Thank you.

Council Member Simmons.

Hi, thank you. I guess just a question for administration on, we did, I think, something that was brought up at the last public hearing was getting rid of a lot of maize and replacing them with shells, which I think we did in a lot of places. There are still a couple of maize in the document that I'm curious if it, I guess administration's opinion on if they matter or not. For example, on page seven, where we were just talking about operational noise, continuous monitoring may. Should that be a shall, or is there an opinion from administration on that?

Yeah, our opinion is, and I know that specifically has been a hotly debated topic, Because we do not have that provision in any other circumstance throughout the city, it is a relatively cumbersome and burdensome requirement. And there's a million ways that this particular use, again, this use could apply to anything from reoccupancy of an existing facility to new construction. We felt more comfortable and really more defensible as having that be a discretionary standard as opposed to being absolutely required. Again, because that is not done, you know, I don't think we've seen... any other ordinance do that, so it would be a very novel and very cumbersome standard that is potentially challengeable or likely challengeable.

That goes for all the mays in the document that was considered?

I'd have to look at each individual may. I don't know that there are that many, but I'm happy to try to address any other specific ones.

I just noticed three, so if it was reviewed by administration then.

We'll go back over it again and make sure that we can talk about the three that you're citing, just to make sure we have the three in particular, and make sure that there was a legitimate concern that caused that change, or else it was an open site. If it was, we can change it.

Thank you. Council Member Kennedy.

In the same section, a very minor one, where it says audit shall be created by a third party at the cost of the applicant, can we add something in there that the third party is chosen by council? city or the city how about the city administration I just don't want it to be where yeah the audits are created with our guys that did our testing and now of course our audits are good yeah no I get your point you don't audit your own financials or no for the applicant you mean

we, we would need to do a little research that may be difficult. We may not be able to specify, um, specifically if it's at their cost as well, we may not, not be able to say, and you have to use our specific person. Now keep in mind, you know, any, if we get to a point where we're auditing, you know, noise standards or, you know, any of those things, ultimately our own consultants are going to be involved in the review anyways and really helping us reconcile, you know, whether we agree or whether we're going to challenge. So, um,

Yeah. We may be able to put in some language that says that while they provide the audit, we could have it independently verified.

Okay.

We can look into that type of language.

Just as long as it's not completely with them. Thank you.

Any more discussion? All right. I've got a motion and a second. What's that?

do we need to amend to the recommendations by administration?

Yeah, advocate, you'd at least need to, as edited or modified by administration, if that's the, that's how you wanted to proceed.

I thought that was part of, based on revisions and that, so. Okay. So then in.

We need a motion.

We need a new motion to.

I'd make a motion to uh... except based on administrations comments and suggestions so the language says amend uh...

You could just change the language from based on the revisions provided by council on July 14, 2026, and say based on the revisions provided by city administration on August 11, 2026. Okay.

Do I have a motion for that? Yes. Do I need a second?

For it.

Thank you. So I got a motion and a second. Go ahead. Discussion?

Thank you. Can I get a clarification on what's being asked then? Because it was kind of jumped in as people were going through. Yep.

What are you looking for?

What exactly is being recommended that be adjusted from what was in our packet tonight that the public saw?

So I mentioned N1C with its successor or sign and then the or other improvement as determined to be necessary to mitigate impacts on the city's water system after water tower. Under D, eliminate the reference to table two. And then eliminate the successive language change or language adds that had to do with baseline ambient sound levels as well as table two in its entirety. So those would be eliminated. On to 2A, changing 2,640 feet to 1,000 feet and eliminating language at the end which says, as well as within the distance of any school, park, place of worships, property line. That is also suggested for elimination by administration. And then under For operational noise compliance, if determined to be necessary by the planning commission, short-term or long-term, comma, and then that's in front of the continuous monitoring. So that would be the language add there. And then that is the last change.

And you could also make reference to, there were a couple tweaks brought up by city council members. That could be a part of your motion as well. You could make that now if you want. To direct us to incorporate the minor modifications suggested by city council as referenced in the August 11th.

ALSO REFERENCED AT THE AUGUST 11th MEETING, RIGHT?

SO YOU CAN SAY, BASED ON REVISIONS PROVIDED BY ADMINISTRATION AND SUGGESTED BY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 11th, 2026, IF YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE THAT.

OKAY. AND THE SUGGESTED CHANGES BY COUNCILMEMBER.

ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL.

WILL YOU STILL SECOND THAT?

YEAH.

OKAY.

DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION FOR THE DEPUTY MAYOR?

IT DOES. OKAY. I understand the majority of the changes. I don't agree with removing table two, and I understand there aren't a lot of communities using ambient levels, but I don't think that should prevent anyone from thinking outside the box when it comes to things. And that's the biggest feedback, not just from all of the data center discussion, but from COVID, people want to spend more time outside. People are reclaiming their right to enjoy their lives and their communities. And I think the old way of thinking about standards needs to change. It's kind of like we can't require that they completely remediate the property after they leave. That's illegal because of state law. But at the same time, the old way of thinking is come in, pollute our land, we'll give you a tax incentive. Not just them. Ford did it. We'll give you a tax incentive. Then after you leave us, we'll give the next people that are going to come in and develop on your land another brownfield tax incentive to clean up. So everybody's just polluting, getting tax incentives. Polluting, developing, getting tax incentives. A lot of this needs to change. It's not up to us, unfortunately. It's up to state law to change that kind of stuff. But we need to start thinking differently about our standards. I think reference to ambient should still be in there. If we need to address it in the future or refine it, then great, but I think it should remain in there. The biggest headache though as I already mentioned for me is the setback change or the proposed change. To me it doesn't just come down to noise. It comes down to the health and safety and there are health impacts and studies that show that generators pollute and cause adverse impacts in humans. So to me that's what it boils down to. So I'm not in favor of the setback change The ambient I would prefer, but to me it really comes down to the setback. Thank you.

Any other further discussion? Please, we're running a business meeting here. Any other discussion?

I understand the reasoning on the changes proposed by administration. I appreciate all the work they did to go through this. I understand, and I think everybody here understands We need to have an ordinance because right now we don't. I agree that the setback requirement going down to 1,000 feet is a big pill to swallow. But I also, looking at that map, understand that 2,600 just doesn't work. So there needs to be a happy median. I'm fine with us getting an ordinance on the books this evening so we have something. to defend but I really think we need to continuously monitor and we're one of the first cities actually putting this through in Michigan we need to continuously monitor what the other cities are doing and if other cities are getting away with more then we need to come back and we need to do more too well it's already too late unfortunately but So I'm fine with the changes as proposed by administration to get something on the books this evening.

Any other discussion? Madam Clerk, can you read back that motion, please, that we have with the corrections and additions, please?

Introduction and first reading of an ordinance to amend the Wixom Code of Ordinances, Title 18, Amend Section 18.09. industrial districts section 18.09.020, schedule of uses to address the permissibility of data centers in the M1 and M2 zoning districts, amend section 18.09.040, standards applicable to specific uses to provide specific standards for data center uses in the M1. and M2 zoning districts and amend section 18.24.030 to provide definitions for data centers based on the revisions provided by administration and suggested by city council on August 11th, 2026.

Thank you. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Nay. Aye. Council Member O'Day. Yes. Council Member Simmons.

No.

Mayor Beagle.

Yes.

Deputy Mayor Gottschall. No. Council Member Behrman.

Yes.

Council Member Grendlin-Fox. Yes. Council Member Kennedy.

No.

Four, no, three, yes. Did I get it right? Yes. Other way around.

Four yes, three no.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Oh man, just just one last thing so just for clarity both for council in the community with that motion in place a the adjustments as Discussed tonight will be made a second reading will be scheduled for your next available meeting.

We anticipate the August 25th meeting Thank you You need a moan motion as amended It was part of the motion I thought there was an amendment to the motion we voted on first.

No. Unfinished business number two is a discussion for a recommendation to approve sponsoring one applicant through the Oakland Police Academy. Council Member Simmons.

Thank you. Just a question to the chief for just making sure I'm understanding the language of it correctly. So obviously I'm in favor. I was reading the specs as not sponsoring the the candidate through the academy as much as just offering a position. Am I understanding that correctly, or could you clarify, I guess?

Exactly. He is currently attending the academy. He's pre-serviced. He's already paid for the academy. He's paid for everything he needs for the academy. He's currently attending. He does not have a job. We want to get him signed on board as a cadet with us, so then we will just put him on the payroll. We'll start paying him to attend the academy. He'll graduate in a Wixom PD uniform and begin his training when he graduates in December.

Okay, so is that the correct language then, sponsoring one applicant through Oakland Police Academy? That's still considered that? Yes. Okay, got it. That's all I'm in support of. Very good. Yep.

Anybody else got any discussion on this? All right. Thanks, Chief.

Wait, you still need a motion to actually approve the item? You still need a motion to approve the item? Yeah. All right.

Yeah, we moved it. Okay.

So moved. So moved.

I got motion and support to approve the recommendation to approve the sponsoring of one applicant through the Oakland Police Academy with $27,511. Charges as follows. $17,359 to desk aides account number 101-301-711.100. $2,000 to uniform account number 101-301-956. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right, new business number one. There's a recommendation to approve fiscal year 2026-2027 budget amendments for the account 101-721-803.264 legal counsel planning and account number 101-721-956. Dot 481, planning special studies and authorized to continued use of Soundscape Consulting LLC of Ann Arbor, Michigan for sound engineering consulting services for an amount not to exceed $30,000 inclusive of all previous billings. Do I have a motion?

Move to approve.

Support. This is City Manager Benson.

Thank you, Mayor. So this agenda item, a little bit of housekeeping. As we've been moving through the data ordinance development process, one of the things we needed to do was engage the help of a licensed sound engineering firm. Given we've been working on a pretty quick timeline, WE DID INTERVIEW A COUPLE DIFFERENT FIRMS AND ULTIMATELY SELECTED SOUNDSCAPE CONSULTING TO KIND OF HELP US WITH THE ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND HELP PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL GET A BETTER HANDLE ON HOW WE CAN REGULATE SOUNDS SPECIFICALLY. ORIGINALLY, WE ENGAGED WITH THAT SERVICE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER'S SPENDING DISCRETION, WHERE HE CAN SPEND UP TO $10,000 WITHOUT REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. OUR ORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT WITH SOUNDSCAPE WAS FOR UP TO 8,500. Given how the entire process has sort of evolved, we've run into a situation where we would like to be able to use their help more. However, we need authorization from city council to continue utilizing their services. So that is part of this agenda item is asking city council to give us a financial authorization of up to $30,000. I can't say that we necessarily need all of that. Only 21,500 of that would be new. However, it's really just to give us the flexibility to use their knowledge as we need throughout this process as well as throughout, you know, there's been a lot of conversations about updating other ordinances like the general noise ordinance for other industrial uses, those kinds of things. It would be helpful to us to be able to have their services available, so we're asking for a budget authorization to do that. Alongside that request, as a whole, the ordinance crafting process has been pretty intensive. And quite frankly, we're spending more both on the planning special studies, which is inclusive of Carlisle Ortman's time, as well as our other consultants, Soundscape, et cetera. AS WELL AS FOR OUR LEGAL COUNCIL. SO WE ARE REQUESTING A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO BASICALLY ACCOUNT FOR HIGHER THAN EXPECTED EXPENSES IN THOSE LINE ITEMS COMPARED TO WHEN WE ORIGINALLY BUDGETED LAST SPRING. Specifically, Planning Legal Counsel has adopted budget of $9,000. We are requesting an amendment of $21,000 up to $30,000 total for the fiscal year. And then for Planning Special Studies would be an additional $21,500, basically covering the balance if we were to use the maximum utilization of Soundscape as requested tonight. With that in mind, happy to answer any questions you may have.

Deputy Mayor Gottschall?

Thank you.

Do we need to further update the request for legal counsel? Because this was put out more than a week ago.

It's a good question. Not at the moment. The challenge to the city will most likely be covered by our insurance. So really this line item is specifically for projects like updating ordinances and whatever. I will make a caveat. I can't guarantee that. If any... Anything's come up, we'll bring them to city council.

Thank you. The second part relates to the ongoing sound engineering consultation services. I understand that that was handled by planning commission's request, but nothing really came to council about who the other options were. I mean, it was in this packet who we have been working with, but I don't know that I want to be tied to that person. I don't know that that company aligns with what we're trying to do or anything like that. So the next item is a separate a la carte sound study situation, but I would prefer that council be presented some options for an ongoing relationship with someone when it comes to drafting the noise ordinances and whatnot, because if we're gonna have more work with other ordinances, I believe, as well, or at least I would like us to as we change things across the board. So I'm gonna make a motion to strike from the recommendation approval for the continued use of Soundscape Consulting and any language related to that. Support.

All right, any further discussion? Assistant City Manager Benson?

Yeah, ultimately, like I said, we did interview a couple different firms, so we can bring you information on them. For what it's worth, we have found Soundscape, I'll admit to you, their presentations may not have always been the most well-received. HOWEVER, WE HAVE FELT THEIR INPUT HAS BEEN INVALUABLE, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR EXPERIENCES IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AS IT RELATES TO DATA CENTERS AND INDUSTRIAL NOISE. THEY HAVE A LARGE PRESENCE OUT IN VIRGINIA WHERE THIS IS A VERY COMMON USE. SO, I MEAN, AT A MINIMUM, WE COULD CERTAINLY BRING YOU ALL OF THE PROPOSAL INFORMATION THAT WE'VE GOTTEN. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY I BELIEVE IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION AND PREFERENCE TO CONTINUE THIS, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE They're already familiar with what we're doing, so it does save us a little bit on the front side, too. And if there are any concerns about there are specific things about this consultant that aren't working for City Council, we'd love to hear about that, and we can potentially help work with them on presenting or what other things you may need.

But ultimately, yeah, your direction is what we'll do.

We have a motion and a second, so we have a discussion.

Council Member O'Day?

Just to follow up on that point, then, I just want to clarify, is it your opinion it would ultimately cost the city more money to bring someone in from ground zero to do some of the work that Soundscape has already done, and they are already knowledgeable of the process?

YEAH, I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO BE AN INSURMOUNTABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT THERE WOULD CERTAINLY BE, YOU KNOW, FIVE, TEN HOURS WORTH OF BILLABLE HOURS GETTING UP TO SPEED AND KIND OF GETTING TO WHERE WE ARE. IT'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY, BUT A LITTLE BIT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO YOU WANT TO READ YOUR MOTION, THEN?

sure i had made a motion to remove from the recommendation or strike from the recommendation authorizing the continued use of soundscape consulting llc of ann arbor michigan for sound engineering consultation services for an amount not to exceed thirty thousand dollars inclusive of all previous billings or would you prefer that we leave the previous billings in there so we can pay those.

I would prefer that you leave the previous billings.

Okay, so not to exceed or we'll just leave it at for sound engineering consultation services. Sure. Does that work?

Yeah, we understand your intent.

Discussion? Council Member Berman?

For clarification, I guess what I thought I was seconding was the striking of Soundscape. I mean, we're still giving them the $30,000 if they need to hire someone else or something. We're still making the budget amendment. We're just not saying you're hiring Soundscape by this motion. That's the way I accepted it.

Yeah, I think that's how we've interpreted it. Okay.

You still spent $10,000. We need to pay that. And we're still probably going to spend more on something, whether or not Soundscape or somebody else.

Yeah. Okay. Well, and just for clarity, the intent of this motion is that we bring you – so we would pay – I think we've already paid the $8,500. We'll have one more invoice, relatively small, for their services on the 29th. Um, but other than that, we just wouldn't spend any money on any, you know, we wouldn't use any sound engineers until we brought somebody to you, unless you're also authorizing us. If you're saying to us, you can administratively pick one of the other two. Um, I don't think that's what you're doing. And so that my interpretation is that you want us to bring all three to you in some way, shape or form for you.

Then I don't know if you're going to need a sound engineer going forward. Maybe we're fine now, but, but, but you have the room and the budget. And if you're going above $10,000, I think then you have to come back to us.

Okay.

Yeah. That's my view on it.

Okay.

So if you're going above $10,000 with Soundscape, then you need to bring us back something.

Or if we go above with anybody else. Yes. Okay.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

All right. I got a motion and a second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. All right. Move on to new business number two is a recommendation to accept the proposal for citywide ambient noise study services from Soundscape Consulting LLC of Ann Arbor, Michigan for an amount not to exceed $28,500 from planning special studies account number 101-721-956-481. Approve the associated budget amendment and authorize the mayor to sign the agreement. Do I have a motion?

So moved.

Assistant City Manager Benson.

So this proposal was based on a request, based on conversations with City Council for a desire to get a better understanding of the ambient noise levels in the city as it relates to both crafting our data center ordinance, which at one point was referencing using that as one of the primary standards, But more importantly, as we consider looking at updating the citywide noise ordinance standards, it is important to be able to have an understanding of what your underlying sound levels are to help then make sure you're setting correct levels if you do make modifications. So pursuant to city council's request for this, we worked with Soundscape Engineering to have them put together a proposal to gather gathered data and put together a citywide ambient noise study for you. The details of that scope of services are included in your agenda packet. Basically, they would go around and set up both long-term and short-term sound meters at various locations that are pointed out in the proposal and ultimately bring back a report that would be presented to city council of, hey, here's what your sound levels are at these individual points and how that relates to potential modifications in other ordinances or as it relates to data centers. With that in mind, happy to answer any additional questions you may have.

Deputy Mayor Gottschall. Thank you.

In looking at the map for site selection, it is not what I would think of scientifically. I understand like schools were chosen, different residences and whatnot, but I think at least in my mind why I was interested in doing this was to give us a citywide kind of sound heat map and this pretty much excludes the entire southern and commercial portion of the city so I would have been expecting something a little bit more grid like and I mean is this open to be adjusted can we give you power to adjust it, but I don't, I'm in favor of doing the study in principle, but I don't feel like this would be the most useful.

Yeah, this certainly can be modified, and there's really two ways you can do it. One, you could direct staff to say, hey, we're comfortable with the total cost, and it's really based on the total number of locations that they're sampling, and direct us to say, hey, modify the scope of work to move three or four of those sampling points to the primarily industrial districts. I'm assuming you're referencing the southeast corner of Wixom. You could give us that direction under the guise of the recommendation than the recommended budget amount. I believe that that wouldn't impact the cost. The alternative option is they really price this basically on a per location. Long-term sound level measurements are one cost. Short-term sound level measurements as they define them are a different cost. You could also say, hey, I want you know, too long-term and too short-term in addition to everything else, and then we could do the math real quick and, you know, add that. I can't guarantee that that's exactly what they would charge, but I feel relatively confident that they would, you know, we could get that worked out with them.

Yeah, I would be comfortable, I think, giving... administration some leeway to choose and maybe spread out the cluster that's right in the center of the city because i don't think those are gonna they'll vary a little bit but i wouldn't say wildly um and spread those out i would prefer more than one or two to the southeast though like i'm literally imagining put a grid over that map and pop one in every grid this is very centrally located testing so i don't i mean I'll wait for feedback from everybody else if there is any before I make a motion, I guess.

Council Member Simmons?

I guess a couple of questions. One, in looking with the long-term versus the short-term. So we're saying that the short-term is only going to be over one hour. Is that how I'm reading that correctly? Like a short-term measurement is just one hour. So at the schools, it's just going to be one hour. yes I do believe so okay I think that it would be nice I mean I like the concept of having the measurements at each of the schools keeping in mind I guess with some new location if it's correct there but I think the schools and the parks I would be curious what council's opinion is is just on having I don't know what an hour is going to do for us at some of these locations. I think it's more over the period of time, whether it's parks or schools. So whether that means 72 hours seems like maybe overkill, but an hour seems like not enough. So at least getting 24 hours at some of these locations, finding some sort of middle point there. And if we're committed to using the soundscape there, I guess in Councilman Berman's thought or is a comment I don't know if this needs to get bit out or if we need to be looking at other places for this or if we're just committed to using them for this if we're under a time constraint for that so I'd be curious to get other if you had other companies you were working with I'd be curious to understand what their cost is going to be for the same thing

Yeah, no, we certainly can, too, and especially with the decision made in the previous agenda item. Ultimately, this is really at the discretion of city council. This was in response to previous kind of conversations and direction from city council to seek out this service in the first place, which we will benefit from and we will need, right, where certain things may or may not be going in a variety of ways related to ordinances and whatnot. This will be a good data point for us to have. However, if city council is not in a rush to do it, I don't know that we have to be. So we could certainly either bid it out or if we just re-solicit the two companies that we previously had talked to and get quotes for similar services and we can bring those to you alongside the general services at a future meeting. It probably wouldn't be at your 25th meeting. I will tell you that. I just don't think we can get it turned around that fast. So we'd be looking at at least a month from now before we're bringing either of those items back to you.

If I could interject real quickly with just sort of an unsolicited opinion, I think that this particular function is pretty straightforward. You're using equipment to turn on, turn off, and take measurements of sound in an area. So you could be potentially comfortable with soundscape for the for this particular engagement, maybe not on the other ones. You want to review them for some other things. That's just a thought. That may or may not be consistent with council's thoughts, but that's what my thoughts might be. It's pretty straightforward engagement on this one. But as the assistant city manager said, we're happy to go ahead and bring it back later. Just we'll slow it down a little bit is all. Whatever council's direction is.

Sure. I guess my opinion, my two comments are, One, I think we need longer term measurements. Unless I'm understanding why we need 72 hours, I think we need to find a happy medium between 72 and one hour, with at least 24 hours being at the schools and the parks. And I'd like to see what the other companies would come back for the same thing. Thank you.

Council Member Kennedy.

I was going to say much the same thing about the one hour. of sound readings, because those would be wildly different hour to hour. But the long-term ones, the 72 hours, and they might not have to be 72 hours. It could be 24, 48. Those already include a written report with the hourly noise level at each measurement location. I think this is a really important thing to see the ambient sound we have across the city. And I'd be completely on board with Keenan just putting a grid over the city of some undetermined size that I don't know. having a longterm one on each one and then just getting the full report. I'd be willing to spend some more money on that because I think it's really important.

Well, and to that point, I will say when we talked to them about putting together the scope of work, this was designed with the intent of trying to be a little bit more cost effective. I mean, we could also just go back to them and say, Hey, you know, they're not the city council's preference is to do basically all longterm. And at the same time we can talk to them about, reallocating, repositioning these. With a similar amount, maybe we add a couple more. We could do that. So we could just go back and ask for all long term. But just keep in mind that the cost would be, and I don't know if it matters, let's say we went down to 48 hours as opposed to 72. I don't know if that changes the per location cost. We can figure that out if desired. I have a feeling it won't change it tremendously. But if that's the direction, we could certainly go back and work that out too. It would just be more expensive.

Yeah, and that would be kind of nice to see a couple different options of, hey, if we lay 12 of these long-term out across this for 24 hours, here's the cost, as opposed to three of them for 72 plus a couple one-hour ones. It would just be nice to see some options on it. I don't know what everyone else thinks.

Good. Council Member Gremlin-Fox?

So I do agree it would be nice to have more of a time period as opposed to one hour. However, is it administration's recommendation that for this purpose we go with them for now based on timing?

YES, IF TIMING IS THE PRIMARY FACTOR OF CITY COUNCIL. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A GOOD PIECE OF INFORMATION FOR US TO HAVE. THE URGENCY I WOULD PUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ON CITY COUNCIL'S TABLE. IF YOU FEEL LIKE THIS IS NECESSARY IMMEDIATELY, THEN Absolutely. If you feel comfortable waiting a meeting or two for us to work with them to redesign this, we certainly can. The one thing I do want to point out, the short-term locations that they picked, you'll notice, tend to be a little bit farther out. So I think that was also done intentionally of being less areas that we... I THINK THEY FELT AND WE FELT THAT WERE PROBABLY LESS LIKELY TO BE AREAS OF CONCERN AS IT RELATES TO SPECIFICALLY INDUSTRIAL ADJACENCY. I MEAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY FUNCTIONS OF WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, WHAT THEY'RE SETTING UP IS THESE INTERACTION POINTS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL USES, COMMERCIAL USES, AND THEN TO THESE TRANSITION AREAS. There's no reason we can't redesign that. But that's just so you know, that was kind of the idea. But yeah, I mean, we, as I said before, we are comfortable with Soundscape. We think that they do a nice job and we've liked working with them and the insights that they've been able to bring. However, if city council wants to look at other options or have them, again, I guess we're looking for a direction. Our recommendation would be to move forward with that.

So my understanding, and that could be completely wrong, was that we needed this study sooner rather than later in the industrial portion. However, it sounds like that's not the case.

Well, if specifically because table two was removed. One second. Oh, I'm sorry.

And that the area is not inclusive of the industrial district per this map. So I'm just trying to get a clear.

Yeah, I would say that's partially true. This effort was specifically related to Table 2 in the draft ordinance. This relates back to our concerns and our recommendation to not use that in the first place. But at a minimum, if you were to use that, this is 100% necessary and you would need it immediately. If that is not the case, as was the motion made tonight, then this becomes less urgent. However, it is still relevant. And to your point, a wider scope may be necessary for looking at your citywide industrial noise standards.

Okay. Through the mayor for our city attorney, is this something that we should be doing now?

So the question always is enforceability of your noise ordinance. I don't know if you've ever had a baseline study done anywhere. So it's just, if you're going to cite somebody for violating the noise ordinance, when you're testing what the output is, you have to be able to differentiate it from what the background noise is in order to prove that they're in excess of what your existing background noise is. So I think if the intent is that we're gonna need to do some noise ordinance enforcement, and we have never done this before, we don't know what our baseline is, I think it's probably something we should be doing. If we're looking at amending our noise ordinance standards, Overall, to make sure they're appropriate everywhere, I think it's necessary.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I do support this. Thank you, Mayor.

Council Member Berman?

That was actually what I wanted to know is whether or not the city attorney thought we needed this or not with us removing the Table 2. I guess then, I guess for a point of clarification, is this a no-bid situation where we need unanimous approval?

Professional service.

We didn't do a solicitation on professional service basis.

No, but we did solicit a quote. But not for this specific service, though. We didn't.

I'm not sure we're going to have a unanimous approval. And I also think that when something's on the agenda that requires unanimous approval, it's helpful if you label it that way.

I'm going to say there's enough questions on this. Maybe we just withdraw the action for this meeting and take a look at this for a tighter lens and come back with something that better matches what's being expressed by council here. I don't think that regardless, you know, city attorney comments a second ago weren't anything like two weeks is going to make that kind of a difference. So I think, you know, if we just defer and get something brought back at the 25th, we'll be fine.

Thank you.

That'd be my suggestion. I think there's enough questions on it at this point that maybe we just withdraw it.

Yeah, or postpone the item.

Yeah. We aren't going to table. We're going to postpone. So you want a motion to postpone our table? It wouldn't be table.

Table's the same meeting.

I've learned.

He's learned.

Yeah, a motion to postpone would be appropriate. They don't make motions, though.

All right.

I have a question.

I have a question.

OK.

Thank you.

Council Member Groenlund-Fox.

Thank you. Can we get this information back at our next meeting and be able to make a determination and move forward?

I guess it depends on which parts. And I guess that is a little bit unclear is what is the overall direction from city council. We've heard a little bit of get other quotes. We've heard a little bit of move forward with this directly. If it's as simple as clarifying the no bid, you know, unanimous consent question, we could certainly turn that around. Um, I could not commit to being able to get other proposals to you by the 25th. We can try, but I can't guarantee that that happens.

So if we're just looking at a, at a, um, clarification of the exact status of how this would be awarded and then also an expansion of the services that you're looking for, making it more 24 hours and those kind of things and sticking with Soundscape, we can bring it back on the 25th. Otherwise, if we're looking for a full bid process or a more elaborate process than we've done already, then it would probably be later than that.

okay i would i would say that if this is time sensitive we could approve this now and and for future studies we could have a bid sent out and have that information to review any discussion deputy mayor got you thank you um just trying to

do a little grid over here right now. Looking at our zoning map, just trying to figure out what looks like a block. I think it's important that we get this started now rather than delaying it. I do agree it should be unanimous consent because we are waiving a bidding process. I feel like we get away from that wording a little bit too frequently. With that though, maybe the better way is to adopt a recommendation that outlines a grid system or some leeway for administration and we can add in a contingency or a different amount, like an up to amount. Is that something that would work that way we can get started, you take our feedback and we get something? I approximately came up, if we look at the northwest corner of the city and Wexford-Mews, essentially, and I just copied it and did a grid, it's like eight of those blocks, like from there to Charms, from the northwest corner of the city, Wexford down to Charms, it's like eight of those tall and four of those wide is Wixom. So I don't know what kind of, their quote says it's 3,500 per block. One, what would you be comfortable with or what's council comfortable going up with if that's 24 on the grid system? That's quite a bit more. So, I mean, I don't, what are we looking at? 24 total locations and they're all long term? It'd be a lot more money, yeah. So maybe it needs to be spread out like that takes us up closer to 100,000. yeah so what like that's the i think it's important to get away from the one hours i agree with that um our ordinance that was just voted on earlier is 48 i think that's a safe amount i wouldn't want to see less than that but is council comfortable setting a different up to amount and letting administration work it out i can live with that

Council Member Barron.

Given the fact that tonight was the first reading and then two weeks from now we'll have the second reading and there's still potential for changes in the ordinance, I would feel more comfortable getting some concrete numbers coming back to us in two weeks for us to approve when we also know for sure, you know, the ordinance is going to be going forward because you know in two weeks we add back on table two that's going to change things so i guess i i don't see how approving an up to one dollar amount this evening is going to change anything in the next two weeks so i would i would feel more comfortable let an administration take what we told them and get get us an exact number they want to spend in two weeks

I think our best bet here is to withdraw this motion tonight and come back with us in two weeks with a couple of different plans based on what council has given feedback to tonight and let's go from there. But in two weeks we can still do it and then we can still get the study done before everything else. So I think that might be the best way to go tonight. I know that puts a lot of work on your shoulders but I think he can handle it.

I appreciate that. No, that's fine. We can manage.

Deputy Mayor Gatcho.

I guess just for feedback for administration, because there was talk about bidding it out, is that I'm personally comfortable with Soundscape doing this study. Are we fine with administration disengaging them, or is the expectation that we're going to have bids from other council members?

No, I'm good with Soundscape. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. JUST GET US A DIFFERENT QUOTE WITH DIFFERENT AREAS AND DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF TIME IN EACH AREA. WE GOOD WITH THAT?

I'M GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT IN TWO WEEKS. I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT I'M GOING TO BE A YES UNTIL I SEE WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS. ALL RIGHT.

So do we need a motion to postpone?

We could just withdraw it. If the mover and supporter withdraw their support and motion, we can call it good. I'll withdraw my second.

Who gave the motion?

If there's no second, then I'd die anyway, right? I think it was Jason.

I can remove my motion.

Then we'll just bring back something different next time around. We'll get it straightened up.

Thank you. Thank you. And that concludes the business portion of the meeting tonight. That moves us to the second call to the public. Those rules are as follows. The public shall address the council during the call to the public, or it shall be included on the agenda immediately after correspondence and immediately again after new business. 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 in their place of residence and shall state their reason for addressing the council and all comments by the public shall be made directly to the council. Go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Catherine Phillips, 2415 Winona Drive, and I would like to address the changes that were just made to the ordinance and the ordinance for the data center as a whole. I was at the initial planning commission meeting for the entire five hours that it went, and I unfortunately missed the July meeting. your first reading of their recommendations, but as I was reading through all of the changes today, I was happy to see that the setback was increased to 2,640 feet. As was stated, data centers are a novel business. they're new we don't know what they're going to be it is much easier to place a high setback number and decrease it later than to do it in reverse also the uh... i agree that some of these changes need to be made at the state level that ordinance whatever committee, but part of that under key things, under the slide key things to consider, it stated under MCL 125.3207, a zoning ordinance generally may not totally prohibit a lawful land use where there is a demonstrated need. I ask you, where is that demonstrated need? Who has that demonstrated need? Is it the people of this city? No. It's an outside for-profit company that isn't even a part of this community that just wants to come in. And also, even the word need is subjective. Who determines that need? I personally thought that map looked beautiful. It put data centers clearly over into the strictly industrial areas of the city where they should be. If this 1,000 feet, which is less than the 1,500 feet that was brought to you out of Planning Commission... If that 1,000 feet is going, and I know it says don't look at what's being considered or whatever, but we have to because it's right there. Right there affecting downtown Wixom. That new park that's being built, nobody will ever use it. if a data center is built up there off of old Wixom Road or Wixom Road, it won't happen. So I was very disappointed with those that voted in favor of it because it is totally against what this community wants and what this community needs. Lastly, I'm just going to review What the city charter currently says, because I don't know if everybody here has read it recently. We, the people of Wixom, in our endeavor to perpetuate safe, healthful, and pleasant surroundings for our posterity, endorse and encourage with this charter a rededication of our citizenry and representative governance a well-planned community, respect for our heritage, and the protection of the natural environment characteristic of our city. Data centers are not safe, healthful, or pleasant, and they destroy the environment, not protect it. Therefore, they do not align with our city charter. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Gaye Wainer. I live on Sibley Court in Wixom. Been there for 23 years. I commend the last speaker. She said a lot of the same things I was going to say, and she got there first. So I'll just add a few comments. When I first came in tonight, I was pretty excited after reading the packet that was being presented. I looked at all the maps, and the 2640 feet setback was really exciting to me. But I also noted in the packet that there were other maps. There was the 1,000-foot setback, which you all have approved, but there was also the 1,500-foot setback. And I was kind of surprised that you would jump from the 26 to the 1,000. Because the 1,000 appears to keep in play the parcel that is currently under consideration for a data center, where it appears that the 1,500 may in fact not. So we can go on and on about data centers. And I don't think anybody really wants one. But you all have to do what you can within the scope of the law. I appreciate the effort that you've done so far, but I really think that maybe reconsidering the thousand and making it a little tougher as far as you can would be greatly appreciated by the citizens of this community. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Christopher Flake. I'm at 1559 Grimersy Court. So I want to thank all the council members for the time, for the due diligence on this matter. Obviously it's not a happy decision. There's based on just the comments that you guys have made, the comments that the public has made, no one really wants a data center. But per the Michigan state law, we have to allow it with our regulations. Otherwise, it could be challenged in court. The 2,600-foot map would be fantastic, but obviously it's restrictive. So I'm happy that you approved it in a sense, but also unhappy that we couldn't have something bigger. But ultimately, it was almost a split vote. It was a necessary decision, not necessarily a happy one, but still necessary decision. But the fact of the matter is that we're being sued today on the current regulations, which have nothing else, like nothing additional for data center regulation. The legal counsel on the June 29th zoning board said that the moratorium may not hold up in court. if challenged. So trying to get the regulations in place as soon as possible is necessary. So I thank everybody for that. I also thank everyone for encouraging the zoning board to continue advising and potentially revising these regulations if something new were to come up in a month or two. But ultimately, we're at the point where it's happening. If we lose the case and the company is able to build the data center with the current regulations, it's going to be two to three times louder and with no setbacks. So moving forward with something is better than moving forward with potentially nothing. So yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Good evening. Steve Jopik, 2017, TNEC Circle. When I walked into the first meeting of the City Planning Commission back in June, the first one that I had attended, and heard what the initial proposals were, and then when I walked in to the broader council meeting on July 14th, I walked into both of those with A very deep concern that allowing data centers in Wixom was a foregone conclusion and the city was just going through the formalities of making us feel like we were a part of the process and had some kind of say. While I still have concerns, they are no longer to that extreme. I've seen the effort that everybody sitting on this council has done, and I want to thank all of you for taking that time and doing the diligence and being our voice in rooms where we can't be. understanding that we're now staring down the barrel of a legal battle with the juggernaut of capital that is venture capitalism behind it if we have to get something on the books now making that something that we put on the books a compromise isn't the way to go about it. If they're going to use a judge to force us to let them build a data center here, let them also use a judge to try and force us to change our ordinances. On the topic of sound studies, they can be cheated. No different than an emissions test can be cheated. I'd be willing to bet almost everybody in this room tonight remembers the Volkswagen scandal. How do we make sure that a data center doesn't run its generators at a minimum level, if at all, before and during the post-construction sound studies only to turn their generators on 24-7 after the fact to control their utility costs? Any inch that we give willingly is going to result in miles being taken from this community. Excuse me. It's no secret that in a capitalist system, cost cuts and profit maximizations are the only goals of any corporation. So the question I want each of you to keep in mind is how will these ordinances protect us from that? If they don't, then that needs to be included. Data centers are not standard industry. They're not warehouses with a single server room, nor are they active logistics hubs with constant truck traffic. Each one of these data centers is the equivalent of a Pittsburgh steel mill at one tenth the size. That half mile restriction is a compromise. It should be a mile. I'm sorry.

One minute.

It is more critical now than at any other point in this process that city council and staff stay focused on what's best for this community and not give an inch to what is ostensibly, for the time being, state-sanctioned corporate greed. If the judge rules against us, appeal it. Do not sacrifice our city to avoid a difficult battle. Thank you.

Good evening. I am Jessica Buck. I live at 3014 Madison Street, and I speak tonight as a downtown resident. I might volunteer a lot for this city, but I'm speaking as a downtown resident i'm also most importantly a mother of three children that's why i'm here tonight so i don't have to put them to bed but i got three children and their health and well-being is the toughest job that i've ever had i got to keep them i moved here during 2019 keep them away from kova keep them safe air quality is bad heat waves it's just constant I have EMF blockers on my cell phone and all this stuff. I'm very, very concerned for the health and safety of my children. I moved here for a walkable downtown to be able to bike, to be able to walk to restaurants, coffee shops, and so forth. And I came to the last meeting in July when the room was packed. And there was so many different people of different political persuasions, different backgrounds. And every single person there had a common goal. I can't think of one statement I could make that the room would agree with. I didn't even see everyone stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. We can't even all agree on that, right? So I cannot think of one even remotely political statement that you could make besides data centers should not be in downtown Wixom that gets everybody to agree. That was just amazing to see everybody agreeing on that. I saw the guy from Wixom Industrial One talk about how, oh, that data center that, you know, Councilman Bierman visited, that's a Mack truck. I'm building a Tesla. Then when pressed, well, he's never built one, and there's not even one in existence right now. There's no Tesla facility. data centers. He kept saying how it's going to be safe, but he did not provide one study showing that it's safe. The only studies that are out there right now are showing that data centers have caused cancer, miscarriages, breathing issues, and other health problems. So yes, noise is very, very commonly the biggest thing that we just don't want the noise, but there are so many other health problems and lawsuits as a result of of health problems. They just settled in California $20 million because miscarriages and cancer was being tied to the data center. Do you know how hard that would be to prove that that was caused by the data center and not all the junk that's in our food and water? I mean, but it was proven and they settled $20 million. This is like no other building ever built, and this requires a very special ordinance. So I very, very much appreciate how City Council has taken so much time listening to the public's concerns and going over the data. I know the Planning Commission was the one that came up with the 1,500 feet, and Councilman Bierman, you talked about how that came from a Kentucky study, I believe. and the 1500 was kind of the gold standard. Then I was happy in the packet to see it move up to 2640 feet, of course, and I have no idea how it just came backdoored into 1000 feet, and now that's acceptable. I just think as we are one of the first cities in Michigan to make this, we should not be going light on that distance issue. We should be going heavy on that distance issue and farther on that distance issue and let other cities see what we've done and copy us, not just wait for another city to do it and have them have the courage. You've got the backing of your city right here, right now, to do as far an extensive distance that you could possibly do. I think throwing that 1,000 foot, put in was an absolute shock to me, honestly, because I don't know how we went from 500 feet to 1,500 feet is the gold standard. That's what we're going to do. Then, oh, no, now we're going to do 2,640. And then, never mind, we're going to go to 1,000 feet because we're scared. And we don't want to have this in the lawsuit. And I just think we should not be giving, as other people have said, giving them any type of inch We should be courageous and we should be strong in this fight. Please do not stop fighting for us. Do not roll over with this recent lawsuit. Do not stop fighting for this city. I think if this is built, you're going to lose a lot of residents because people would rather the health and safety of their children than live next to a data center. One minute. And I just beg you to not stop fighting for this city. And please extend that moratorium. It's coming up, ending in September. I saw that on the next step possibility, but I didn't see it discussed tonight. Please, please, please extend that moratorium. We still need more time. We still need more sound studies. We still need more studies and data and everything. And please, please don't stop fighting for us. I really appreciate all that you've done so far.

Hello, I am Samantha Moore, 2061 Maple North Trail. It will take very long. What I'm about to say, I don't want any council members to be offended, but I do want to point out and thank the deputy mayor for his for the way you are thinking progressively and you're pushing back on the, it's been this way, it's done this way, this is how things are done, we're just gonna keep going because it's the safe way. Like the previous person said, we're all fighting this all throughout the state particularly, and no one seems to want to give it that little extra push and question things and make these companies fight harder. So really all I have to say is that just because it has not been done does not mean that it cannot be done. And we have full faith in our legal team. But thank you.

Hello, I'm Michelle Hendrian, H-E-N-D-R-I-A-N, and I live at 1935 Hopkins Drive. And I'm going to second the whole thing about going back to the 1,000-foot setback. That was very disturbing to hear. And I hope that we will move forward to getting it extended again, too. A couple of things that were of interest to me when I was doing some research recently was that it's on a floodplain that part of the property. And I was doing some research where a gentleman who actually is an IT and also does, um, I forgot where does that shoot. He does consultations and everything for data centers and actually works for data centers and, um, He specifically said that this should not be built within a half mile of a river, any type of flowing river, creek, and also stated about not being built on a 100-year floodplain. So we need to consider that as well, what safety is that going to do for the local water. Also, in regards to the Saline data center, there has been a fight with the Attorney General that they cannot actually see the contract between the data center and DTE. And they've actually been said that certain consumers are going to have an increase. Those have been admitted from what has been able to seen by the public and by other people that can actually advocate for the public. That needs to be I don't like talking in public, I apologize. But we need full transparency of the contracts and have people that can advocate for the people, the taxpayers, the community. be in charge and also be allowed to look at them and have a say in what is appropriate. And also making a broad definition of what a data center is, being a high capacity consumer and also not just saying a data center but also a mining center because those create even more noise and more toxins in the air. So let's also please include them into the conversation as well. And I think that's it for now. Thank you so much for your guys' time.

Thank you.

Michael Murdy, 1983 Winding Way Drive. I am, well, first of all, thank you guys for all your hard work that you've been doing. I was at one of the previous meetings. I was just impressed. I'm going to be opening a small business at 30691 Wixom Road, which is right next to the opening, the driveway to the data center, so I will be their neighbor. I'm going to be working in there. I'm going to have my wife working in there, my son, and then probably my daughter-in-law. And then right next to us is another flooring company that has three generations working in that building. And then behind them is another flooring company that has three generations also working in the company. So I am concerned for our health, being that close to the data center. We are small businesses. I know we're not large corporations. But when I think of Wixom, I think of Wixom as a small city. It's a small neighborhood with the small downtown. And I know we have other large corporations throughout the city. And in the past, we've had those corporations who have had spills and probably noise ordinances and other things that have been broken. And it seems like it's usually just my bad, sorry for that. Pay for the fines and then kind of move on. Kind of a once every three year incident situation. But with the data center, my concern is it's gonna be constant. There's gonna be that constant magnetic flux. There's gonna be the constant hum. We, me, my family, we're gonna be right in the middle of it. So I am concerned about that. They have linked things to cancer, leukemia. I know they haven't said it's the data center itself because those are still new, but it is that magnetic flux that is linked to that. And I think, I personally think that they pick cities like Wixom because it's easier than fighting a larger city. So I just ask you guys to make it a hard fight. If they're going to fight us, please fight back. Thank you.

Hi, Keith Crowder. I live at 2906 Blue Heron, Wixom. Been a resident for 26 years. I've got a question as I've been thinking about all this stuff. How did we keep the cannabis shops out of Wixom and not get sued? I'm pretty sure they tried getting in here. Maybe I'm mistaken, but just something that dawned on me. And then regarding the setback of 2640, realistically I think it might be unrealistic based on it basically blocks everybody out, so I get that part. But I gotta ask why we don't go with the 1500. It was proposed before, but now we're backing off to 1000. So 1,500 to me seems like a reasonable compromise. And then, you know, I know we need to get this passed, but what does it really take to simply change the setback to 1,500 in the ordinance? Just seems real simple. That's all I got. Thank you.

Greetings again, Michael Moore, 2061 Maple North Trail. As pertaining to the setback moving from a half mile back down to 1,000, surpassing the original proposal of 1,500, I would point out that if you're going to use enforceable in other areas of the city code, you might want to consider going back and changing that as well If you're going to have this conversation about one specific type of industrial heavy or light and you want to be able to enforce it and you're already going to be doing all these sound studies anyway, you might want to consider also going back and changing that. I'm a member of an organization, actually a couple organizations where we have these meetings. So it's kind of funny to be on my side watching you because I know the irritation you guys feel. I also understand where you're trying to defend your points and your constituents. And that's why the organizations I'm in typically don't address any of their bylaws issues or any of that. but once every 10 years, just because it becomes that much of a pain to change those rules. But if you're gonna go through the possibility of going through and setting this ordinance and you also want to keep up with other parts of the code, update that part of the code. I know it becomes a pain, but at the same time, you keep kicking a can down the street, eventually you're going to have to pick it up. And who knows if there's gonna be an officer there waiting to find you because you basically have been pushing litter around this entire time, to use a metaphor. That said, I agree with everybody else that has spoken. The whole point up until now, with the exception of the fellow that was trying to get the moratorium bypassed, But yes, coming from far left and coming from far right and how our country is currently divided and our city is divided and our Thanksgiving tables are divided, it's kind of interesting to stand side by side with some of the people that you'd be screaming at normally to agree that no, we don't want this. So keep up the good work. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Excuse me, Linda Grandy, last name is D-E-G-R-A-N-D-E, 3241 Potter Road. I'm gonna keep it short and sweet. If we're the first city to enact these ordinances, why don't we set a gold standard? Why don't we set the bar high so that we help other cities in the state of Michigan and across the country set those same standards? We set our bar low, everybody has to set their bar low. In the end, we are David fighting Goliath, and we need to start with a really powerful slingshot, not some low bar. Go high and let everybody else follow us.

Thank you.

Do I have anybody else for the second call to the public? Seeing none, I'm going to close the second call to the public and move on to City Manager's comments. City Manager Brown.

Thank you, Your Honor. My city manager update, I had one item of information that I included there was the update on the primary election that just took place on August 4th. Had a very successful election conducted in our community. Congratulations to City Clerk Crystal Opalko, Deputy Clerk Kerry Evans, our election inspectors, the Department of Public Works, the Police Department, everybody who assisted with Election Day, and there are many, many people that do that. Some highlights that we wanted to cover there. Polls were open promptly at 7, closed promptly at 8. All four precincts successfully operated with no significant issues nor delays. Early voting was conducted and available from July 25th through August 2nd. And absentee voting continued to be a popular voting option. We're going to get to some detail on that in a minute. Election results were reported to the Oakland County people accurately and on time. So some statistics. There were 3,568 Wixom voters that cast ballots. 1,416 voted in person. 82 voted early. And 2,070 voted by absentee ballot. So that's the largest category of voters was absentee ballots. 31% voter turnout compares to about 26 voter turnout in this style of election that occurred four years ago. So we had a good turnout experience in Wixom. So appreciate people getting out to vote. Once again, I wanted to say thank you to everybody who participated and supported the 2026 Michigan primary election in Wixom. It helped secure an efficient, secure, and successful election for the voters of Wixom. Congratulations again to Clerk Opalko. Do you have something for me that I'm about to say? Oh, sure. The other thing, I hadn't flipped over the page to go to the dates to remember. Lots of important stuff there. The Stars and Guitars Country Fest being the first thing listed there and a nice big event that's happening on August 13th this week at 7 p.m. at Sibley Square Park. I thought I forgot something. She was just looking out for parks and recreation.

This is City Manager Benson.

the only thing i want to say is uh i just want to give a shout out to you know all the you know our the staff members who are sitting up here and the ones who aren't who helped you know help set up the room today who've been involved in this whole ordinance process um specifically shout out to crystal and everything you do to help kind of make this happen um you know these are very complicated discussions there's a lot that goes into it Um, and so I just want to, you know, make sure I shout out all the people who've been, um, you know, kind of help trying to work on this with city council. So thanks to everybody and to city council members for everything you do related to this and members of the public who take time out of your days to come join us here. Um, and let alone the folks who are watching at home. That's all I got.

Very good. Council comments. Council member Berman.

Thank you. Um, I, I, Just one of the comments tonight regarding the cannabis shops. Municipalities are allowed to opt in or opt out of cannabis shops via state law. So that's why municipalities can pick whether or not they want or don't want to have a cannabis shop. State law doesn't necessarily work that way for everything. So I would recommend everybody here continue to come to our meetings, continue to share your thoughts with us. We are listening, and we're all working the best we can for the city. But you really need to be sharing your thoughts with your other elected officials that represent you on the state level, because that's really where we need to see some changes done. With regards to the fire department, they had their Camp 911 last week, right? Last week? Yeah. And... I've had three kids have the opportunity to go through that. Every year they do a camp for children between the ages of 9 and 11, where they take our kids for free for a week, and they teach them some life-saving things. free child care, but more importantly, it's a really good experience. And my children all speak very highly of it. They've gone through it. So keep that in mind next year. If you have children or you know people who have children in the city, it's a great program. They do an awesome job. And I appreciate them. Lastly, the election. Congratulations, Crystal, and your team. And thank you to everybody in the city who supported our library renewal millage. Because without that, you wouldn't have a library.

Council Member Garland-Fox.

Thank you, Mayor.