[0:04] I'm sorry. Those are yours.

[0:12] » Yes. Okay. I'm going to call the meeting to order.

[0:18] Mayor Brown

[0:22] » present. Council member Fellows >> present.

[0:24] » Council member Tusent >> present.

[0:26] » Council member Simmons is absent. Council member MC

[0:29] » here >> and council member J present. We have a

[0:32] board

[0:36] » move to excuse council member Simmons

[0:42] » you mean support. >> Can we add though? Can we just add what

[0:45] happened as well? Oh, sorry. And council council member Wilox support

[0:51] » the move to excuse me.

[0:56] » Any conversation? All

[0:58] » in favor? >> I any opposed?

[1:02] » No.

[1:08] » All right. I'll entertain a motion for agenda approval.

[1:11] » So move. >> Been moved by council member supported

[1:13] by council member Spade. Any updating changes to the agenda?

[1:24] » There we go. Resolution

[1:29] 26-191 of fireworks permit from consent.

[1:37] » Thanks for letter H on the consent agenda.

[1:41] Um,

[1:44] this agenda is so long. Um, and they're already close to the end.

[1:50] » Perfect.

[2:00] » Any other changes to the vote?

[2:07] » Thanks. I know. I'm sorry. All in favor of the agenda as amended,

[2:11] please say I. I. And your oppos. All right. Good evening everyone. Thank

[2:17] you so much for being with us. Um this is our opportunity for public comment.

[2:21] So members of the audience will have three minutes to address council. Um we

[2:25] have one hour aotted up front. If we make it through and have additional

[2:29] folks who have still been signed up, um then we will continue that public

[2:33] comment at the end of the meeting. uh we will alternate in the numeral of 10

[2:38] between in person and then online. So when I call your name, if you are able,

[2:43] please approach the podium. Um and if you could state your name and addresses

[2:48] for the record if you feel so comfortable, that would be wonderful.

[2:52] Um, first I have Teresa

[3:04] and I get my name is Teresa with us at 1703

[3:10] and here on behalf of the app the landl which is at South Washington and at that

[3:16] time we were talking about the people congregating in front of our building

[3:21] and making difficult difficult for us to have make sales so that we can use that

[3:25] money to support the community. I must say that things have not been as bad as

[3:30] they were. I haven't had any complaints from people, all the volunteers that

[3:34] work there. Um, and I we did see something online where somebody misqued

[3:39] us saying that we were all we were all women and we were all afraid. And we're

[3:44] not afraid of them. Very little anyway. uh what we're afraid of, what we're

[3:49] worried about is the fact that if we can't keep people coming into the

[3:52] building, then we can't make money and we can't help the community. And that

[3:55] was sort of how I speak. The other thing I'm concerned about is that I did say at

[3:59] the end of my brief presentation last time that I'd be willing to help help

[4:03] with any kind of problem solving that relates to this this group of people who

[4:08] are well known at least to the police in this town. So that I'm not trying to

[4:13] vilify them. Many of them are are customers. I'm just trying to find

[4:18] another way. So that's why I'm here. Thank you for your time.

[4:23] » Thank you so much. >> Jim Clark.

[4:28] [clears throat] >> Good evening.

[4:31] Uh Jim Clark, 116 College Place. Um I'm speaking tonight in reference to

[4:36] resolution 2026-142. Um there was a task force put together

[4:44] uh to come up with a viable solution um other than simply sweeping the

[4:49] encampment um and relying on paths to find placements for people. Um what I'm

[4:56] proposing is a temporary safe hunting zone. Um everybody's heard me talk about

[5:00] this before and I've sent multiple emails. Um I do believe that there's

[5:06] enough support from from the council. Um, Miss King, you actually brought it

[5:10] up once upon a time and spoke of it favorably if I'm not mistaken.

[5:16] Um, and I've talked to uh Mr. Tusen, um, Miss Fellows, Mr. McClean, um, Mr. Wil

[5:26] Coxin and I had conversations about it. I'm not sure where he stands exactly

[5:29] right now. Um, and at this time, I want to thank uh, Mr. Langa profusely for

[5:35] taking this seriously and helping me see it through. Um I'm going to say the task

[5:41] force essentially has failed. Um all the people that were originally tapped for

[5:44] it um they I haven't been able to to contact um any of them regarding this

[5:49] thing. However, uh the idea itself is sound. Um there's precedent set for it

[5:55] in other states. U Washington, Oregon, uh for example both have safe tenting

[6:00] zones. Um the uh idea for the ordinance was came

[6:05] from Kalamazoo. Um it originally called for uh constructions such as tiny homes,

[6:11] but I've amended it so that it refers specifically to tents. The minimum thing

[6:16] that we need from this is a sanctioned place for people to go. Um when we talk

[6:21] about it, I hear people say, "But we don't have authorized tenting zones in

[6:26] San." Well, this ordinance is intended to provide just that, to create a uh a

[6:30] system where an entity such as um a nonprofit, a church, a private land

[6:36] owner, or a government um can apply for a permit to host a safe tenting zone. Um

[6:42] the tenting zone would have minimum safety requirements. All that stuff

[6:45] would be in place, fire extinguishers, it would have portagons and such. Um,

[6:50] we're trying to make it as bare bones as possible to eliminate uh as much cost as

[6:55] possible because we know the funds for the city are eliminated. However, a port

[6:58] of John's and handwashing station shouldn't be too big of a deal. Um, the

[7:03] management piece of it, um, I've talked to the residents or to the survivors of

[7:07] the Bell Kramer encampment and they're in agreement that they will, uh, they

[7:12] will manage it themselves. um we would have um outside help like myself and a

[7:17] few others that would participate in that management team. Um but the goal

[7:21] there is to protect everybody at the encampment and to make sure that there's

[7:24] a process for the surrounding neighbors to uh lodge a grievance and allow us to

[7:29] to to handle it. Um yeah, I mean if you were to enact this

[7:34] right away, there's a couple of viable stocks that we could start with. It's a

[7:38] 90-day program uh subject to review. >> Thank you.

[7:42] » Okay. Thank you. Melanie P.

[7:51] » Hi, I'm Melanie Peek. I'm a resident in Midtown at 501 Pearl Street. I've been

[7:56] there for 10 years. When I bought the house, I bought it along with a land

[8:02] agreement that binds my property and sharing it with a rooming house next

[8:08] door where they're they have access. It's a very vague document written

[8:13] actually type that in 1976 on a typewriter. It's very vague, but it one

[8:20] thing that's not vague is the access point is just for tenants and visitors

[8:26] to drive over the property and park in the back. Um, but that isn't used that

[8:30] way. It's used for parking. Um, it's gotten 10 years of that. There's also

[8:36] quite a police report on the house. Pull that up. many many incidents kind of

[8:41] pointing to the idea that possibly a rooming house in Midtown is not really

[8:46] working out when there's no one inside the walls monitoring. Um so one of the

[8:51] reasons why I'm here is to speak on behalf of the ambitious and bold um

[8:57] presentation of the ordinances that hold landlords accountable for actions. Um, I

[9:03] don't know how much time I have, but one incident that happened recently in the

[9:07] rooming house on June 13th, um, a very sweet man was found deceased. Um, they

[9:14] did not know that he had passed. That was a week that was pretty hot. Um, how

[9:20] the tenants knew he was gone was he they could smell happy. And so on June 13th,

[9:25] police came out. His body was removed. His belongings were packed up, including

[9:29] a rug rolled up that he passed away on with body fluids put in plastic bags

[9:34] laid out in the back in my garden and on part of the property that I don't

[9:39] actually have to share. This was June 13th when the stuff was brought out and

[9:45] it's June 15th. Um, it's still sitting there and I called the city. I called

[9:50] Red Shields. Um there was a response eventually. Um

[9:59] again, I'm hoping that this ambitious ordinance that people are tableabling

[10:04] for now is somehow going to help me and other people because after 10 years,

[10:09] what I'm looking at now is maybe I should just not be here, that I should

[10:13] sell my book. Um that's Thank you.

[10:23] Michelle,

[10:31] congratulations all the electors and I am here regarding the 128 my address and

[10:40] I'm here regarding Mail Street in capital again.

[10:46] I know everyone think that's an appropriate place for it to be. It is

[10:50] not. This past weekend, I went down there and a friend, a couple friend of

[10:55] us, and we end up cleaning that area up with needles. I had

[11:00] so I don't know what happened to the dumpster.

[11:03] And another thing too, I don't understand why people think that area is

[11:08] appropriate. Okay. One of the uh abandoned house two years ago, three

[11:13] years ago, a homeless person was found deceased.

[11:17] A couple weeks ago, someone was found in an encampment deceased on suicide.

[11:26] A couple months ago in the um apartment area, someone was shot and killed

[11:31] because engagement. So, I'm trying to figure out where do y'all feel like this

[11:36] is appropriate for this place to be in that small neighborhood.

[11:41] I don't understand that. I see that we do have signs saying vacate. There's

[11:47] more people, white people, all the blacks are gone. I have video of that,

[11:51] too. More white people have come down here to invade that area. It's no longer

[11:57] five. It's about 20. So I don't understand where you guys feel that this

[12:04] is a appropriate area. You keep saying you go help clean up, but if you go to

[12:09] help clean up, why I just found needles, garbage everywhere.

[12:15] I'm trying to protect my neighborhood. Why we can't have a safe neighborhood?

[12:19] Everyone else does. So why we can't have it? So, I don't

[12:25] understand why people continue on thinking Kramer and Bale because it's a

[12:30] field is a appropriate place to put a tent.

[12:35] And what's wrong with having a small house? What's wrong with having that?

[12:39] He's saying that's inappropriate. I prefer them being in a house than being

[12:42] in a tent, which is more condensed to their situation. So I don't understand

[12:48] why where we getting this information from and why we feel that this situation

[12:51] is good for the community that y'all concern that y'all love the community.

[12:57] Give us respect as owners and residents. I am I don't understand where we plan on

[13:05] going from here but I guarantee you that encampment would not stay there.

[13:10] » Thank you Harvey K.

[13:18] Good evening. >> Thank you. Good evening, mayor,

[13:21] counselors. My name is Harvey Frankie. I'm at 504 Pearl in Midtown. I want to

[13:27] be real clear about what I'm going to say here is what I'm going to talk about

[13:31] the ordinances that we talked about reviewed last time uh 1468 1469. I

[13:37] support health, safety, and housing standards that we intend to uh implement

[13:43] in our city. And uh the issue that I'm finding specifically about those two

[13:48] ordinances is fairness and proportionality, particularly for a

[13:53] specific class of landlords, not all landlords are the same. I am a

[13:58] homeowning residential landlord. I I rent out part of my own house. And so

[14:05] under these proposals as I read, a homeowner who lives upstairs and rents

[14:09] out a basement or a spare bedroom or perhaps another division in my dwelling

[14:14] unit can face the same regulatory framework as large corporate landlords.

[14:19] But there's a huge difference between those between someone who rents out one

[14:23] unit and someone who rents out multiple properties. A large landlord can spread

[14:27] these inspection fees and compliance costs to the payers and administration

[14:32] administrative burden across many units where an owner occupied it comes out of

[14:38] what I use to pay the mortgage and the insurance and the repairs for my house

[14:41] and my own budget. So an owner occupied rental is one of the simplest ways

[14:47] though for Ipsellani as a city to add affordable housing. Why do I say that?

[14:53] because a homeowner landlord uh creates another place for someone to live

[15:00] without any obligation for new construction, new land or large

[15:04] development. And if we make these arrangements unnecessarily risky or

[15:08] complicated or costly, these same homeowners will just simply abandon

[15:13] renting out their home, which takes away from the stock of rentable housing in

[15:18] the city. The city's legitimate safety goals don't require a one-sizefits-all

[15:24] approach to to building um to land. A homeowner who lives in the property and

[15:30] rents out a room should not be regulated exactly like the owner of 20 30 40 50

[15:36] rental units and buildings. So, I'm asking council and the building

[15:40] department for some simple changes. First, we should separate owner occupied

[15:44] rental category with simplified registration and less frequent

[15:49] inspection. Secondly, let's make the enforcement proportional to the risk. A

[15:53] minor violation of a rental unit should not automatically jeopardize the

[15:57] homeowner's own residence. Third, provide reasonable notice and cure.

[16:03] Notice and cure goes together as a phrase for non-emergency violations,

[16:08] especially when the owner is making good effort and good faith effort to fix the

[16:13] problem. Fourth, let's reserve the strongest penalties for serious repeat

[16:18] violations, not ordinary homelords trying to comply.

[16:22] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[16:24] » Thank you, Sebastian.

[16:30] » Good evening, mayor and city council. My name is Sebastian Craigy and I'm asking

[16:35] you to vote no on proposed ordinances 1468 and 1469 as written. Let me be

[16:42] clear. I support safe housing. I support enforcing legitimate health and safety

[16:47] standards. But good intentions do not automatically make every new regulation

[16:52] good policy. These ordinances expand and modify if

[16:57] salami is already extensive rental inspection and property maintenance

[17:01] system. The city already requires rental properties to have certificates of

[17:06] compliance and the building department already has enforcement authority when

[17:10] properties fail to meet required standards. My concern is that adding

[17:15] more requirements, more administrative procedures, and potentially more

[17:20] opportunities for penalties will increase the cost and complexity of

[17:25] finding rental housing in its lane. And ultimately, those costs don't just

[17:29] disappear, they get passed along through higher rents, deferred maintenance,

[17:35] or owners citing that a rent that renting a property in Epsilani simply

[17:39] isn't worth the additional expense and risk. That matters because ifi already

[17:45] has an affordability problem. We should be extremely careful about adopting

[17:50] policies that make it more expensive to operate and maintain rental housing.

[17:56] There is also a fairness issue. A large property management company may be able

[18:00] to absorb additional inspections, paperwork, fees, and compliance

[18:04] requirements. A small local landlord with one or two rental properties may

[18:09] not. We should not create a system where the people who provide naturally

[18:13] affordable housing are pushed out while larger operators become more dominant.

[18:19] And if council believes these changes are necessary, I ask you to demonstrate

[18:23] exactly what problem each new position solves, what it will cost the property

[18:28] owners and tenants, and whether there is a less burdensome way to accomplish the

[18:32] same goal. We don't need to choose between safe housing and affordable

[18:37] housing. We should demand policies that protect both. So I respectfully ask

[18:42] council to reject ordinances 1468 and 1469 as written. Slow this process down.

[18:50] Engage tenants and small property owners and make sure these changes actually

[18:55] improve housing and rather than simply adding another layer of regulation.

[19:00] Thank you. >> Thank you.

[19:09] Good evening. >> Hi, Mayor Council. Uh my name is Kadus.

[19:14] I'm a resident of W three. I have two items to talk to you about today. Uh the

[19:19] first is taking you back several meetings to our budget conversations. Um

[19:24] one of the more concerning things about those conversations was the amount of

[19:29] overtime acred by the department. Um, if I remember correctly, for 2024 25 was

[19:37] $471,000 and for 2526 it was $323,000.

[19:44] Uh, both years well above the budgeted amount. Um this was particularly

[19:50] concerning because in a previous session we had heard from the finance director

[19:54] that our uh general fund balance was going to be forecast to be greatly

[20:00] reduced over the next couple of years and these overtime bills are going to

[20:06] draw from that general fund. Um so I I guess I am um asking council, mayor

[20:14] and city manager to take this issue seriously as we move forward. Um and

[20:19] hopefully that you know as we have more hires this year that um you know this

[20:26] fiscal year we hope to see lower um overtime bills. Um the second agenda

[20:32] item, after a few years of observing from the sidelines, I've decided it is

[20:37] time to get in the arena of city government and have applied to be in the

[20:41] planning commission um seats on your consent agenda today. Um given the

[20:46] volume of projects happening in the city, some master plan updates and some

[20:50] upcoming data center or zoning regulations,

[20:54] I expect this will be a very productive time in this commission. Uh, thank you

[20:58] for inspiring me to get more involved and I hope you'll approve my

[21:01] appointment. >> Thank you.

[21:05] » Larry Simmons.

[21:14] » Good evening. >> Good evening.

[21:19] My name is Larry Simmons and uh I noticed that down there on the

[21:23] encampment basically talking about encampment down there on Bale Street

[21:27] Bra. Okay.

[21:31] I listen to some of the comments and concern towards the uh the settlement

[21:36] down there about how they feel unsafe. But what about the residents? I mean,

[21:44] it's hard for me to uh feel comfortable with my nephew, nieces, my grandkids to

[21:50] be out there playing basketball, what we usually do on a regular basis, every

[21:54] summer, spring, whatever. With the kind of problems that we got down there, uh

[22:00] like my sister mentioned, you have people down there using drugs.

[22:05] You have a continuation where people getting comfortable. So that I don't

[22:09] know if they put word out that that's a safe zone or whatever.

[22:12] » Yeah. >> But uh I can guarantee you one thing

[22:16] down there as I remember as a kid that was a duck.

[22:21] So I don't know how city council people if it's y'all opinion of how y'all feel

[22:26] that it's a good environment for them to be down there. I may say for their own

[22:31] health reasons. Okay. And like I said before I have concern about a lot of

[22:37] things. I have uh simply towards people that be in certain condition that trying

[22:42] to get theirel out of but I don't think that the residency

[22:48] okay then the homeowner people that live down there have to be down there

[22:53] suffering and making it comfortable when they paying rent taxes

[22:58] they should feel comfortable too okay to enjoy to enjoy their propert

[23:06] um I I guarantee you there's a lot of people down there that comfortable with

[23:11] how they live. >> Okay? Cuz we've been noticing this for

[23:15] years. This ain't nothing that just happened. Okay? Now, I see y'all put up

[23:21] the sign. They laugh at that sign. And I watch I sit up there sometime and uh in

[23:27] the backyard sitting at the table or sitting in my car like I usually do

[23:31] sometime. But now I feel funny doing that because you got all kind of people

[23:34] walking back and forth. Some of them doing strange thing that you don't know

[23:38] what they might do. I don't know if they're gonna come up to my car and do

[23:41] something crazy or whatever. We deal with a variety of different type of

[23:46] people down there. And the only way to solve that is to close that encampment

[23:50] up and come [clears throat] up solution. Other than that, I don't think the res

[23:56] people that paying taxes. Okay. Then, and y'all say that's our neighbor. If

[24:01] they paying taxes down there, they

[24:04] » Okay. If they if they doing anything down there to make the make the uh

[24:08] people that been living there for years okay then feel cal you got all kind of

[24:14] strange people walking back and forth down there. Okay. So I appreciate if

[24:19] y'all my time is up but thanks for uh

[24:22] listening. >> Those are the only names I had signed

[24:26] up. If there are others in the audience who would like to address counsel you

[24:29] can raise your hand. Anybody?

[24:36] No one has their hand up. Oh, now someone has their hand up.

[24:42] Um, so Tita Matine,

[24:49] » good evening. >> Hi there.

[24:56] Uh oh. Is there an echo?

[25:02] » Oh, hi there. My name is Tahita uh with the Small Business Administration,

[25:07] Office of Disaster Recovery. And uh a part of my job is to make sure that I am

[25:12] getting information out to communities who um are declared in the presidential

[25:19] declaration um from the storms that happened in April. Um our federal agency

[25:25] is still in the state of Michigan letting people understand and understand

[25:29] that they can still apply for disaster recovery. um that includes businesses,

[25:35] homeowners, renters, nonprofit and private organizations um helping with

[25:41] their physical damages that they incurred. Um now, something important

[25:45] that I do have to mention is that the deadline is coming up on August 31st.

[25:52] Um, so for those homeowners or those renters with uh uh private physical

[25:57] property that they need to replace or repair from the um April storms, they

[26:02] can submit their application. We encourage and uh people to apply with

[26:08] FEMA and SBA at the same times. Um we are at the Michigan Disaster Recovery

[26:14] Centers. We have business recovery centers set up. Um, people can go in

[26:19] person to start the application process or do that online. And the way to get to

[26:25] us and start the application online is sba.gov/desaster

[26:32] and that's sba like small businessadministration.govsba.

[26:39] And we encourage those people, those businesses uh with unmet needs from that

[26:44] storm. Um whether it be um reimbursements that they um paid for in

[26:50] April, but you know, now we're here um as federal agencies. So whether it be

[26:55] any reimbursements they need or um any uh damages that they just noticed, we

[27:01] encourage them to apply before that August 31st deadline. And thank you so

[27:06] much. And that's all I have for you today.

[27:09] Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm making sure to share that with us.

[27:14] Anybody else on the line? No one else. One more time in the audience. Any other

[27:20] hands?

[27:24] Right. See none. I will post public comments.

[27:32] » I do just have a few quick questions. One, I didn't know the trash can was

[27:36] moved from Dale Kramer. Was there a reason why?

[27:40] » Um, so we had the dumpster for um Shine when they were cleaning things up. Um,

[27:45] it was full, so it was removed. Um, we can put another one back, but it seems

[27:51] that we have the September 1st date coming up. We probably should do a

[27:55] cleaning session after that. Um, we can have a dumpster put back out there. Um,

[28:01] also I did receive word from Hath uh today indicating that half the people

[28:09] are willing to leave, the other half don't, as it was said during public

[28:14] comment, don't take signs seriously. Um, so I'm trying to uh confer with them to

[28:20] see how best that we we can ensure that they understand that the the signs are

[28:26] real and September 1st would be the deadline uh to move

[28:32] » and do we have a plan since we have not met with the task force if we have some

[28:38] kind of plan in place or how does that removal look? So the the removal will be

[28:44] they either go for the path or eventually officers like to come and

[28:48] trespass people.

[28:54] Also um because I did see some of the videos of the residents down there

[28:59] cleaning up the needles and stuff and that does sound problematic to me.

[29:06] Michelle Fman spoke for public comment and she talked about

[29:10] people being deceased in that area. Residents have called me about that. Do

[29:15] we have any update that we can talk to the community about?

[29:18] » Um other than there was a deceased person.

[29:22] That's really the only thing that we

[29:28] » I guess lastly. Do we have a count of how many people are down there? That is

[29:32] one thing we discussed at the last meeting.

[29:34] » Sure. And I until now I thought it was five. Um, so I'm I'm reaching I just

[29:41] sent an email to the path team to ask their account so we can get an updated

[29:45] number.

[29:51] » Anything else? >> I mean that's it for now, but again um

[29:56] residents came and spoke during public comment about people being deceased. I

[30:01] know when we initially went down there, we did hear about a shooting that took

[30:05] place and again if we could give the residents down there some kind of

[30:11] information so they can have some kind of peace.

[30:14] That's all. >> Thanks.

[30:18] » Thank you, mayor. My comments were really along the same lines or same

[30:21] kinds of questions how many folks are there and uh some assurances that we are

[30:27] continuing the the timeline that we talked about. I think it was at our last

[30:30] our last meeting. Um make sure that that there's clarity for the residents here

[30:36] before they leave tonight. >> Yeah, it's September 1st. Nothing

[30:39] changed. So they not as stated on the the signs that are out there, I believe.

[30:44] Um so if we need to send an officer with the PATH team to ensure that they they

[30:50] understand that this is something that needs to happen, we're more willing more

[30:56] than willing to do that.

[31:02] So just quickly is the past team helping the people and that because again we

[31:07] have not had a meeting to discuss what the next steps were with the task force.

[31:12] So again I'm wondering what that also looks like.

[31:15] » So they've been going out several times and it's to offer several different

[31:19] types of services. um one being relocation assistance. Um also other

[31:27] other services provided through CH. I've sent a few emails out to the task force

[31:33] and only one person has gotten back to me.

[31:38] So I'm not sure what the status of that is.

[31:50] Thank you. >> Thank you. Um yet from my understanding

[31:55] that has been down there and you know half the folks have been engaging with

[32:00] them the other half but not that that we that they don't know that they were

[32:06] aware of. Um, I also heard that there had been I don't know what group this

[32:13] is, but that there was a group that was offering or stating that they would

[32:18] hotel people. And so I think that is where maybe you're seeing more people

[32:24] because I'm hearing that more people are coming over there because they've heard

[32:27] that they needed support from some group that nobody knows who the group is. Um,

[32:32] and so hoping to get information on that. Nobody knows who this group is. I

[32:37] said that favorite hotel people off. >> Yes. I Matthew informed me of that today

[32:42] as well. And it's an unknown unknown organization.

[32:49] » Unknown. >> Unknown. I don't know. Thank you.

[32:53] » All right. Okay. So, there's some work to be done.

[32:58] Um we'll move into our presentation um on

[33:04] vacancy tax registration fees by chair.

[33:10] » Okay. >> Good evening. Welcome.

[33:16] » Thank you. >> Um I believe Mia is going to actually be

[33:21] presenting first and she's on. So I'm just I'm gonna wait for her to Sorry.

[33:28] Yeah. Good evening, Mia. >> Hello. Is the audio working? Okay.

[33:34] » Yes. >> Okay. My camera's on. I assume I can see

[33:38] myself. I guess you can see me. >> We can see you.

[33:42] » Okay. Perfect. All right. I'll go through my slides and then I'll pass it

[33:45] over to Jasmine. Jasmine, thanks for being there in person. Um I'm in San

[33:49] Antonio, Texas. So not very close to Ipsy, so wasn't able to attend in person

[33:53] today, but um just wanted to walk through a couple of

[33:58] the takeaways we've seen from vacancy taxes and vacancy fees across the

[34:02] country. Um you can go to the next slide.

[34:09] I don't think I have advanced slide privileges.

[34:16] They're working out. Okay, >> amazing. And apologies if there's any

[34:21] internet delays. Just just let me know if it starts lagging. Um, so just brief

[34:26] intro. My name is Mia Loaf. I'm the program manager for housing at Local

[34:30] Progress. I use she her pronouns. As I mentioned, I'm in San Antonio, Texas,

[34:34] not Michigan, but here to kind of inform some uh takeaways from across the

[34:39] country. Uh, next slide.

[34:49] So, just a brief overview so um you all are familiar. I'm with the local

[34:54] progress impact lab. So, we're a network of local elected leaders. So, think city

[34:58] council members, mayors, and county commissioners. Um and we bring together

[35:02] those local leaders, partners, and issue experts to build knowledge, skills, and

[35:06] leadership needed to advance racial and economic justice at the local level. So

[35:10] my work is all within the housing world and I do this with our networks across

[35:14] the country. Um next slide there's just a brief

[35:18] overview of our our network. Um as I mentioned we're across the US, many

[35:23] members, many states. So I share this just to be um just to share that we work

[35:29] with folks in many different cities, big, small, large, rural, suburban, etc.

[35:34] Um, and so my hope for today is just to kind of share what I'm seeing and um,

[35:39] offer the options available to folks so that folks you all in Ipsy who know your

[35:43] community best can kind of know what options you have and consider what tools

[35:46] are on the table. Next slide.

[35:52] All right. So my plan for today um, kind of briefly we'll just do some defining

[35:57] of vacancy taxes and fees. I know you all have discussed it prior a bit

[36:01] familiar with it. So, we'll just use that for tone setting. And then, um,

[36:05] I'll speak a bit about what I'm seeing elsewhere about why people or why

[36:09] different jurisdictions choose to employ a vacancy tax or vacancy fee. And then

[36:13] we'll go through some case studies of different jurisdictions who actively,

[36:17] excuse me, actively have vacancy fees um, in effect.

[36:22] So, next slide. All right. So, I can go back one more

[36:28] just quickly to define vacancy taxes fees. Um, this is a fee charged by a

[36:33] jurisdiction on residential and or commercial properties that sit

[36:37] unoccupied or underutilized for an extended period of time. Um, so I I

[36:42] start with this slide just to say that and as you're crafting an ordinance or

[36:45] when jurisdictions begin to consider this strategy, these are kind of some of

[36:48] the questions they have to answer, some decision points that have to be made.

[36:52] Um, since you you all already have a vacancy

[36:56] uh vacant registry, some of this question of how do you define vacant is

[37:00] not as relevant since I think you've kind of already answered that, but it is

[37:04] something that folks have to consider as they begin this process. Um, so deciding

[37:09] whether the vacancy fee applies to lots, vacant homes, as in residentially zoned

[37:14] or vacant commercial buildings, which also includes vacant lots that are zoned

[37:18] for commercial uses. Um, usually the defining factor of these vacancy fees

[37:23] are that there's an increased tax rate for the vacant properties. Um, often it

[37:28] is an annual fee that is charged in addition to an escalating or a higher

[37:33] annual annual tax rate. Um, often they'll escalate with with each um year

[37:38] that is kept vacant. Um, you can go to the next slide.

[37:44] So the other thing I want to just do at the at the top end is is state clearly a

[37:48] lot of jurisdictions that we've seen work on this start this process with

[37:53] understanding what specifically the goal is of a vacancy fee or tax, what issues

[37:57] they're trying to solve and what the ordinance should aim to do. And I would

[38:00] just encourage everyone in this conversation and considering the

[38:03] strategies to have that at the forefront because there's obviously very different

[38:08] decision points you make and and intentional components to include or not

[38:11] include depending on your goal for your vacancy fee. So um these are some of the

[38:16] common reasons we see why jurisdictions decide to take on a vacancy fee. Number

[38:20] one, I would say is wanting to reduce the number of vacant properties and or

[38:24] vacant lots. Often this is very closely paired with an acknowledgement that the

[38:29] vacant lots or vacant properties have um unwanted or unsafe activity happening

[38:34] that wouldn't happen if the property was in use or occupied. So that's obvious

[38:39] often a central goal of these policies. Um the second big goal can be to

[38:45] increase the tax base of a jurisdiction. More often than not, an occupied or an

[38:49] improved property is going to be assessed at a higher market value than a

[38:54] vacant property. So, this might be a sub goal of a vacancy tax or vacancy fee

[38:59] that one jurisdiction might consider. Um, another big one has been that

[39:03] jurisdictions want to bring more units and lots into use. So, whatever that use

[39:07] may be, housing, community centers, green space, business, what have you.

[39:12] Um, most of the vacancy rates or vacancy fees that we see are pushed forward

[39:16] because jurisdictions want to see those lots get into use. And I will note that

[39:20] some jurisdictions specifically target either residential or commercial. Some

[39:24] have both. And when we get into the case studies today, I will go through um two

[39:29] examples for commercial and two examples for residential on the vacancy taxes.

[39:35] Next slide. So, some other reasons you might want to

[39:40] pass a vacancy tax or fee. Um this top one, penalizing negligent owners. I will

[39:44] say off the bat that negligence is a big part of vacant properties throughout the

[39:49] whole process. So this is often a goal that needs to be tackled via various

[39:53] strategies, various tools. So just keep that in mind as as you're considering

[39:58] this. Um when the main goal of a city is to penalize negligent owners, um this is

[40:04] often tied to a subgoal around properties that have fallen into

[40:08] disrepair. And often times we see cities pass um rehabilitation funds or programs

[40:12] to help rehab a property alongside a vacancy tax to try and work on that

[40:17] goal. And across um kind of two angles of that

[40:21] um vacancy taxes and fees have also been strongly used to penalize speculative

[40:26] speculative land ownership practices. So the idea of property owners sitting on

[40:32] land or just holding on to land with the hopes that um the value of the property

[40:36] will increase year-over-year even without anything being done to the

[40:40] property. That is speculative land practice, speculative speculative land

[40:44] ownership practice, excuse me. And um often times jurisdictions will take on a

[40:49] vacancy fee to target specifically that behavior and wanting to make sure that

[40:54] the property owners that just sit on their property keeping it vacant

[40:56] year-over-year are heavily disincentivized from doing that. And

[41:00] then lastly, we've seen some jurisdictions that are interested in

[41:04] helping property owners find tenants. Sometimes in certain jurisdictions,

[41:08] commercial or residential, there's just a disconnect and there's not um clear

[41:13] pathways to get tenants into vacant properties. So, it's less about

[41:16] negligence and more about property owners not seeing or finding the options

[41:19] to fill their units. And so, that's another um kind of goal that could be

[41:24] targeted. Next slide.

[41:28] And thanks for advancing. So, I just want to put it plainly here. The biggest

[41:32] takeaway from all the different cities we've seen do vacancy fees um is pretty

[41:37] much boiled down to this. For most jurisdictions, the point is almost never

[41:41] just to generate revenue, i.e. tax the owners. Usually the point is to activate

[41:46] the spaces and most jurisdictions are approaching vacancy taxes or vacancy

[41:50] fees from an angle of wanting their neighborhoods or downtown or communities

[41:56] to be lively and used and in the best um the highest usage possible and vacancies

[42:02] are obviously the lowest end of that scale. So, just a a plug to kind of

[42:08] center the goal and and be intentional about the decisions you make to craft a

[42:11] given policy and thinking about all of these when thinking about a a vacancy

[42:15] fee. All right, so I'm going to move into the

[42:19] case studies and kind of what we are seeing elsewhere. Um, you can go to the

[42:23] next slide. I'm going to start with Lakewood, Colorado, which has a vacant

[42:27] property fee. Um, Lakewood is a suburb just outside of Denver. It is a smaller

[42:32] jurisdiction, not as small as Ipsy, but around 150,000 people. And um their

[42:38] vacancy property fee went into effect in September of 2025, so just about a year

[42:44] out from it. Um and it is mainly targeted to commercial buildings. So in

[42:49] Lakewood, there is a $700 registration fee fee every 6 months. Property owner

[42:54] is um required to pay that and it is required to register a vacant property

[42:58] after it is vacant for just 30 days. So, this is one of the most frequent fees

[43:03] we've seen and also requires a pretty fast turnaround. Once your building is

[43:08] vacant, once it's declared vacant for 30 days, you have to be registered and

[43:12] paying that fee. Um, Lakewood, Colorado also has a very interesting part of

[43:17] their ordinance where they have a services response fee. Um, that's an

[43:22] extra $800 added to your registration fee you pay every 6 months when

[43:27] emergency services are called to the property. This was largely incentivized

[43:31] or initiated, I should say, because in Lakewood specifically, police, fire,

[43:36] code enforcement, other city resources were being used on vacant properties at

[43:41] a really high rate. Um, and it was also causing a lot of uh like issues around

[43:47] safety for the people in the area and the people on the properties. And so

[43:51] they added this fee to to both center safety and also make sure that city

[43:56] services are not being used on properties that are vacant when that

[43:59] could otherwise be paid for by the owner.

[44:03] Um, and I'll note one more thing about Colorado. They have this Colorado state

[44:08] um same restrictions as Michigan does, which I think Jasmine will get more

[44:12] into, but the fees in Colorado have to be proportionate to the amount of

[44:15] service that you provide in order to maintain a program. So, the example in

[44:19] Colorado is a good option to consider since um there are similar limitations

[44:23] on on the fees and taxes. Um and then just some some more details about vacant

[44:29] property fees in Lakewood. The properties that are actively for sale

[44:33] are exempt and um liquid's property or vacant property fee was really targeted

[44:38] to try and get um empty units either demolished or into use. And so the um

[44:45] there's a larger program called the distressed property program and part of

[44:48] that is the lakewood reinvestment authority which offers a revol revolving

[44:52] loan fund to pay for the cost of defol demolition excuse me. So there's an

[44:56] understanding that um some of these properties that have been vacant for a

[44:59] while have fallen into disrepair and it's pretty costly to actually try to

[45:03] demolish or sell um and get into use. And so the city via the reinvestment

[45:09] authority offers um this revolving loan fund to cover the cost of demolition and

[45:14] then the um the the city is repaid once the property sells. Um just in the year

[45:20] since it's been implemented there has been um first motel vacant blue sky

[45:25] motel um has been a part of this program. It is um you know they were

[45:30] going to be charged a lot of fees. It is now it was a vacant property for many

[45:34] many years um with lots of police calls and safety issues and and uh fire called

[45:40] called to the property and now is owned by the city and has recently been

[45:43] demolished with the materials recycled and prepared for for sale.

[45:49] Next slide. So our next example is Portland, Maine.

[45:53] Um, in case you end up googling, Portland, Oregon is also considering a

[45:58] vacancy ordinance, but Portland, Maine is the one that's active right now. So,

[46:02] they have a vacant storefront ordinance, and theirs is focused in the downtown

[46:06] area. They have a pedestrian zone, which is actually just a zoning district

[46:10] overlay, and their vacant storefront ordinance is applicable to ground level

[46:14] commercial spaces, specifically in that pedestrian zone. Um, the the ordinance

[46:19] requires them to pay escalating fines. Um, they define a vacant building as

[46:24] vacant for six months and then once they hit the six-month mark, the owners have

[46:28] 30 days to register. Um, you can see there it's a $500 fee for every 6 months

[46:34] vacant. And then they have a pretty aggressive escalating fine structure

[46:38] where it's $1,000 additional every year it's vacant up to 7500

[46:44] $7,500. Um, there are exemptions for the vacancy

[46:48] storefront ordinance in Portland. The fines are waved if owners allow art in

[46:52] the storefront window. So, the city of Portland, Maine, will pay for art to

[46:56] fill a storefront window because they don't want the downtown area to seem

[47:00] empty. So, filling the window makes the appearance that it's full and then

[47:05] they've seen a red reduction in criminal activity or unwanted activity in these

[47:09] vacant units. And Portland also has an 180day temporary use permit available

[47:15] for these vacant properties. Um, the idea is to put popups in the unit, the

[47:20] commercial unit or the storefront window. Again, to either temporarily

[47:24] fill the unit in the commercial, sorry, that downtown pedestrian district and

[47:28] also just to help the appearance of of making sure it doesn't look like it's an

[47:33] empty storefront. So, it's trying to discourage some of the activity that

[47:36] would otherwise maybe be invited by a vacant unit.

[47:40] Um, one thing I'll note about Portland, they have passed in October 2025.

[47:46] They've went into implementation April 2026, so they're about 4 months in. Um,

[47:51] they had a really recent immediate success in this longtime vacant building

[47:55] called the Schwarz building that was empty for 15 years. When Portland passed

[48:00] their ordinance, um, it was in effect and they notified vacant property owners

[48:04] and it was backdated. So, the Schwarz building would have had to pay close to

[48:09] $95,000 in fees, which was obviously a big incentive to not have to pay that.

[48:15] And so, the Schwarz building after passage of this ordinance um started

[48:19] leasing to a coffee shop pretty immediately. And, you know, the the

[48:23] ordinance has has worked to kind of prevent that vacancy.

[48:27] Um so, just to mention a few more additional support for Portland, just

[48:30] like um Lakewood, this is kind of like a wraparound. their their goal is really

[48:34] around activating the commercial units downtown. So, the city provides a couple

[48:38] of additional support to this the vacant storefront ordinance. One is that the

[48:43] city connects commercial property owners to prospective commercial tenants

[48:47] through a program that um looks for startups or just new businesses who are

[48:51] looking to begin leasing out a commercial space and links them with

[48:54] folks that are registered as a commercial property um vacant commercial

[48:58] property in the area. And the city also offers interest free loans up to $20,000

[49:04] for commercial properties within that district to improve the facade,

[49:08] lighting, entryway upgrades, excuse me, entryway upgrades and signs. So there's

[49:13] kind of a wholehearted kind of comprehensive approach from Portland

[49:16] Maine to activate these buildings downtown.

[49:20] Next slide. [clears throat] So I'll briefly go over the next two. These two

[49:24] are in jurisdictions much larger than Ipsy with more staffing capacity, bigger

[49:29] budgets, but I just want to mention them since they are good examples of how this

[49:32] can work for residential. Minneapolis, Minnesota has a vacant building registry

[49:36] and they have a $24,000 annual fee for vacant residential buildings. I know

[49:42] this is not possible for Ipsy at the time at the current moment, but I want

[49:46] to offer it because it is worked really well and has, you know, a huge fee on

[49:51] these residential properties that has made it come incredibly um unappealing

[49:55] to keep your property empty. And then the next one is Vancouver, BC

[50:02] in Canada. I mentioned this one because it is one of the first vacancy taxes in

[50:06] the US or North America really. Um, it's from 2017 and they have an increased tax

[50:12] rate for empty units in a building. So, not just a whole apartment complex, but

[50:17] individual units that are left empty for over 6 months of the year. Um, this

[50:23] policy has been, you know, Vancouver is an extremely tight market and it's about

[50:27] making units available in a very tight housing market. So again, maybe not the

[50:33] most adjacent to Ipsy, but I do mention it because it has reduced vacant homes

[50:39] significantly since since its inception, vacant homes that are down 67% in the

[50:44] last 9 years since it was passed. And it has also generated quite a lot of funds

[50:48] for affordable housing programs, which I know is not quite an option IPS. So just

[50:52] offer those two for residential. And then um you can go to the next

[50:57] slide. I'll kind of wrap up here with just a few of the lessons learned/t

[51:01] takeaways that we've seen from other jurisdictions that have passed vacancy

[51:04] taxes or vacancy fees. Um, one big thing is that these policies are most

[51:09] effective when you have a clear understanding of the types of vacancies

[51:12] in your locality. Uh, we spoke to city staff and it sounds like through the

[51:16] vacant um the vacancy registry you all have that information already which is

[51:21] great. These are just some of the questions that are asked upon um

[51:25] jurisdictions considering this type of an ordinance. Um but you guys are

[51:29] already there which is awesome. Um another big thing is that compounding

[51:33] escalating fines and I'll add escalating enforcement as well is a really strong

[51:38] tool to target speculative behavior. You want to make it really expensive to sit

[51:43] on land. That's what an effective vacancy fee will do. And that's kind of

[51:48] the hope for a lot of cities or jurisdictions that pass these

[51:50] ordinances. And then the last point on there to

[51:55] activate vacant spaces. It is important to both incentivize new tenants/owners

[52:00] and to penalize existing vacancies. So just considering both the care and the

[52:04] stick of your approach and also of course centering the goal of what you

[52:07] want to do with your vacancy ordinance.

[52:12] Um I think there's a couple more slides. Um yeah, these two are the last two

[52:18] takeaways. One thing that has been really clear

[52:21] when we see other jurisdictions look into this tool is that this is a very

[52:25] strong messaging point. Um you know, residential vacancies are really hard to

[52:30] justify in any landscape with a high housing demand. I think at this at this

[52:35] time point in time, almost every city or county is dealing with high housing

[52:40] demand. So, just keeping this at the forefront when you're talking about

[52:43] leaving units empty, you're talking about people who could have access to

[52:46] homes or shelter and are not. Um, so just a strong takeaway to keep in mind.

[52:52] And then along the same point, um, you know, vacant land is the worst case

[52:56] scenario in terms of land use options. So, this has also been a really central

[53:00] point of vacancy fees across the country. You know, when you have a land

[53:03] or a lot or a building that is empty, it is taking over space that could be used

[53:08] for literally anything else. Parks, housing, garden, community space,

[53:13] whatever. So, any kind of crackdown on vacant lots, vacant units is a benefit

[53:18] to the community and like a lack of action on that point leaves the

[53:23] community missing out. So, just some things to keep at the forefront. And

[53:28] then I just had think of one more sl two more slides. um just want to offer some

[53:32] adjacent strategies to consider. Obviously in those case studies are

[53:36] focused on vacancy ordinances or vacancies that a lot of the

[53:40] jurisdictions that have effectively reduce vacancies partner or kind of

[53:45] couple a vacancy tax or fee with other strategies. So I'll run through these

[53:50] briefly. Um want to offer escalation and receiverhip as a kind of progressive

[53:56] enforcement to to consider as an additional strategy. So, this is the

[54:00] idea that after a certain amount of years and a certain amount of attempts

[54:03] to contact a property owner, if the lot or or building is still vacant, the

[54:08] jurisdiction actually takes it over. Baltimore does this with their inrem

[54:12] foreclosure process. Basically, the city of Baltimore is able to foreclose on the

[54:17] leans on a vacant lot or building if the value of the leans exceeds the assessed

[54:21] value of the property. So, the leans would be things like unpaid property

[54:25] taxes, potentially the vacant tax or fine, um environmental citations, water

[54:30] bills, anything that the city is charging against the property. Um, if it

[54:34] gets to a certain point, the city of Baltimore is able to actually take over

[54:37] ownership of that lot or unit. Um, another thing to consider is a

[54:42] repeat offender of sorts. Put it in quotes. You can choose how to name it.

[54:46] Um, since you already have a vacant property registry, it might be pretty

[54:51] easy to track if a given property owner would have multiple vacant properties, a

[54:56] jurisdiction could consider tracking this and deciding a certain cap. Once

[55:00] you hit certain number of properties or fines, the owner would lose um

[55:04] certificate of occupancy or ability to operate in that jurisdiction.

[55:09] And then one more.

[55:14] Thank you so much. Um, the last couple things I'll mention here, land value tax

[55:18] is another strategy to consider. This is where you tax the land itself rather

[55:22] than anything built on the land. So, a single family home is then taxed the

[55:27] same as an empty lot. Um, and this is really strong for discouraging land

[55:32] hoarding, speculation. If you are paying the same amount of taxes whether

[55:36] something's built on the lot lot or not, it's going to be an incentive to build

[55:40] because you're getting taxed the exact same amount. Like, you don't want to

[55:43] keep it empty. Um, a jurisdiction can also consider

[55:46] incentives for timely occupancy. So, potentially making local funds available

[55:51] to owners who activate um their [clears throat] vacant property or get

[55:55] someone a a tenant or someone leasing the property within a certain amount of

[56:00] time if you want to kind of encourage rapid um occupancy. And then the last

[56:04] thing I'll mention is adaptive reuse. Um, you know, this is a lengthier, more

[56:09] complex, multi-step process, but the idea of identifying identifying vacant

[56:14] units or buildings and converting them into um residential units. This has been

[56:19] done actually really well in Michigan. I know Detroit is very different than

[56:22] Ipsy, but I pulled that example because Detroit was able to use a lot of state

[56:26] funds that I think would be available to Ipsy as well to launch their

[56:31] institutional adaptive building reuse program that looks at empty or

[56:34] underutilized buildings such as like post offices or libraries or old um

[56:40] railroad stations. I mean, a lot of different institutional buildings that

[56:43] can then be converted into housing. And adaptive reuse can obviously be used for

[56:48] many things, but considering you know what use might make most sense for that

[56:52] given area is really strong. Acknowledging that, you know, a vacant

[56:56] sea or keeping it unoccupied is is the lowest benefit to the public.

[57:02] All right, I know I ran through a lot, but I'm going to pass it over to

[57:05] Jasmine, and I'll have her take it from here.

[57:11] » Okay, great. Hello, everyone. >> Hello. Um, thank you so much for

[57:15] inviting me and myself to present for you. Um, and I think um, probably Mia's

[57:21] presentation is going to be the most useful for this body in terms of some

[57:25] innovative uh, policy solutions. So, um, but um, I have some some details on

[57:32] Michigan in specific that I think uh, might be of interest to this group and

[57:36] I'm very grateful for the opportunity to present to you all. So, um I work for

[57:40] the Home Rule Project, which is a nonprofit um that aims to restore home

[57:44] rule powers that are taken away from cities and eliminate um corporate rule

[57:50] over cities and to instead encourage and empower community rule and and um local

[57:55] decision-m. Um we do this by advancing research, education, and policy

[57:59] solutions to empower local governments. We're grounded in the belief that those

[58:03] closest to the problem are closer to the solution. Um and and our goal is to

[58:09] ensure that when local governments set their own standards for development and

[58:12] investment um that that will best mean that prosperity reaches every

[58:17] neighborhood and census tract etc. So um to just really go through what um I hope

[58:22] to cover in my um brief presentation today. I'm just going to talk a little

[58:25] bit from my I live in Detroit. I do not live in Ipsellani. So I was looking into

[58:29] some of the data and I'll talk about what I saw about Ipsilani that I imagine

[58:32] um this council probably already um is aware of. Um, and then, um, uh, I'll

[58:39] talk about, we also talked about this, I'll talk about some goals with the

[58:41] vacant property laws, talk about what a vacancy tax could look like, the

[58:45] legislative landscape on that, and then if this body is interested, what some

[58:49] next steps for consideration might be. So, um, this is a map. I took it from

[58:53] the county website. It looks like it was last created or updated in 2025. So, I

[58:58] don't, um, exactly know. Alpha course vacancy is something that can shift. Um

[59:03] so um that being said, it looks like the city of Ipsellani has um some higher

[59:08] vacancy rates compared to the rest of county. There are some online

[59:13] aggregators that place it residential vacancy at 6 to 7%. This map seems to

[59:18] indicate closer to 5% for some um tracks of the city. Um obviously there are some

[59:23] precipitating factors to this. There's a high rent population in Absillani.

[59:28] There's a lot of uh students in the area. Um and as uh M was noting there

[59:32] are various properties in the city that are owned by LLC's. Um also some clearly

[59:38] owned by you know just individuals and like Mia was saying um you know when it

[59:44] comes to property speculation that's generally something that people want to

[59:47] discourage. We want you know space to be active and useful. Um, so I had the u

[59:52] wonderful opportunity to um talk with uh New York City staffers about um vacant

[59:59] um vacant property uh fee program and um it to me seems like a a reasonably

[1:00:06] robust program. It's integrated with the code enforcement. Um and so um you know

[1:00:12] I think the city of Ipsellain and seems to have been like ramped up in the last

[1:00:15] year. I think the city has a lot of actually good data and resources on its

[1:00:19] hands to really take an evaluative look at vacant properties in the city, which

[1:00:24] is something I would probably encourage like diving deeper on um with city staff

[1:00:30] too. Um so based on some uh probing I've done and this is using um the county's

[1:00:37] website and then you know using some Zillow estimates and stuff when there is

[1:00:40] not data available. seems to me that there's approximately 48ish million

[1:00:46] dollars in property value being left idle um or unproductive in the city. And

[1:00:52] I think that's uh really the the key point that we should be grounding some

[1:00:57] of the um policy decisions around vacant properties in um I think this represents

[1:01:03] a really big opportunity for the city of Ipsellanei. Now I'm going to say this,

[1:01:07] this is my number, okay? And so, um, a a a great idea would be to really dive

[1:01:13] into this with the city assessor or pay for a study if this is, um, something

[1:01:17] the city is really interested in pursuing to, um, perhaps arrive at a,

[1:01:22] uh, uh, a number that we're more 100% sure of. This was based on I I had I

[1:01:28] left off um 40 of the addresses that were on the registry because I wasn't

[1:01:31] really able to find the values. um you know we used like the uh assessor's data

[1:01:37] where it was available but um I think this is a reasonably um conservative

[1:01:42] estimate because we did leave those 40 values or 40 properties off um this also

[1:01:48] includes our road one so um so um but yeah there are you know

[1:01:56] monthly fees for inspections for vacant properties that are actively tied to um

[1:02:00] the city's fees. there's also um an escro program that staff feel has been

[1:02:04] pretty successful. Um so um I think you know if landing has uh some like work to

[1:02:11] be proud of when it in terms of like the um property enforcement that there's

[1:02:15] that they've done. Um but I think Mia also um provided some like really

[1:02:20] interesting policy examples that it would be good for the um you know the

[1:02:24] council to to consider, but that's really um her area of expertise. Um me

[1:02:30] talked about goals as well. Um I uh in my view I think that uh fees are can be

[1:02:37] effective in reducing and removing blight and getting compliance with parts

[1:02:42] of city code. But uh I think if we're really interested in moving markets

[1:02:47] because of this the restrictive nature of Michigan um or precedent when it

[1:02:52] comes to a fee has to be representative of like costs. Um, I think we could

[1:02:57] consider that uh taxes might better accomplish if goals if you're really

[1:03:02] trying to move the market and more aggressively attack um vacant

[1:03:06] properties. And I think we've seen um in some of these other cities and the

[1:03:09] examples that Mia has provided that when the fees are much much higher, more

[1:03:14] exorbitant, that tends to be what's moving things. So I think the fees could

[1:03:17] get more compliance, but taxes I believe would move the market um in in a bigger

[1:03:23] way. So of course in Michigan though we live in a tax preempted environment um

[1:03:29] because of our uh you know the constitution in 19 what is it 62 63. Um

[1:03:35] so um we make it very easy to give money away and give away tax incentives. Um

[1:03:41] and we make it much harder to really hold people accountable or tax um

[1:03:45] businesses or entities or property in inventive ways. And that's just the

[1:03:49] structure of what we have in the state. Um so um but if I if I know this is a

[1:03:56] place where um you know the city tends to be more interested in some innovative

[1:04:00] uh public policy if the city wants to um do a a genuine vacancy tax. Um it that

[1:04:08] would that would be an addition onto the city's property taxes because it's an

[1:04:12] addition onto the city's property taxes similar to like owner occupied or

[1:04:15] non-owner occupied. Um the um based on um my looking around um you would have

[1:04:23] to amend several Michigan laws um to make that possible similar to what um

[1:04:29] the city of Detroit attempted to do for the land value tax. And so that means

[1:04:33] amending the general property tax act, the tax and vertically title act, the

[1:04:38] act and the income tax act. Um because you know your property taxes are okay.

[1:04:44] Um, so, uh, so here's some some suggested next steps based on like what,

[1:04:51] you know, the the this body might be interested in doing. Um, I would dive

[1:04:54] more more into the, um, I think great work that the city has already done on

[1:05:00] with its vacancy program and code enforcement. Um, Mia referenced this.

[1:05:04] Are there more 911 and emergency calls to properties? Is there um, I assume

[1:05:09] there is a much more code enforcement at these properties. I would look at some

[1:05:13] of the disperate resources that um the city's uh work has to address advocate

[1:05:19] units as well to get a better picture. That's just not something I'm quite able

[1:05:24] to do. Um and then um at that point you're looking at doing um enacting

[1:05:29] legislation unfortunately with the legislature and amending those various

[1:05:33] um amending those various laws. I know um you know this is an interesting time.

[1:05:38] There's a lot of local governments and state governments where new people are

[1:05:42] being elected. Michigan's legislature of course has term limits and has massive

[1:05:46] turnovers all the time. Um I would look and see I think this is not a problem

[1:05:50] that is of course is not unique to um I certainly I live next door to two vacant

[1:05:55] houses okay in my neighborhood. So um my you know my next door neighbors to the

[1:05:59] right and to the right again. So, um I think this is something that uh affects

[1:06:05] a lot of Michigan communities and that's so I think that there would potentially

[1:06:08] be a lot of people um interested in this. So there might be other cities um

[1:06:13] or townships even in the area that are also interested in this policy. And so I

[1:06:18] think if this is something that if wants to take seriously and wants to do

[1:06:21] greater study on there might be other cities um to work with. Um and then of

[1:06:26] course after you get enacting legislation of course as you're very

[1:06:28] familiar with um you know you'd have to get voter approval. So it's likely a

[1:06:33] multi-year timeline to be able to um accomplish a actual vacancy tax uh in

[1:06:38] the city of Sling. So um those are my slides but um just let me know if you

[1:06:45] have any questions for myself or for Mia and then I'm going to kind of screw my

[1:06:49] business card um around maybe on the table out in front.

[1:06:54] Thank you for the presentation Jasmine and

[1:06:59] um I will send questions or comments from council

[1:07:05] more fellows. >> Hi, thanks for being here tonight. Um, I

[1:07:10] want to thank both you Jasmine and Mia for a presentation on kind of like a

[1:07:15] more macro level scope of what is possible around the country and then

[1:07:19] also the customizing it to our needs in in Michigan. So, I really appreciate

[1:07:26] that and also appreciate the work that was done before this to coordinate with

[1:07:30] our staff to get um kind of the update of what we've been doing uh before even

[1:07:36] entertaining this. Um, unfortunately we don't have our full council today, so

[1:07:41] we're not going to get the full scope of what everybody feels on this issue, but

[1:07:45] from prior meetings, uh, it was stated that there was a lot of interest around

[1:07:51] this issue. So, um, I think we're at a spot to start looking at legislative

[1:07:56] strategies. Uh I am intrigued by the idea of doing a multi-municipal strategy

[1:08:02] to kind of like uh bring more attention to some of the preeemptions or some of

[1:08:08] the barriers to vacancy pack itself and also maybe exploring the ways in which

[1:08:13] we could enact it now like with the Colorado uh example.

[1:08:19] And I also really appreciated from Mia the um information about the kind of

[1:08:25] complimentary strategies that might go along with uh vacancy fees or taxes

[1:08:29] because this is something that's a little bit newer to me about all the

[1:08:33] different things we could do. Um maybe what I would ask you is given the

[1:08:42] particular barriers that we have and you've been looking at this information,

[1:08:47] what do you think we would get like the most bang out of our buck now um in a

[1:08:53] shorter timeline than this kind of multi-year vacancy tax strategy.

[1:08:59] » Yeah. Well, I think when we when it comes to um attacking preeemptions and

[1:09:03] then you know I'm sure the council knows but um for anyone in the audience, you

[1:09:06] know, a preeemption is when a higher form of government prevents a local a

[1:09:10] lower form of government from enacting what it might want to do. Typically um

[1:09:14] you know they set a floor and not a ceiling. Um but that's not always the

[1:09:18] case. Anyway, um when it comes to tackling preeemptions, um I think the

[1:09:23] the strongest argument that um you will be able to have is when you work around

[1:09:32] the preeemption to the extent legally possible. And so I think having like a

[1:09:38] strong local vacant property program, ramping it up, I you know, I didn't know

[1:09:42] about Colorado service fees, for example, that they do. that might be

[1:09:45] something else to like look into and add on to the program. Um so um I would

[1:09:51] certainly recommend enforcing um the uh fees related to service to the extent

[1:09:58] possible and uh using that to see how effective it is. Um if it's a little bit

[1:10:04] effective but not really tackling the problem, I think that makes the case

[1:10:08] even stronger to remove the preeemption legislatively. And so I would definitely

[1:10:14] um I would definitely encourage that. Yeah.

[1:10:22] » Thank you, mayor. Thanks for the presentation.

[1:10:24] Curious one of the I think the first example city example that you use from

[1:10:28] Colorado for your college use I read that right suggested that the

[1:10:35] vacancy tax or fee kicked in after just 30 days.

[1:10:41] So I wonder if you'd talk about the the timing. I also wonder if talk about

[1:10:48] how do you handle when there are very legitimate reasons for property being

[1:10:52] vacant. So for example, you're updating mechanicals or you're fixing the

[1:10:58] structural problem. >> Yeah, for sure. Um, I'm going to mostly

[1:11:03] let Mia answer that, I believe. But I did want to note that um, my

[1:11:08] understanding is that um, insulin for a property to even really be like flagged

[1:11:13] or tagged as vacant and get added to the registry, it's typically because city

[1:11:17] staff have noticed issues with the property or have like apparently noticed

[1:11:21] that it's vacant through mail piling up or code violations or like a tree fall.

[1:11:26] I think an example is like a tree fell on part of a property or something and

[1:11:29] it never really got addressed and or part of a structure never got addressed

[1:11:32] and um those like signs and signals that it's actually vacant. And so um in my

[1:11:37] mind that would indicate that there's probably properties that are vacant for

[1:11:41] quite some time before they're even added to this registry in the first

[1:11:44] place. And so there might be sort of an inherent um buffer. But I think um it

[1:11:49] would certainly I mean you know having the values of knowing that solutions are

[1:11:52] grounded locally. is a college town, you know, a college county in some ways. So,

[1:11:58] um I think um it it would be um uh certainly relevant to include exemptions

[1:12:07] um and in a time period to come into compliance with um any vacant property

[1:12:12] ordinance or tax. But Mia, do you want to

[1:12:17] » Yeah. Yeah, I can weigh in. I I mean, basically to what you just said, I think

[1:12:20] it's all in the exemptions. Um, Lakewood is small but not as small as Ipsy. So, I

[1:12:25] think the way it works with Lakewood of Colorado, they'll the city will identify

[1:12:29] the property and mail out the notice. And from the notice, hey, we've noticed

[1:12:32] your property is vacant. You have 30 days to register. That's how they do

[1:12:36] their process. I think very much up to you all, you know Ipsy best, you know

[1:12:41] the process best as to when you determine when a property is vacant. 30

[1:12:45] days is obviously quick, maybe it's longer, but I would just offer that. Um,

[1:12:49] I think a lot of that is in the exemptions if exemptions and process.

[1:12:53] So, if you had a some kind of like a zoning board or like a land use board

[1:12:57] that you already have for the city, making that process available to

[1:13:02] property owners to kind of appeal or basically just come forward and say,

[1:13:06] "Hey, my property is vacant. I've acknowledged it. I I got the letter,

[1:13:10] what have you. The reason it's vacant is XYZ." and allowing for that built-in

[1:13:14] appeal process is probably a smart um you know part of your ordinance to

[1:13:19] include. If not that, then some other way to either like through a city staff

[1:13:24] department or something for property owners to share a reason for their

[1:13:28] vacancy would probably make a lot of sense. If it feels like too cumbersome

[1:13:31] to do a person by person individual case like that, it would just be in your

[1:13:35] exemption. So you could kind of spell out, oh, this propertyy's, you know,

[1:13:39] undergoing renovations or this property is for sale or this property, you know,

[1:13:44] we received a signed letter from the property owner as to why it's vacant. I

[1:13:48] think you could bake it in that way and kind of all leave for more flexibility

[1:13:52] to tailor to that because, you know, as we both kind of alluded to, it's not

[1:13:55] intended to penalize people who are actively trying to get their properties

[1:13:59] in use. It's more the negligent behavior that we want to avoid. So I think, yeah,

[1:14:03] definitely build that into the ordinance. Right.

[1:14:10] And council member Simmons, I see you join us. I see your hand.

[1:14:15] » Thank you for the the answer to that. Um, a little further a field. Does your

[1:14:20] work on preeemption go beyond housing or is it strictly relative?

[1:14:25] » Um, oh, it I mean it certainly goes beyond housing. Um, so um we we do work

[1:14:31] on uh uh various kinds of preemptions. Um, at the end of the day, I think in in

[1:14:37] many cases, preeemption um is is a neutral tool. We've seen preeemption

[1:14:42] used for good and for bad. You could think about, you know, um after the

[1:14:46] Civil Rights Act, local communities trying to oppose integration for lo and

[1:14:51] like public housing units for local patrol, you know, that's that's some

[1:14:54] preemption we um are in favor of civil rights, you know, but um but um overall

[1:15:01] um and the trend obviously, I'm sure as you've experienced in Michigan has been

[1:15:06] um instituting preemptive laws to the detriment of what local communities and

[1:15:11] citizens want. Um we do other kinds of preeemption. Um I do a lot of work on

[1:15:16] labor related preemptions and labor and development related preeemptions. Are

[1:15:20] you allowed to put um you know mandatory labor standards etc in into development

[1:15:24] projects? Um um you know uh we work with some groups on housing preeemptions

[1:15:31] related to rent regulations or relating to implied preeemptions and like the

[1:15:36] landlord um tenant relationship um you know tax related preeemptions. Um

[1:15:42] and you know if there's uh any organizers or movements working on other

[1:15:46] preemptions you know we um of course like evaluate those with our values and

[1:15:49] and decide whether or not to take of that work as well. Yeah.

[1:15:53] » I'll simply put fireworks on your >> firework. Yeah. Because as as some

[1:15:58] people know and as I've complained about publicly uh the state of Michigan and it

[1:16:02] wisdom has decided we must allow fireworks to be blown off for at least

[1:16:06] 11 specific days in the year. >> Interesting. Okay.

[1:16:11] » Which in my mind they have no business getting in that. But

[1:16:15] » lobby must be strong. >> Yeah. Some some lobbyists got to some

[1:16:19] state legislators. That's >> maybe pyro technic has a lot of opinions

[1:16:23] and wins I guess. >> Absolutely. And money.

[1:16:25] » Yeah. Council member Simmons. I see who on

[1:16:31] your hand raised. >> Hi. Can you hear me?

[1:16:35] » Yes. >> All right. Thanks y'all. I'm sorry. My I

[1:16:38] know I'm I'm in the loud space and my internet is funky.

[1:16:42] » Um >> Oh, she It's just what it got louder in

[1:16:47] a sec. All right. Well, um thank you for the presentation. Um very helpful

[1:16:54] and just wanted to lift up a couple of things that I was like that seemed

[1:16:59] really interesting and definitely want to um explore more. And also just saying

[1:17:05] too, I also like a lot of options that can build on things that we already have

[1:17:12] too. Um, and to think about how we can round it out. Um, so things like the

[1:17:16] repeat offender um idea, which I think can build on a

[1:17:21] couple of other things um in terms of safety. Um, also how um so that property

[1:17:27] owners aren't kind of having certain properties that are in like really great

[1:17:32] and really like um not vacant versus and ones that aren't. So like they kind of

[1:17:37] use them against each other. Um and then also I also am interested in this um

[1:17:47] further conversation about um how like with that IPS's vacancy

[1:17:53] rates are higher than other parts of the county. Um that seemed really

[1:18:00] interesting to kind of explore to understand more about why.

[1:18:04] Um, also the emergency service um fee. Um, I'd be interested in

[1:18:14] understanding more about what that what calls for service are already happening

[1:18:20] and maybe that's something that we can look at already with our call for

[1:18:23] services um information to know how effective

[1:18:29] that would be um or if that's something that would be relevant for our context.

[1:18:34] Um, I also was interested in the pieces too that were looking at ways that um,

[1:18:40] you know, I appreciated kind of looking at like the goals and like why we do

[1:18:43] this and that it's not to try to be in opposition,

[1:18:49] you know, with our community, but, you know, to enliven it. And so thinking

[1:18:55] about opportunities to be in partnership and I

[1:18:59] I don't I wasn't sure what examples there were too about um things like how

[1:19:06] the city would partner to help fill the vacancies like to help find

[1:19:21] » or those properties like in And last thing I just noted here was just the

[1:19:26] thinking about how to >> I'm sorry.

[1:19:32] » Yeah, you're you're breaking up just a little bit.

[1:19:36] » Okay. Um, and then the other thing was just thinking about um finding this

[1:19:43] information out to get a more accurate number um with the assessor because of

[1:19:51] course that 48.9 million

[1:19:55] um you know that sounds like a lot of money um and you know what we could be

[1:20:01] doing with that. So that's that feels like a really good kind of part of our

[1:20:07] information finding in terms of how we want to um lay foundation and baseline

[1:20:13] for this work. >> For sure. And and just really quickly, I

[1:20:19] would encourage getting obviously the assessed value, um the tax assessed

[1:20:24] value, and then um some estimates of what the market value would be would

[1:20:28] just like typically write like 20 or sorry um twice the assessed value um to

[1:20:34] to get like a picture of like what the full picture potential revenue for the

[1:20:39] city could be. And that is one of the things that I think is uh and I did not

[1:20:43] say this but was one of the strongest reasons to potentially institute a tax

[1:20:46] out of those programs like to help reactivate the spaces. Obviously that

[1:20:50] takes money so you need the revenue to come from somewhere you know um and it

[1:20:53] would be a great situation to um you know enact a tax that can punish um uh

[1:20:59] uh speculative practices and then use that money to work with community

[1:21:03] members and owners of properties that they would like to bring back online to

[1:21:07] actually renovate. um and and turn them and return them to um you know community

[1:21:11] use. >> And Jasmine, is that how that um that

[1:21:18] project in I wrote this down where they have the

[1:21:24] Yeah. the Lakewood Reinvestity.

[1:21:31] » So the fees go that go into that are then used for

[1:21:39] I don't believe so. I believe it's that um Colorado has the same situation as

[1:21:43] Michigan in that a B has to recoup like city costs or whatever for that service.

[1:21:49] Is that correct me? Yeah. Mia

[1:22:02] » further comments or >> Yes. Thank you for the presentation. I

[1:22:06] have a question surrounding the escalation of receiverhip. So the x

[1:22:10] amount of years of vacancy as well as the x amount of attempts to contact is

[1:22:15] that directly related or to this Baltimore's process of you know

[1:22:22] foreclosing on leans or is that just an example of that? Because I know that

[1:22:26] there's some uh some residents that have are in ownership of homes that are has

[1:22:32] been in their families for quite some time. and the the conversation of

[1:22:35] selling is not on the table. Um so are those two separate or are those

[1:22:42] together? >> Yeah. Um really quickly, I think it it

[1:22:46] would have to be investigated, but I imagine that like in um first first

[1:22:51] defense 100, next second offense 200, third offense 300 probably wouldn't be

[1:22:56] allowed unless it was directly correlated to like city services. Um um

[1:23:03] that being said, I think if there are like specific ipsilante

[1:23:08] um you know situations where people or uh where people use like a a family

[1:23:13] house is like a a gathering house or something. Um, I think if there are, uh,

[1:23:19] you know, specific things that are, um, particular to the community that you

[1:23:24] could explore exceptions for things like that or define what occupancy and

[1:23:28] vacancy is within those bounds. Um, but Mia, I'm going to let you answer. Sorry.

[1:23:36] » Yeah. No, no, you're fine. Um, to answer directly the question, the Baltimore

[1:23:40] example does not require a certain amount of years or certain amount of

[1:23:43] attempts to contact. it's purely based on if the amount the value of the leans

[1:23:48] on the given property is more than the assessed value of the property. That's

[1:23:52] when the city of Baltimore can step in and take the property. Um the kind of

[1:23:57] like this many years, this many contact attempts is something that could be an

[1:24:02] option to set up I imagine for the city. I would also offer that through this

[1:24:08] process or if this is a kind of tool the city wants to take on, you would have

[1:24:12] the option for the owner to appeal or go before that, you know, whatever it is

[1:24:17] for your city, the the local land use or zoning commission or or body to appeal

[1:24:21] for exactly those situations. You wouldn't want a situation or rather you

[1:24:25] wouldn't want an ordinance that requires or mandates a city to take over a

[1:24:29] property after a certain amount of things without an opportunity for the

[1:24:32] property owner to kind of appeal or explain their case. Again, I think this

[1:24:36] is important when it's like you have a family or, you know, clouded title or a

[1:24:40] bunch of of um, you know, kids of a given deceased property owner who are

[1:24:45] managing a house together or something like that. Those situations happen all

[1:24:48] the time. And so those people who know they have the property, you know, it

[1:24:52] might be vacant, but they're very aware of it and they're probably residents of

[1:24:56] the city are not probably the target for a vacancy ordinance. You're more trying

[1:25:00] to get to the negligent not around property owners that have let their

[1:25:05] property fall into disrepair. So, I think I would encourage um if that's

[1:25:10] part of the policy or the ordinance, just baking in that kind of appeal

[1:25:14] process, choosing whatever body makes most sense and allowing the property

[1:25:17] owners to, you know, explain their case cuz I think a lot of these are kind of

[1:25:20] situational dependency situ situationally dependent. And the biggest

[1:25:25] issue is if you just don't get any response and you have a completely

[1:25:28] absent property owner who won't answer anything and I don't think what you

[1:25:33] described would be that wouldn't be the case for that situation. if that makes

[1:25:37] sense. So, just baking that in an appeals process would probably respond

[1:25:40] to that. >> Yeah. And and also to um add on to what

[1:25:44] Mia said, I don't think I assume I guess I don't think anyone's interested in

[1:25:48] like one, two, three, lose your house, you know? I mean, let's let's not do

[1:25:51] that, right? Um, but I think if if someone's being negligent and they've

[1:25:56] tacked up um like you know $50,000 in like unpaid fines and fees and unpaid

[1:26:03] taxes over like many many years from negligence um and and that um you know

[1:26:10] exceeds the value of the of the property. I mean 50,000 being on the low

[1:26:13] end given the you know housing prices that we're in. See 100,000 probably

[1:26:17] minimum for many properties, right? So, um, you know, I think, um, there's some

[1:26:22] like built-in things there and and you know, some cities might even forgive the

[1:26:26] fees, right, under a certain circumstance or if you're improving the

[1:26:28] property or, you know, so I think there's lots of ways that you could

[1:26:32] design this ordinance to not like penalize people who aren't doing uh,

[1:26:36] speculation. Yeah. >> Thank you.

[1:26:41] » Any further comments or councils? Yeah, I'm just glad that the receiverhip point

[1:26:46] was brought up because that is the Jason strategy that I was most interested in

[1:26:50] given you know we have a very serious issue with arbor one and it's to the

[1:26:55] level where it's very unsafe um and you know situations where somebody loses a

[1:27:01] certificate of occupancy for a number of months or years and also has leans out

[1:27:06] and all sorts of fines against it. there should be that's enough of an argument

[1:27:10] to say that this is no longer um you know a functional partnership and that a

[1:27:16] receiverhip should be on the table. So um I I know that this been like going

[1:27:21] through the court system, but it's something that the city could start

[1:27:26] looking at as far as like what would it look like for the city to do reser

[1:27:30] receiverhip of some of these deliquid properties to um adapt readapt. So, I

[1:27:35] appreciate that strategy and I hope that we um take that seriously going into the

[1:27:39] future. And also, um Jasmine, if you could send your presentation to city

[1:27:43] council as well because we didn't get that in our packet.

[1:27:46] » Yeah, and that's my bad. I was um I got sick and then I was on vacation. I just

[1:27:51] came back from up north and no one can see my sun right now, but there is one.

[1:27:54] So, I did my my slides did not make it into the packet and I apologize, but

[1:27:58] yes, I would love to email you. >> Without further, thank you both so much

[1:28:04] for your time. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:28:07] » Thanks so much. >> Okay, we are going to move into a loaded

[1:28:13] agenda. >> Um,

[1:28:16] number two, our first ordinance reading 147

[1:28:21] » 147.

[1:28:26] I think the opposite. >> Yeah, thank you.

[1:28:32] » Yeah, you should have um Congratulation 182.

[1:28:37] » Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. >> Um,

[1:28:41] so this is for quote me.

[1:28:45] » Oh, 181. Sorry. >> 181. Okay. Uh, resolution number

[1:28:49] 2026-181 resolved by the council of the city of Sani. Whereas YCUA board of

[1:28:54] commissioners approved a recommendation to city council for a water and

[1:28:58] readiness to serve to serve rate decrease. And whereas the proposed

[1:29:01] decrease of 7% to city division customers would become effective

[1:29:05] September 1, 2026. And whereas the Great Lakes Water Authorities water charge

[1:29:10] increase to YCUA was 5.63% which became effective July 1, 2026. And now

[1:29:16] therefore be a resolved city council approves an ordinance to amend chapter

[1:29:20] 106 article 5 section 106-454b of the code of ordinances to adjust

[1:29:26] water services service rates within the city of Ordinance number 1470 upon first

[1:29:30] reading and I move >> the board moved by council member Sus

[1:29:33] supported by council member King.

[1:29:38] » Good evening Mayor Brown and members of council. Um I know there's oh there's

[1:29:43] two agenda items for the water consumer increases. I hope it's acceptable. I

[1:29:46] normally like to talk about YUA and a water bill. We see received one water

[1:29:50] bill. So I talk about everything kind of as one and then I'll specifically focus

[1:29:54] on the water piece and do that and you said the next agenda item agenda item

[1:29:58] that's accepted. >> Um

[1:30:07] good. Y. >> So, every year that uh we go into the

[1:30:11] rate and budget setting process, uh it really kind of starts with what GWA rate

[1:30:16] increases to by especially on the water side of things. That typically uh that

[1:30:20] process starts in January, February. Uh myself and the finance director try to

[1:30:24] set what are our goals this year? What what are the things that we're trying to

[1:30:27] achieve? Uh something that the authority has been impacted by for several years

[1:30:31] now is a a declining fund balance that that is creating some uh operational

[1:30:36] issues. Uh, also we have a serious commitment to reinvest in our capital

[1:30:40] infrastructure as you can see just the amount of water main improvement work

[1:30:44] going on in the city and township. That's very important for us to invest

[1:30:47] in that infrastructure and stay ahead of catastrophic failures in the system. Uh

[1:30:52] revenue this year is estimated to be about 52.97 million with expenditures of

[1:30:57] about 51.98 million. Uh overall expenditures uh we've tried to

[1:31:03] keep them as flat as possible. They are anticipated to increase by about 0.59

[1:31:08] million or about 1.2% over last year's budgeted item. Uh just so council's

[1:31:14] aware, GWA did increase YA's water service charges by 5.63%

[1:31:19] which became effective July 1st of this year. Um,

[1:31:27] I know this has been discussed at at a couple previous council meetings. So,

[1:31:31] I'm trying to start to get better at putting together some different

[1:31:33] infographics for for council uh to kind of demonstrate the flat usage that we've

[1:31:40] seen or declining water usage in the YA system over the last several years. The

[1:31:44] chart on the bottom is just our sales over the last few years. Uh the table on

[1:31:48] the top is just sales for each year, the percent change from year to year. Uh

[1:31:53] what is purchased by the community and and we're always looking at water loss.

[1:31:57] Uh that would be the difference in what we pay GWA for water versus how much is

[1:32:01] actually metered through uh the metering at residential or commercial properties

[1:32:05] and so forth and or sold to our contract communities.

[1:32:14] This chart is just kind of another visualization of uh different operating

[1:32:18] expenses on the water side and as you can see kind of an increasing line for

[1:32:23] operating expenses yet the uh decrease in water usage creates just that gap. So

[1:32:30] essentially the the product that we move or or that we sell to our customers uh

[1:32:35] is getting more expensive to provide and we sell less of them.

[1:32:43] Now, I said I wouldn't talk too much about sewer, but this is the we're not

[1:32:46] seeing this as much on the sewer side. So, we see a kind of a different uh

[1:32:49] situation operationally to where just the introduction of additional sewage

[1:32:53] into the system that the sewage uh volume has been pretty flat. Our

[1:32:58] consumption has been fairly flat. We're increasing and we've held expenses

[1:33:02] pretty close to that.

[1:33:19] » [snorts] >> Typically things that we spend

[1:33:24] less than a million

[1:33:34] over a million dollars. We typically look to

[1:33:39] move that project through the safety that we usually have two phases of that

[1:33:44] every single

[1:41:00] upcoming debt service.

[1:41:06] Just a chart to break down uh the different allocations of debt service.

[1:41:10] The city currently has about 17.63% 63% of the total debt or about $1.47 million

[1:41:17] annually. Uh or you have about 21% of the total uh wave water and sewer system

[1:41:24] regional system debt within the entire system.

[1:41:31] One of the major factors that uh did have some influence on our rates this

[1:41:35] year was uh uh's largest contract community which is Pittsville Township.

[1:41:42] uh their contract expired and we had not updated the contract with Pittsfield

[1:41:46] since I believe it was 1974. Uh it was extended many years ago in the

[1:41:52] early 2000s, but the methodology behind it uh was not there. Um so with the

[1:41:58] contract expiring at the end of 25, we knew that we had to do a cost of service

[1:42:02] study to establish new water rate for Fitzville Township. uh we took that

[1:42:06] opportunity to just do a whole cost of service study on the water side since

[1:42:12] changing something for your largest customer, not looking at everything else

[1:42:15] felt like we wouldn't be really doing our due diligence. So, we went through

[1:42:19] and and and reset and kind of updated our water rate methodology uh for all

[1:42:24] customer classes on the water side. Um the last time we had done that was back

[1:42:29] I believe I wasn't at Y2 at the time was 2018 uh time period that was when we

[1:42:34] went away from the search charge system and went to the RTF system. So it had

[1:42:38] been quite a few years since we had updated our water rate methodologies.

[1:42:46] So based on this information for for an entire uh water bill, what we are

[1:42:50] proposing is a 7% decrease in water rates uh for the city uh customer and 2%

[1:42:57] increase in sewer rates. Uh for an average bill, this is about uh we always

[1:43:01] use 10 units of usage, which is when looking at the data a fairly reasonable

[1:43:05] estimate for a single family dwelling. Uh the bimonthly cost would be $14,183

[1:43:12] or a decrease of about $5.17 per bill or $2.58

[1:43:17] per month.

[1:43:22] Always

[1:43:26] want to remind council we share information and try to connect customers

[1:43:30] uh when they reach out or or contact us regarding financial assistance. Uh WA

[1:43:35] has staff that is trained in uh water residential assistance program that is

[1:43:40] uh partially funded through dollars that we pay to go and rates. This is a

[1:43:45] separate program that they've set up. Uh we connect customers with that. It will

[1:43:49] help them with, I believe, somewhere around $1,200 of plumbing repairs that

[1:43:54] are that may need to be made inside of a home uh and and with uh payment so forth

[1:43:59] for their water bill.

[1:44:06] Welcome to questions. >> Thank you so much for the presentation.

[1:44:10] First of all, always pleased to hear about a decrease no matter how small. I

[1:44:14] think both are happy to to hear that. um and that it's you know you all are

[1:44:19] considering um you know the impact on on users especially as we're seeing water

[1:44:25] usage decrease. I guess one of my questions that I had and I think I I may

[1:44:28] have asked this the last time we went through doing these presentations is

[1:44:31] just people talk to us about um in terms of consumption like we see in 2024 there

[1:44:38] was a big dip in usage and then an increase in 2025 like what that kind of

[1:44:43] comes from where does that resident

[1:44:48] change >> I think there's a lot of driving factors

[1:44:53] behind water usage uh hopefully the uh smart meter system that we're

[1:44:57] implementing will give us more real time uh information on water quad usage.

[1:45:01] Right now we're still uh for the most part we the city system has been in

[1:45:05] place for by a little less than a year where we get real time usage. Most time

[1:45:10] we're looking at usage every couple months every time we go by and read that

[1:45:13] meter. Uh I think weather has a major impact on water usage. The hotter it is,

[1:45:18] the drier it is. If there's sprinkling of yards, that tends to dry up water

[1:45:21] usage. There's no doubt about that. Uh I I think every time there's a building

[1:45:26] renovated or updated or a new home uh such as Dorsy Estates put in, you see

[1:45:32] much more efficient utilities and water appliances within those uh structures. I

[1:45:37] think every time a business such as uh some of our industries here such as

[1:45:40] marsh plating uh or finishing services has opportunities to uh be more

[1:45:46] efficient with water usage whether it be within plating line or new business

[1:45:51] activity they of course take those opportunities. Um we have seen a a

[1:45:55] recent uptick as we placed all the meters within Eastern Michigan campus.

[1:45:58] Uh so that's that's something that we recently completed. Uh so it it doesn't

[1:46:03] always go down, sometimes it does go up. Uh and and capturing that, you know, a

[1:46:07] more accurate water usage, I think, is important. Uh historically, we haven't

[1:46:11] seen a w a lot of water loss in the system. So I don't think it's due to

[1:46:15] leaky infrastructure, so to speak. Uh but I do think those are the main

[1:46:19] driving facil.

[1:46:28] » Thank you, mayor. You just made a reference to water loss in the system.

[1:46:32] Yes. >> So, how are we doing with that? I know

[1:46:35] that you worry about your maintenance and try to minimize that, but are we

[1:46:40] trending in the right direction? Are we going to have problems water loss

[1:46:46] 20 years from now or I think we have always stayed below the

[1:46:53] kind of the 10% is the number I see in standard best practices try to stay

[1:46:57] below that. uh I think last year was 7%. Some of that I do believe is uh a result

[1:47:03] of new metering from GWA and YCA. So we're seeing a lot of these changes and

[1:47:08] we're kind of the orange just a little bit new.

[1:47:11] » I do believe our infrastructure uh specifically in the city. I think the

[1:47:15] city has done a great job of investing in its infrastructure, coordinating with

[1:47:18] road improvements to stay ahead uh and not have infrastructure dramatically and

[1:47:23] or having main breaks run as some communities do for months on end. Uh so

[1:47:28] I don't think that's a a city in or YCA issue. Um I think we have to continue

[1:47:33] investing in our infrastructure as we're doing now and balancing water

[1:47:37] affordability with upfront investment in the infrastructure so that we don't have

[1:47:42] catastrophic failures and not revenue generated water. I think those are

[1:47:46] things that just add to uh increase our inability or ability to provide a lot of

[1:47:53] services.

[1:47:57] Thank you.

[1:48:01] » Yes. Uh, thank you so much for the presentation. I

[1:48:06] really appreciated this one over last years because both had a lot of

[1:48:10] information, but I think this one had a bit more um context building information

[1:48:16] for us to be able to understand um some of the wise or why uh these

[1:48:23] numbers come to us. I do have a couple more questions about it.

[1:48:28] It's been mentioned that there's new methodology and you had a slide about

[1:48:32] it, but I still don't know like what is the methodology or how would you explain

[1:48:37] it as an elevator pitch? It seems like there's been a change from Pittsville

[1:48:41] Township to you RTA is the acronym RTS.

[1:48:47] » RTS, but I'm Yeah. Yeah. What what is readiness to serve compared to what

[1:48:51] Pitzfield Township had in the past or like how are we using methodology?

[1:48:56] » Great question. Um the I would say the methodology that we had with Pittsfield

[1:49:01] Township was no method. They were only charged a commodity rate and it was

[1:49:06] equivalent or commensurate with the township water rate. That was the

[1:49:09] contract that was in place in 1974 extended in the early 2000s and this was

[1:49:13] our opportunity to get in and look at that methodology and preset. Um, I feel

[1:49:19] like historically we've always had a very robust methodology on the sewer

[1:49:23] side, but it never translated on the water side. Uh, so we brought in a

[1:49:27] consultant that helped us do the 2018 study. Uh, it's it's a generic cost of

[1:49:31] service study. They they look at two ways for what we call nonowner

[1:49:36] infrastructure. It is called a utility basis of ratem. I think I'm saying that

[1:49:40] correctly, but I'm not a financial expert by any stretch in the

[1:49:43] imagination. uh we did bring that consultant in to give a thorough

[1:49:48] presentation to the YCA board. Uh so I'm not an expert in any one of these areas.

[1:49:54] It is it starts with ensuring that you're properly identifying the needed

[1:49:59] revenue to operate the system. uh it is following what we call American

[1:50:03] Waterworks Association's methods of rate making where we look at uh depreciation

[1:50:08] rate of return from that customer uh operating expenses capital outlay making

[1:50:14] sure that there is a methodology for uh allocating those costs to the

[1:50:20] appropriate communities. Uh so going into it pretty much every project which

[1:50:24] is a very tedious task for for quite a few years and ensuring that there is a

[1:50:29] methodology for when we do US12 water main work that that cost is allocated

[1:50:34] correctly or that the cost of dared projects is allocated correctly. It is

[1:50:39] historically very easy to do it at the wastewater treatment plant because we

[1:50:42] just look at wage for flow allocation. When we do those projects in a water

[1:50:46] system it's it's not as clear. So, we have to go through and look at each of

[1:50:50] those projects and make sure that they're those costs are allocated

[1:50:53] properly.

[1:50:56] Does that kind of answer what you're looking for or am I you want me to be

[1:50:59] more much more specific? >> Maybe one of these days I'll have to get

[1:51:02] the full presentation to really understand the details of it. Um

[1:51:08] but with regard to like for example I see that we're getting closer to par

[1:51:13] between the city and the township rates um which were quite different in years

[1:51:18] past and the explanation I've heard over the last year has been because some of

[1:51:23] this these bond debts are coming off of our roles and I see that uh the

[1:51:29] presentation there's more coming off in the next couple years as well though I'm

[1:51:34] wondering about are we approach are we going to get to that place where

[1:51:38] basically city and township customers are paying almost the same rates because

[1:51:42] we're still paying more than the township based on new rates. Um even

[1:51:47] though they have they're they're going to get hit with a 9% increase and 2%

[1:51:52] increase on sewer rates. So they're going much higher. We're going down a

[1:51:55] little lower but we're still paying more in township. And really I'm curious

[1:52:00] about how our rates compare to all of the uh different places that we're

[1:52:04] servicing because we Yaka services Augusta Township and all these different

[1:52:07] places. So really comparing with everyone um is my interest uh in looking

[1:52:14] at these proposals. But yeah, I'm just curious as to like how do you come to a

[1:52:20] place where you're like, "Okay, we can do a 7% reduction on water,

[1:52:24] 2% increase on sewer, and for the township, we're doing this." What what

[1:52:30] is how do those numbers come through? >> It it's driven by your share of cost in

[1:52:35] the system >> and your debt service.

[1:52:38] » Those are the driving factors. both. Um I I I think par is important, but

[1:52:45] they're two different systems on the water side. Uh the economies of scale

[1:52:48] and township side are substantially different as they're uh so

[1:52:52] interconnected with uh communities that were part of YUA or part of the township

[1:52:56] water system before Y2A was municipality. Um so that they have

[1:53:01] clearly 70% of the consumption on the within just the city and township side.

[1:53:06] So the city has always been a much smaller piece of customer class and when

[1:53:12] large capital improvements are done that are only city improvements I would say

[1:53:16] the rates can be more valable. That's why when we go into the rate making

[1:53:21] process we're trying to do things that smooth that out. Uh but it it is it is

[1:53:27] more it has always been more difficult in the city because they don't generate

[1:53:30] as much revenue uh as the township does. So creating par is very difficult.

[1:53:37] when it was being discussed, it combined the utility between the township and the

[1:53:41] city. I mean, was that some of the considerations that because we're

[1:53:45] sharing across two entities that were really like

[1:53:49] dividing some of those >> uh wasn't FY2A when that when that

[1:53:54] happened or some of the discussions occurred. Um I actually believe I would

[1:53:58] need to double check our articles on incorporation but I believe it is

[1:54:01] memorialized in those articles that the development of rates in the city

[1:54:05] township will be separate. Mhm. >> So there's a lot of par at the

[1:54:10] wastewater treatment plant level costs because those are just shared flowbased

[1:54:14] uh allocated on a flow-based proportion. Whereas the water system, if the city

[1:54:19] spends a million dollars and generates a third of the revenue, but the township

[1:54:24] spends a million dollars, that impact is so much different on on the rate itself.

[1:54:29] Um I can't tell you what next year's going

[1:54:32] to hold. I can't tell you what, you know, future years are going to hold. I

[1:54:36] believe the system that we put in place in the city to get in front of our work

[1:54:40] to be very aggressive with revolving fund loans to see 2.6 million of loan

[1:54:45] forgiveness, $300,000 loan forgiveness. I think the city made great decisions 20

[1:54:50] years to go to get in front of capital improvements as replace

[1:54:54] portion of their water infrastructure. I'm hoping the future is much brighter

[1:54:59] for minimal rate increases andor these type of years where maybe there's a

[1:55:04] decrease. I I never know what GWA is going to do year-to-year. This year was

[1:55:07] 7%. Uh they went to their board for a 7% increase and they ended up at a 5.63%

[1:55:13] increase. So that is on the water side the single largest light item we have is

[1:55:19] around $13 million. So that whenever that changes even by a percent, it's

[1:55:24] very substantial in the rate making process. So not knowing that year to

[1:55:28] year makes very difficult to project what we may come back to with rate

[1:55:32] increases. There's a commitment with our team to make sure our services are

[1:55:37] affordable. Uh every year and we present this to the finance committee. Uh we

[1:55:42] benchmark adjacent communities. So I have those tables of 30 or 40 adjacent

[1:55:46] communities with water service costs, uh readiness to serve costs, sewer costs.

[1:55:51] So those are readily available and just takes an email and I can fire those off

[1:55:55] to you. We do that every single year as we go through this process. I would say

[1:55:59] the city right now is still on the higher end of of these adjacent

[1:56:03] communities, but it's getting better. Uh they're definitely not the highest, but

[1:56:06] they're definitely not the cheapest. >> I recall that from last year when I saw

[1:56:11] the numbers, I think we were number two or maybe number one um before.

[1:56:16] » It depends on how far out we look and and the comparables that we develop. Uh

[1:56:21] I think this year we did a handful of more communities, try to make sure that

[1:56:24] we have appropriate comparables uh demographics. Uh, but I can share that.

[1:56:29] I think the city's more competitive this year, but they're still on high.

[1:56:33] » Yeah, I would like to see that. Thank you. And this is probably not a thing,

[1:56:37] but like is it possible to do multi-year contract with uh Great Lakes?

[1:56:43] » Not at all. >> We're part of

[1:56:46] 78 communities. Uh, and it's we're part of a what's called a contract alignment

[1:56:51] process. It's a every four years we negotiate different parameters in the

[1:56:57] contract such as uh usage uh pressure uh those type of issues but doing any

[1:57:06] two-year rate adjustment process unless the entire member community agreed to

[1:57:10] that or the children that we agreed to that uh I don't foresee that change. I

[1:57:15] think that would be a good idea if we're facing increases every year,

[1:57:18] year-over-year to think about that. Um, since they have a monopoly on, you know,

[1:57:24] water service. Um, one last thing I want to mention. Oh, I so I guess I

[1:57:32] would just say I'm still hopeful that Yaka can provide us in the following

[1:57:36] year as more debt service falls off even more par at least since we can see

[1:57:42] what's going on between the city and the township. It's m makes it really hard to

[1:57:46] come to our residence and say uh well you just have to pay more and here's all

[1:57:52] the reasons why when it's you know like people are really struggling to pay all

[1:57:57] sorts of bills but the water you know coming down a little bit is great but I

[1:58:01] think it could come down a little bit more. Um so I just want to say that. So

[1:58:06] I I do want to bring up it's a slightly different issue, but I just want to get

[1:58:10] it on your radar that there's been a lot of complaints in the city about work

[1:58:14] that Yaka has done to um it's not always Yaka, but I've heard it so many times

[1:58:20] that it is Yaka to kind of dig out service lines underneath sidewalks and

[1:58:24] then replace it with cold patch. Um and then also replace the law surrounding

[1:58:29] lawn with sand. And so, uh, I just want to start that conversation because if

[1:58:35] these need to get fixed, it's like a big complaint across the city.

[1:58:40] » Absolutely. This is the first I've heard of it, uh, for the specific residents. I

[1:58:43] heard a little bit about a bit from, uh, Andrew before I came in. And Bonnie, uh,

[1:58:47] I will follow up. We take those complaints very seriously. Uh, we have a

[1:58:51] pretty, uh, efficient process, I believe, for restoration of properties

[1:58:55] and so forth. Uh, just due to some settling, timing of contractor

[1:58:59] involvement and so forth. Sometimes there can be some delays. Uh more often

[1:59:03] than not, uh at least once it reach reaches my attention, it's usually not

[1:59:07] YCA services that that have been affected that another contractor's came

[1:59:11] in and done some work that they thought YCA performed a contractor for DTE or or

[1:59:17] some other type of contractor. At least once I hear about it, normally it's

[1:59:21] we've already solved our issue, restored our areas, but that's subsequent

[1:59:25] contractor work that Washington has no involvement in. Uh I'm not here to push

[1:59:28] blame or say anything, but there's a lot of utilities out there and Y's just just

[1:59:33] uh has just the two. Uh so sometimes it's not us, but I have those addresses

[1:59:37] and I can guarantee we will follow up on them first thing.

[1:59:40] » Great. Thank you. >> Uh anything from council?

[1:59:45] » Thank you. >> Um we do have a public hearing for this.

[1:59:48] So I am going to open the public hearing if there's anybody in the audience who

[1:59:51] would like to address council on this topic.

[1:59:54] Your hand Anybody

[1:59:58] online? No one has any

[2:00:02] seeing none. Resolution number 2026-182 resolved by

[2:00:07] the council of the city of Swani that the public hearing for ordinance number

[2:00:10] 1470 entitled an ordinance to amend chapter 106 article 5 section 106-454b

[2:00:17] of the code of ordinances to adjust water service rates within the city of

[2:00:21] be officially closed and I so

[2:00:26] all in favor hold the public hearing please say I

[2:00:30] Any vote? All right. Further discussion from

[2:00:34] council. If we ask question

[2:00:40] all right.

[2:00:44] » Council member McCle. >> Yes.

[2:00:46] » Council member. >> Yes.

[2:00:48] » Mayor Brown. >> Yes.

[2:00:50] » Council member Phelps. >> Yes.

[2:00:52] » Council member Tus. >> Yes.

[2:00:54] » Thank you. Council member Tus. You have 183.

[2:00:58] » I do. All right. Resolution number 2026-183

[2:01:03] resolved by the council of the city of Salani. Whereas YCUA board of

[2:01:06] commissioners approved a recommendation the city council for an increase in

[2:01:10] sewer and readiness to serve rate. And whereas the proposed increase of 2% to

[2:01:16] city division customers would become effective September 1, 2026. And now

[2:01:20] therefore be it resolved that the Islanic City Council approves an

[2:01:23] ordinance to amend chapter 106 article 5 section 106455A

[2:01:28] of the code of ordinances to adjust sewage disposal service rates within the

[2:01:33] city of Ordinance number 1471 upon first reading and I so move forth

[2:01:40] in support of our council over. >> Thank you. So this is the the sewer side

[2:01:45] of the rate process. This is the side we of course have quite a bit more control

[2:01:50] of because we operate the regional uh treatment facility. Um as I mentioned

[2:01:56] during the presentation there's substantial amount of capital

[2:01:58] improvements going on at the treatment plant. Uh there has been enough costs

[2:02:02] over the last few years whether it be electrical improvements uh built

[2:02:06] improvements on our primary tanks control and so forth. Uh it has been

[2:02:11] quite a balancing process with special improvements to ebase and piping and so

[2:02:16] forth. Uh so we've tried to mitigate those increases as much as possible. Uh

[2:02:20] but do recommend a 2% increase and would definitely welcome any further

[2:02:25] questions. >> I'll open the public hearing first this

[2:02:28] time. Anybody in the audience?

[2:02:36] Anybody? No one should close the public. resolved

[2:02:43] by the council of the city of planning at the public hearing for ordinance 1471

[2:02:47] entitled an ordinance to amend chapter 106 article 5 section 106455A

[2:02:52] of the code of ordinances to adjust sewage disposal service rights within

[2:02:55] the city of be officially closed and I move

[2:02:58] » of course

[2:03:01] all in favor all right questions for on the sewer

[2:03:08] rates See,

[2:03:14] please. >> Council member McClean.

[2:03:17] » Yes. >> Council member King.

[2:03:19] » Yes. >> Mayor Brown.

[2:03:21] » Yes. >> Council member Phelps.

[2:03:22] » Yes. >> Council member Tusket.

[2:03:24] » Yes. >> Who carries?

[2:03:25] » Thank you so much. Thanks. Appreciate >> appreciate the support. I will first

[2:03:28] thing in the morning share with council the benchmarking uh information that was

[2:03:32] shared with the finance committee. Uh and I'll also share uh presentation that

[2:03:37] was given on the uh method out. >> Perfect. Thank you so much.

[2:03:41] » Thank you. >> Council, you'll recon agenda without H.

[2:03:55] Two things look for Cairo. Is it just number eight

[2:03:58] or number seven? Yes, if I if I may, there are two

[2:04:03] resolutions for fireworks. I only noted one the agenda. That was my mistake and

[2:04:10] bring it up when we talked about >> we can talk about that.

[2:04:15] » Resolved by council of the city of the landing that the following items be

[2:04:17] approved. Uh resolution number 2026-186 approving the minutes of the regular

[2:04:22] meeting of July 23rd, 2026. Postpone resolution number 2026-144

[2:04:28] approving the new collective writing agreement between the city of Salen Dpom

[2:04:33] with the term terminating on June 30th 2030 as presented and authorized by the

[2:04:36] mayor, city manager, and city clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the

[2:04:39] city after approval by city attorney as to form resolution number 2026-187

[2:04:45] approving the tying of teal ribbons in the business districts during the month

[2:04:49] of September for tied town teal to bring awareness to ovarian cancer.

[2:04:55] Resolution number 2026-18 appointing residents Matt Jones, Barry Laroo, Erica

[2:05:00] Lindseay, Hannah McCriedi, Paul Shrivever, and an Steven Vincent to the

[2:05:04] HCC study committee for the amendment to DPS's local historic district until

[2:05:08] completion of the study. Resolution number 2026-189

[2:05:12] appointing resident Kadus to the planning commission with a term ending

[2:05:16] of July 1st, 2029. Resolution number 2026-19B

[2:05:22] appro approving the uh request of Maniacal Meat Company located at 15 East

[2:05:26] Cross Street for a social district license contingent on the approval of

[2:05:30] maniacal meats company's request for a local liquor license and ISO

[2:05:36] » support. It's been moved by member fellow by council member Sus please

[2:05:40] follow the role on consent agenda. Council member King,

[2:05:45] » yes. >> Mayor Brown,

[2:05:47] » yes. Council member Phelps, >> yes.

[2:05:49] » Council member, >> yes.

[2:05:51] » Council member, >> yes.

[2:05:52] » Motion carries. >> Thank you. Uh, council king, you have a

[2:05:56] resolution 19

[2:06:04] where me has applied to the city of Lenny and Michigan liquor control

[2:06:10] mention requesting the small wine offering this retailer permit with

[2:06:16] outdoor seating dance and social history for maniac me company per MCL 436.11

[2:06:24] 1112 for use at 15 East Cross Street at

[2:06:29] Michigan 4197 County and whereas a public hearing to

[2:06:34] consider the proposed offensive retailer for manifold me was duly noted and held

[2:06:40] on August the 18th. Now therefore it be resolved that the request of made for

[2:06:46] the property located at 15 East Michigan 97D approved contingent on approval of

[2:06:53] all applicable move.

[2:07:09] Hi. Yes. Come forward, sir.

[2:07:18] » Good evening. >> Good evening. Hello. Uh, mayor and

[2:07:22] counselors. Uh, I'm Patrick Ekan. I'm part owner of 734 Brewing and also part

[2:07:27] owner of Maniac Me. Basically, what we're just trying to do here is, uh, so

[2:07:32] Maniac Me has a tasting room in the township on Ecourse Road. Um, we're just

[2:07:37] trying to put them both together since they're both my babies, I guess. Put

[2:07:41] them both under the same roof. Um, at our current or at 734's current

[2:07:46] location, 15 cross. Um, so that'll allow me to put some investment money from

[2:07:53] Mania [clears throat] into the building at 15 cross and uh, you know, hopefully

[2:07:58] make things a little more vibrant down there.

[2:08:02] What I'm going to do is open a public hearing and then bring back refer

[2:08:06] council if they have questions. >> All right. If there's anyone who would

[2:08:09] like press council on this application uh please

[2:08:19] » no I just did it right now. >> Sorry if there's anybody who wants

[2:08:22] » nobody nobody. Okay. Uh council member you can close the public.

[2:08:29] I know >> resolved by the council of the city of

[2:08:31] Vitali that a public hearing or a small wine maker off premises retail permit

[2:08:36] with outdoor seating dance and social disting.

[2:08:50] » I [clears throat] oppose. All right.

[2:08:55] » All right. questions for council. Okay.

[2:09:02] » Um I think I heard it right, but you said

[2:09:06] you're part owner of both. Um does this mean that 734 is going is no

[2:09:15] longer or like are you going to be leasing from 734 or how does that work?

[2:09:20] » We're doing it as like a a shared space. So, we're going to have a new name, but

[2:09:25] it'll be the new name by 734 Mi. >> So, we'll still be doing same 734 stuff,

[2:09:33] a lot of the same events, but we'll have several more apps and more things to

[2:09:40] try. >> Do you do you have the new name yet?

[2:09:44] » Not 100% sure. >> Okay. Uh, are you retaining staff from

[2:09:50] 734? Yeah, I mean assuming they want to stay, but I assume they will.

[2:09:55] » Mhm. Okay. And then it sounds like there'll be expansion of like uh items

[2:10:00] on the menu. Is there any other Sounds like you're talking about maybe some

[2:10:04] building improvements or >> Yeah, I mean um

[2:10:09] Maniac has been Well, we actually rented a another spot in the township,

[2:10:15] but that didn't quite work out for what we were hoping to do. So, we're still

[2:10:19] using that as a production facility. Um, but because we have some money we were

[2:10:23] planning to spend on, you know, fixing up a building, we're going to put it

[2:10:26] into that one. This one. Oh, I should say it is 48198. I think the zip code. I

[2:10:34] just want I just want to make sure the paperwork goes right to MLCC. They're

[2:10:39] » picky.

[2:10:46] Further comments or questions from counc

[2:10:59] » yes. >> Council member Phelps.

[2:11:01] » Yes. >> Council member Tusson.

[2:11:03] » Yes. >> Council member Mccleley.

[2:11:04] » Yes. >> Council member King.

[2:11:06] » Yes. >> Motion carries. Unanimous.

[2:11:08] » Thanks so much. Uh, council member King, you have 179

[2:11:14] original by the council of the city of Isoli. That attached fee schedule is

[2:11:17] adopted pursuant to the Isoli city code and the following fees related to

[2:11:23] various sections of the city code and activities of the city are hereby

[2:11:26] established and the various city departments are authorized to charge and

[2:11:31] collect such fees effective immediately. by council in supported by council

[2:11:37] member council. This was uh presented at the

[2:11:42] July meeting. It was asked to be tabled. So council could reach out to their

[2:11:49] constituents and ask questions about the fees. Uh so myself and other staff

[2:11:55] members are here to answer questions that you might have. And if you saw on

[2:12:00] the agenda, there is a second section in which following the um the uh special

[2:12:09] events policy. It does include the freight house, rental fees, and um and

[2:12:16] um special events. So, we're happy to do special events now or if you'd like to

[2:12:22] wait to that point. But if if the remainder of the fees aside from special

[2:12:28] events and um the freight house are agreeable to council, I would request

[2:12:35] approval. >> All right, council.

[2:12:40] » So for clarification, what we're looking at right now, what's

[2:12:45] before the body is everything, but it does not include the freight house. So

[2:12:50] it does include the freight house and special events. However, if when you

[2:12:56] move on to those other uh other items, it'll essentially amend this once those

[2:13:01] are approved if approved. >> And further clarification, we we made

[2:13:07] changes to the freight house last time. Those also would be incorporated what

[2:13:12] what is before the body right now. >> That's correct. It's actually included

[2:13:15] in the uh special events policy.

[2:13:24] Well, questions or comments on the schedule?

[2:13:29] » I just have a quick one. When I was looking at the schedule, I was just

[2:13:34] thinking about the Junth parade that was proposed and I was looking at the fees

[2:13:40] and why I didn't have that contract in front of me. I know we never seen it,

[2:13:44] but the fees were pretty outrageous. When I was looking at the fee schedule,

[2:13:48] it did not seem like sacross would amount to what we heard potentially or

[2:13:54] what. >> So, correct

[2:13:57] » or parade. Yeah. >> What we were looking at is mostly staff

[2:14:00] time um and um looking at when we updated the PE

[2:14:07] schedule last time, that was all removed. Um, but a parade is it requires

[2:14:13] substantial amount of police presence as well as uh DPW staff. So that's why that

[2:14:20] cost was where it was. I did indicate to the to the organizer that we were only

[2:14:27] concerned about the labor costs. Um, but again that was nothing was ever applied

[2:14:33] for. Um, so we usually typically do if if an

[2:14:39] event is has all fees waved, if they expand it, then that that's going to

[2:14:44] need to have council approval to to remove those fees,

[2:14:49] which I encourage them to apply so that council could could do that, but they

[2:14:55] the organiz organizer didn't wish to move forward. So, I guess one of my

[2:15:00] questions is for a parade, even though it say like the $90, I have to look at

[2:15:06] the exact page. We wouldn't include the police presence and the DPS staff in

[2:15:11] that fee so people would know up front. >> So, we're we would just we would just uh

[2:15:17] basically charge costs. Um, we typically do not have any type of police

[2:15:24] involvement other than a parade because certain intersections have to be closed

[2:15:29] off. We are working to instead of using police do a volunteer basis and then

[2:15:36] those um those event organizers would need to provide that training um to take

[2:15:41] a little bit of burden off of our staff but we did not have that in place at

[2:15:45] that time. >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[2:15:50] » I think further on the schedule.

[2:15:59] Um

[2:16:03] the schedule issue is, you know, such a such a big pass to take on to try to

[2:16:10] figure out how to bring fees into a place that's equitable and accessible

[2:16:19] um to our residents. I think this is starting, especially with the new

[2:16:25] special events fees, that includes the community events. I think we're

[2:16:28] approaching more uh equity and parody that I'd like to see. The only thing I

[2:16:34] want to I've I've brought it up a couple times, but you know, looking in how

[2:16:39] other municipalities, even nearby ones like Fitzfield Township, um Ipsy

[2:16:44] Township, uh handle booking their facilities, parks, pavilions. It's very

[2:16:52] easy. It's done by a third party, you know, um, website. And, uh, you can book

[2:16:59] Montabella Park for under $200 for four hours. Um, which is a brand new

[2:17:05] pavilion. Uh, and you can also book the the uh, like baseball fields and the

[2:17:13] kickball fields and for, you know, hour at a time. And [clears throat] so it's

[2:17:18] more of a universalized approach to doing fee schedule at least for parks um

[2:17:24] which maybe wouldn't capture things that are like for profit like beer fest. You

[2:17:29] know we want to be able to um change those uh fees depending on if a

[2:17:37] event is for profit or not. I agree with that. Um, I'm just mentioning that some

[2:17:42] of the other nearby municipalities handle it as a more universal approach

[2:17:46] where everybody pays the same amount and it's relatively easy to book and it

[2:17:51] makes it so people uh book things much more often. uh end up paying uh more

[2:17:58] fees to uh the nearby townships instead of just like maybe using our facilities

[2:18:05] for free unless it's like a big enough event to where um you know it's too

[2:18:11] burdensome to do that without approaching the city. So I just want to

[2:18:14] name that as a potential target in the future. Um, I think given we've been

[2:18:20] talking about the fee schedule for a little while, adjusted it for now, I'm

[2:18:23] mostly going to support um what we have in front of us today. I just imagine

[2:18:29] there's going to be situations that come up that we bump into. One of the things

[2:18:34] I I did see already is that we charge for if someone is bringing a sign into a

[2:18:39] park. I'm kind of curious as to why that is like bringing signage. Um,

[2:18:47] it's barely the $50 fee, but I'm a little concerned for those kind of like

[2:18:52] nickel diamonding type of fees. I also asked Bonnie earlier, I don't know if

[2:18:58] there's an answer now about um what's the what's it called? Capital

[2:19:04] improvement fees for Riverside and Bron Island. Um where is this coming from?

[2:19:11] Why are we charging it? I would like to know that.

[2:19:16] » Now, is it this a part of the specific fee schedule or is that going to be

[2:19:21] later on with those? >> I think it's in both.

[2:19:24] » Well, it's not. No, it's not. It is in the current book.

[2:19:29] » I would like to have an answer for that, but yes,

[2:19:31] » we did email about that.

[2:19:37] » I think everybody should know. Yes.

[2:19:49] Good evening. So, the parks capital fee was proposed and adopted back in 2011.

[2:19:54] The intent was to um capture some of the revenue from the larger events and apply

[2:20:01] it to capital improvements throughout the entire park system. Although the

[2:20:05] intention was quite noble, it doesn't align with how bulk is applied to

[2:20:10] cities. So, we have discontinued its use. We may choose to revisit it in the

[2:20:14] future at council's pleasure, but it's no longer sustainable as it was, but

[2:20:18] we're still applying it to a frog island.

[2:20:22] » Not as proposed as proposed. So, what is the new

[2:20:27] » zero? Zero. Yeah. For no approvement fee for anything. Okay,

[2:20:34] that's helpful. Um, I think the other thing I wanted to

[2:20:41] bring up was that there are a number of

[2:20:46] um, events that are currently booked and haven't happened yet that have kind of

[2:20:53] been booked in that in between time between when we approved the budget

[2:20:57] without any fee waiver budget and now when we're adopting a new um, fee

[2:21:03] schedule that includes community events. And so I know of some of those events

[2:21:09] are community events would be applicable to this. So you know when we emailed

[2:21:14] about it you said that if if the contract is signed then this with new

[2:21:18] change wouldn't apply to that. I think it would be good for the city to let

[2:21:23] those applicants know um if these new changes apply to them so they can cancel

[2:21:29] their existing contract and make a new one because

[2:21:33] then that would be >> yeah I'm saying I think that's only fair

[2:21:38] given we don't have any u you know fee waiver application form

[2:21:44] anymore no budget for it and there was a gap between June and now so just those

[2:21:49] events should be able to you know utilize these new changes that I would

[2:21:55] recommend that that actually be a resol or added on to the adoption of schedule

[2:22:02] the the next schedule not this >> yeah special one

[2:22:10] okay

[2:22:14] are there any questions council

[2:22:20] Yes, please call the role. >> Mayor Brown,

[2:22:25] » yes. >> Council member Phelps,

[2:22:27] » yes. >> Council member Tusson,

[2:22:28] » yes. >> Council member McClean,

[2:22:30] » yes. >> Council member King,

[2:22:31] » yes. >> Motion cares.

[2:22:33] » Thank you. passion 195

[2:22:42] by the council of city of slanting where crew community credit union has

[2:22:46] submitted an application requesting the res property located at 424 south

[2:22:49] Mansfield from PMD production manufacturing and distribution to GC

[2:22:54] general corridor and whereas request reszoning has been processed in

[2:22:58] accordance with the requirements of the mission zoning enabling public act 2006

[2:23:03] six as amended in the state of their sun zoning ordinance and whereas planning

[2:23:07] commission will have public hearing on the proposed reasoning on June 17, 2026

[2:23:11] receiving public comment and considering the application. staff report of

[2:23:15] applicable documents. And whereas following review, the planning

[2:23:18] commission recommends approval of the proposed resoning to the city council.

[2:23:21] And whereas the city council conducts the public hearing on the proposed

[2:23:25] resoning on July 21st, 2026, receiving public comment considering the

[2:23:30] application staff reportable documents and approve it approving its first

[2:23:34] reading of the reszoning request. And now therefore be resolved that the

[2:23:38] Ipsellini City Council hereby approves at its second reading ordinance number

[2:23:42] 1466 amending the zoning map to reszone the property located at 424 South

[2:23:47] Mansfield from PMD to GC.

[2:23:56] Anything else about this? >> Um nothing has ultimately changed. Um,

[2:24:03] you know, if you guys have any memory questions and have made it through the

[2:24:07] insert, um, they're glad. >> Thank you. Questions or comments from

[2:24:12] council.

[2:24:22] Please follow. >> Council member Phillips.

[2:24:25] » Yes. >> Yes.

[2:24:27] » Council member McClean, >> yes.

[2:24:28] » Council member, >> yes. Council member Tusson.

[2:24:32] » Yes. >> Motion carries.

[2:24:33] » Thank you so much. Council member Tusen, you have 196.

[2:24:37] » Yes, I do. Council voting council of the city of Salani. Whereas the city is

[2:24:41] committed to updating the zoning ordinances to address evolving business

[2:24:44] practices. And whereas the proposed amend amendments introduce definitions

[2:24:47] for drive-in service, curbside service, and walk up windows to clearly

[2:24:51] distinguishing business activities. And whereas the proposed amendments aim to

[2:24:55] improve accessibility for all city residential visitors. And whereas the

[2:25:00] Ipsellani planning commission reviewed the proposed amend amendments and

[2:25:03] recommended approval following a duly noticed public hearing. And whereas the

[2:25:08] Ipsellani city council reviewed the proposed amendments and approved its

[2:25:11] first reading of the amendment following a duly noticed public hearing. And now

[2:25:15] therefore be it resolved that the Ipsellani city council hereby approve

[2:25:20] his second and final reading of ordinance number 1467 entitled walk up

[2:25:24] window zoning text amendment. And I mean by council supported by council number

[2:25:37] same same as the previous one. >> All right questions or comments from

[2:25:42] council for

[2:25:47] the same council member. >> Yes.

[2:25:50] » Council member

[2:25:53] » I'm sorry. Yes. >> Council member King.

[2:25:56] » Yes. >> Mayor Brown.

[2:25:57] » Yes. >> Council member Phillips.

[2:25:59] » Yes. >> Motion carries.

[2:26:01] » All right. Council member 197. >> Resolve by the council city of SL where

[2:26:07] mission planning may impact public code act 33 of 2008 requires that at least

[2:26:11] every 5 years the adoption of a master plan. The planning commission shall

[2:26:14] review the master plan and determine whether to commence procedure to amend

[2:26:17] the master plan or adopting a new master plan. And whereas the city adopted the

[2:26:22] shape IPS lending master plan in 2013 and last night the plan in 2021 and

[2:26:27] comprehensive update is warranted to reflect current conditions and provide

[2:26:30] current policy basis for land use decisions. And whereas the city of

[2:26:34] planning issued a request for proposals to a comprehensive master plan update

[2:26:37] and receive proposals. And whereas the proposals were evaluated by staff

[2:26:41] selection committee on the basis of proposed approach, team qualifications,

[2:26:45] community engagement scope, regional local experience, proposed level of

[2:26:48] effort and total fee and many unanimously ranked proposal submitted by

[2:26:52] the Smith group as the highest ranked proposal and where the adopted budget

[2:26:56] includes $100,000 for the comprehensive master plan update of which 50,000 is

[2:27:01] anticipated from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation grant and the

[2:27:04] Smith proposal is within the appropriated amount. Now therefore be it

[2:27:08] resolved that the city council of the city of planning award to the

[2:27:11] professional services contract for the comprehensive master plan update to

[2:27:14] Smith Group in the amount of $96,900 to be funded from 101-97210-7818-00

[2:27:25] be further resolved that the city council authorizes the city manager

[2:27:28] execute the contract on behalf of the city following review and approval as

[2:27:32] informed by the city attorney. I so moved. support

[2:27:35] » by council member McQueen supported by council member Tus.

[2:27:39] » Good evening council and mayor. Um so resolution kind of said it all. The I

[2:27:46] think we put together a pretty comprehensive

[2:27:49] RFL except for the subject to use the same templates and so the actual subject

[2:27:54] is wrong on the actual RFL. It does say demolition of dangerous building. That

[2:27:59] is not what it is. Um like the resolution stated, we had uh eight

[2:28:06] proposals. We had four really good proposals and really two outstanding

[2:28:11] proposals. Um and then so we tried to figure out what the best way to to

[2:28:16] review it. We kind of gave I think pretty detailed notes and I don't know

[2:28:19] if anyone has any questions on it. Uh so the the top one and two were Smith Group

[2:28:24] and OM and they're within $2,000 of each other. We did get the final paperwork

[2:28:29] for the grant from the MEDC and so we did receive the $50,000 to help pay for

[2:28:33] half of this which is a huge relief. Um you know staff felt that

[2:28:40] um between Smith Group and OM

[2:28:44] um based on the experience that Smith Group has um they're normally more of a

[2:28:49] national firm but they're located right here in Ipsellani. They do have local

[2:28:53] staff that live in that will be working on the plan and just their breadth of

[2:28:58] knowledge and experience. That was where it came in. We also compared

[2:29:04] um based on what was done and the lowest uh so just the uh conductor was the

[2:29:12] lowest amount of hours and also pay and they had probably the least amount of

[2:29:16] experience. Um and so we kind of tried to figure out the best way to do it. We

[2:29:21] wanted to keep it or our purchasing policy as local as possible. Both OHM

[2:29:26] and Smith have local offices in county. Um

[2:29:31] and so that's kind of uh what we what we have. I know uh Josh and and uh Gary in

[2:29:38] our office really liked the the attention to detail that some of Smith

[2:29:43] Group's master plan have gone into and I thought to be a really good fit and I

[2:29:47] completely agree. Um, I think either one are a really good company. Um, well, we

[2:29:54] kind of thought that that would be the best the best match. So, I don't want to

[2:29:58] ask any questions. >> Thank you for that. Questions coming

[2:30:01] from council. >> Okay.

[2:30:06] » Thank you, Joe. Um, does the master plan include an implementation plan as well?

[2:30:16] » Ours currently hasn't. We've done a lot of what we wanted to do. We can't ever

[2:30:20] do everything obviously because things change over time. I think the biggest

[2:30:25] regret is that we wanted to, you know, but it's it was a 20 or 30 year plan,

[2:30:29] but two AR streets is still obviously an active discussion. But most of what we

[2:30:34] wanted to actually do in our master plan, we really accomplished a lot. And

[2:30:39] now that's why instead of going for just a smaller update like we did in 2021,

[2:30:44] really doing a little bit bigger detail look um because 2013 was a long time

[2:30:51] ago. Um whereas uh you know 20267 it's a lot farther beyond that. So, I

[2:30:59] think when we updated it in 21, we did a really good job um and updated it, but

[2:31:03] we really do need to do a little bit bigger, a little bit bigger of a dick

[2:31:07] and and dive in. >> Josh is going to have to stay with us

[2:31:10] for a good long time, right? >> Josh is already working on the public

[2:31:13] engagement strategy as we speak. Uh and we actually had a meeting with our

[2:31:16] comm's team to really help uh push that out. And so, really excited to get their

[2:31:22] hands dirty in the public engagement on top of having some outside help

[2:31:25] facilitating some of these meetings.

[2:31:31] What does the public engagement look like? Every ward or just one central

[2:31:35] place? >> I'm gonna have Josh actually speak to

[2:31:37] that. He's been working on this pretty aggressively.

[2:31:39] » Yeah. So, um there's a lot that we are working on in terms of the community

[2:31:43] engagement. um not only uh will be doing community engagement meetings here,

[2:31:52] we also know that generally um there are um you know populations

[2:31:58] that have historically been disenfranchised and so we also want to

[2:32:01] go into people's neighborhoods so that they don't have to come to us but rather

[2:32:05] we go to them. Um and so uh as part of the strategy, we basically uh took the

[2:32:12] city's census tracks and split the city up into um basically a north side, east

[2:32:18] side, west side, uh and south side. Um obviously uh like you there's a map that

[2:32:24] I created um like that's in our system, but basically it is draw it is drawing

[2:32:30] directly from the census track lines themselves. And so that's why the uh it

[2:32:35] might look a little um funky based on what determines north side, west side,

[2:32:39] east side, south side. It's just, you know, making it easier to organize data,

[2:32:43] but um yeah, basically we'll be going uh we'll be having, you know, the same

[2:32:48] types of meetings uh here in council chambers. We'll be going into the

[2:32:51] neighborhoods um and having that same exact type of meeting. Um on top of

[2:32:57] that, we will also be doing popups at different community events. So, uh, you

[2:33:02] know, potentially Fall River days might be one of the first ones that we do. So,

[2:33:06] we want to make sure that we are actively, um, meeting residents where

[2:33:10] they're at. Um, we do have a draft survey also prepared as well. Um, you

[2:33:16] know, we'll be doing a video series and I already have like transcript for the

[2:33:20] first video. So, um, we'll hopefully have that, uh, in the most rec.

[2:33:26] But uh ultimately um sorry there's a lot of like a community engagement that

[2:33:32] we're doing but um ultimately like we'll be doing a lot of social media

[2:33:35] engagement. We'll have yard signs that we'll have um I don't know how many yard

[2:33:40] signs just yet. that we're going to look at the budget and everything, but we'll

[2:33:43] probably have a QR code to basically link people to that survey or to the

[2:33:46] master plan website where they can get a bunch of information on what is the

[2:33:50] master plan, be able to review our master plan. Um, and have, you know, all

[2:33:55] types of information like where we are in the updating process. Um, so, so

[2:34:01] yeah, there's a lot that's coming. uh it has been very time consuming but um you

[2:34:06] know if there's any uh there's any other types of community engagement that you

[2:34:10] guys like to consider. >> Thank you.

[2:34:18] » Um yes. So,

[2:34:22] I don't I I think when we did the update,

[2:34:27] the contractor was about $50,000 for the update. This is from

[2:34:34] » 2013 or 201 >> No, it was it was 2020.

[2:34:38] » In 2021, we were looking at a potential $50,000 contractor, but then when CO

[2:34:43] hit, we didn't do internally. >> Right.

[2:34:45] » There was no cost. >> Yeah. So, and I remember that. So what

[2:34:50] would change this time where we wouldn't want to do it internally again and we're

[2:34:53] spending $100,000? >> Yeah. So at that point uh we our staff

[2:34:59] is much busier as far as pure applications and zoning text amendments

[2:35:03] and things like that in the office with CO we were able to actually dedicate

[2:35:08] some time when city hall was shut down and actually dig into some of that work.

[2:35:12] We would have never been able to do it if we didn't have COVID um in 2021. uh

[2:35:17] but we had some time and we had staff and so that was the the big reason for

[2:35:21] that. The difference between an a small update just kind of updating census

[2:35:26] figures um and not doing as as robust public engagement as we're doing versus

[2:35:30] what we're doing now it's the public engagement. It's doing a much more

[2:35:34] robust look at what we had and kind of uh helping us formulate new strategies

[2:35:40] based on the public input. >> Okay. So, as far as the deliverables

[2:35:46] [clears throat] besides just the text document, it's going to be some public

[2:35:51] engagement, >> lots of

[2:35:53] » Okay. Um, yeah.

[2:36:03] And you think that it's because of increases to current like zoning text

[2:36:09] amendments that makes it so we can't do it internally? So when when COVID hit

[2:36:16] and a lot of our permit applications kind of dwindled and staff was working

[2:36:21] from home and um we we had a we just had a little bit more time in the office and

[2:36:25] so that's where we're able to be a little bit more creative um and do some

[2:36:28] of the things that we could have not done if we if we would have uh we

[2:36:32] wouldn't have had co um but you know as as staff changes and and as people um

[2:36:39] expand their roles at the point where that happened was happening. The city

[2:36:43] planner wasn't reviewing zoning at that point. The building official was, which

[2:36:47] didn't make any sense because the building official didn't know the zoning

[2:36:50] ordinance. And so that is tacked on a substantial amount to the city planner.

[2:36:54] Um, and so with all of those things, um, there just isn't the time and the place

[2:37:00] for on top of the fact that we do have a grant to pay for half of this.

[2:37:05] » Yeah. >> And costs have gone up substantially

[2:37:07] since 2020. um which is is a bigger part of the the increase.

[2:37:13] » Understood. Yeah. I mean I know that we budgeted for this so it's not like we're

[2:37:18] budgeting outside of what we already budgeted for. However, it's just it's

[2:37:23] basically like a whole staff position. You know the amount of pay we could add

[2:37:28] city staff for it. So it's just something that I think about at least

[2:37:31] going into the future is if we want to increase kind of private consulting

[2:37:36] contracts or if we would like to bring some of these jobs in house so we are

[2:37:40] providing like good paying um public service jobs to the community as well.

[2:37:46] So, um I think you know I would expect a lot to come out of this contract if

[2:37:53] we're going to spend that much um much more than just like the master plan

[2:37:58] document and implementation plan and public engagement but something that um

[2:38:03] would be like lasting for people in the community to be able to

[2:38:08] look at and actually find um that they can track if progress is being made

[2:38:13] instead of just like oh progress has been made up master And I don't know.

[2:38:18] Um, one of the things that I believe definitely needs to be addressed in this

[2:38:22] master plan that wasn't as addressed in the last one is like our current housing

[2:38:26] crisis and homelessness in its state. Um, R1 zoning is also going to be a

[2:38:32] thing that's going to be talked about a lot in the community, I'm sure.

[2:38:35] Anyway, hopefully um, if we're going to spend this money on the contract, we

[2:38:40] will have lots of engagement with council too between um, now whenever

[2:38:43] this is finalized. Definitely. >> Further questions or comments?

[2:38:51] No.

[2:38:56] » Council member McQueen. >> Yes.

[2:38:57] » Council member. >> Yes. Mayor Brown.

[2:39:00] » Yes. >> Council member Fellows.

[2:39:01] » Yes. >> Council member Ch.

[2:39:03] » Yes. >> Motion carries.

[2:39:04] » Thank you so much. Council member Fellows. You have one to eight.

[2:39:10] Resolution [clears throat] resolved by the council of the city of

[2:39:13] Atlanta. Whereas on the October 2018, OHM advisor's parks restroom evaluation

[2:39:17] study documented the renovations required to return the turning point

[2:39:20] city's park restroom facilities to a safe accessible year round public

[2:39:23] service and whereas staff has escalated the study's estimates um to $226 and

[2:39:30] added the Kend King Park facility resulting in a combined estimated

[2:39:33] project cost of approximately $558,000 for the renovation of restroom

[2:39:38] facilities at Park Ridge Park, Ride Park, Prospect Park, and Patty Be

[2:39:43] And whereas modern uh hygienic and accessible park residents are priority

[2:39:47] for improving parks equity and user experience consistent of the city's 2026

[2:39:51] 2030 parks and recreation master plan. Now therefore be it resolved that the

[2:39:56] city council of the city of Muslani approves the park restroom renovation

[2:39:59] project at Park Barker Parkside Parker Park and Canine Park and authorize the

[2:40:03] staff to competitively bid the work be it further resolved that the city

[2:40:09] council approves utilizing funding from CDBG and releasing an RFP for the

[2:40:13] project and I move forward and move by council supported by council member.

[2:40:19] Hello. Um, so to give you a little bit of

[2:40:25] background on how we ended up here back probably six months ago,

[2:40:31] uh, city manager proposed an idea of having self cleaning restrooms in our

[2:40:37] our parks. Uh, and the plan was to go with two of those. Um, and really

[2:40:43] digging into the numbers and we've kind of put those numbers, those estimates in

[2:40:47] this proposal. self cleaning systems, you're looking anywhere 400 to $550,000

[2:40:52] per bathroom, which was pretty exorbitant. And we have $900,000 in CDBG

[2:40:59] funds that we can actually play with. Uh so then city manager tasked me with

[2:41:03] working with the building official who's also a licensed builder to actually look

[2:41:07] at the bathrooms and see really what could we do with what we existing have

[2:41:12] instead of building these kind of placing these new self cleaning systems.

[2:41:16] So we went through and investigated what we had um looked at what OM had done in

[2:41:22] 2018 and then revised it in 2021 um and revised those numbers and we

[2:41:27] realized we could get not just Arbridgeidge Arridge and um

[2:41:33] » awesome >> it was Prospect Riverside we could also

[2:41:36] have Prospect and then and the city manager was like well let's get one in

[2:41:40] each ward so we could have a working bathroom at at our major parks and in

[2:41:44] each ward and there would be two in But that's because Riverside Park is kind of

[2:41:49] for the whole city. Um, so we we looked at it. We we took a deep dive and looked

[2:41:54] at how we could actually escalate the costs and I think uh for the price of

[2:41:59] less than two self thinning systems, we could actually get four older renovated

[2:42:05] bathrooms. Um, the trade-off is a self-cleing bathroom would be less

[2:42:10] annual maintenance whereas a as a renovating his existing bathrooms would

[2:42:18] have more annual maintenance. But in going to what Councilman Fellows uh

[2:42:24] talked about of working with the city manager about potentially in-ousing some

[2:42:28] of the janitorial service, I know you're about to approve a janitorial service

[2:42:32] now, but really trying to bring that in house to actually have somebody

[2:42:35] responsible for maintaining these bathrooms on top of other facilities

[2:42:39] over time because I completely agree. Why outsource something that we could

[2:42:42] actually do uh better and more efficiently in house? And so that's one

[2:42:47] of the things we're looking at. Um, but in doing this one, this was drastically

[2:42:52] different than what the city manager proposed to you. So, I wanted to bring

[2:42:55] this to you before working with CDBG to create the RFP because we had started

[2:43:00] working for the RFP on the self cleaning bathrooms. This is a drastically

[2:43:05] different uh uh proposal, but I do think we could actually get four working

[2:43:10] bathrooms, well, four parks with working bathrooms um more efficiently and with

[2:43:17] less issues because there was issues with the self bathrooms because of the

[2:43:20] CDBG steel requirements which requires all steel to be made in America uh

[2:43:26] without a lot of complicated things. The CDBG pro program is a very labor

[2:43:33] intensive uh bureaucratic process and so uh we can definitely redo four bathrooms

[2:43:41] not be able to help in the maintenance they wouldn't be able to cover the beach

[2:43:44] something but this is probably the cleanest easiest way for us to get

[2:43:48] bathroom

[2:43:54] » Joe when do we think these will all be online best case scenario

[2:43:57] » well a lot of it will have will depend on CDBG environmental review process. My

[2:44:04] hope would be next summer. Um in reality, even if we started today

[2:44:08] because we still got to get this uh to CDBG to help us create the RFP, then

[2:44:14] release the RFP. And while these buildings do exist, some of the work

[2:44:18] cannot happen in the winter. Um but some of it can. And so there there are some

[2:44:23] there are some differences uh there. And so, um, I would say to give a realistic

[2:44:29] goal and not a two months, right? It would be it would be next summer, but

[2:44:35] we're going to be working all the way up until then to get this done due to the

[2:44:38] CDBG requirements.

[2:44:44] » Question.

[2:44:49] » Great. Thank you. Um, [clears throat and cough]

[2:44:54] when I was talking about this with the city manager, um, it sounds like every

[2:44:59] single one of these bathrooms are single stall, like single room.

[2:45:03] » There are two bathrooms at each park with a single stall.

[2:45:08] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[2:45:09] Um,

[2:45:12] and one of the things that, um, I was hoping, I mean, when we discussed

[2:45:19] it back in whenever that resolution passed to fund these, um, we talked

[2:45:24] about seeing the RFP and this, this basically um, triggers the ability for

[2:45:31] staff to make an RFP, but I would still like council to see the RFP before it

[2:45:35] goes out to bid. Um just because like in this new resolution

[2:45:41] it doesn't have some of the things that council had put in the original which

[2:45:46] talks about like um high quality durable materials and um

[2:45:53] drinking fountains with bottle filling stations and um bedet attachments and

[2:45:59] stuff like this. So just like to see what the final form is before it goes

[2:46:04] out to bid. Um >> that's that's completely doable that

[2:46:10] once again and it will you know that's where sometimes you know next summer is

[2:46:16] probably a very realistic thing just because we have to get the RFP created

[2:46:20] and CDBG really does handle I it's funny when we put out an RFP versus something

[2:46:25] just a city project it's 20 to 30 pages when you do a CDBG project it's 200

[2:46:30] pages and so um I think there's there's just a lot of governmental

[2:46:35] is we might be able to actually get you the meat and potatoes of the proposal

[2:46:40] that has everything you're talking about cuz um the vast majority that I don't

[2:46:45] know if we had the bottom flowing stations in there but that's not that

[2:46:49] challenging of a thing to add right um so it's one of those that like we could

[2:46:54] definitely get that do you want to see the entire legally CDBG stuff or do you

[2:46:58] want to see what we're going to be bidding out

[2:47:01] » primarily what we're bidding out and just making sure yeah I mean lot the

[2:47:05] bathrooms are being made today in different parks around us have the

[2:47:11] exterior, you know, exterior drinking problems, the bottles and filling. Um,

[2:47:16] and so I think another part of the RFP I was curious about is if it would if it

[2:47:21] could be flexible enough to include options for demo reconstruct as well

[2:47:27] because there might be some bids out there of people are like we don't know

[2:47:30] if we want to rehab the existing structure but we could do this instead.

[2:47:35] Um, yeah, it's just like another >> and there's one bathroom that we have

[2:47:39] learned is we have some concerns about that's candy cane park just because

[2:47:43] there's some just not they're not that big like even if you were to

[2:47:48] be because of ADA requirements. >> Yeah.

[2:47:51] » Like it's funny. They're probably an ADA and a half bath when you go inside the

[2:47:56] these the these structures, which is is kind of weird because it like you can't

[2:48:01] really put another stall in. uh adequately. Um and so

[2:48:08] I I hear you. Um but they're like too small to have more than one bathroom.

[2:48:13] There's one that is not ADA and it's at uh it's not part of this plan. It's at

[2:48:18] uh

[2:48:23] Peninsula Park and I think there's a little

[2:48:26] » uh urinal in the men's bathroom, but once again that was that that's a

[2:48:31] completely separate one that that we're not going to do. So

[2:48:34] » I think without building brand new, which is going to substantially increase

[2:48:38] the cost uh here, um really getting more than one stall in there is probably

[2:48:44] going to be a little challenge. Oh, I'm not talking about stalls. I I

[2:48:48] mean, I'm a fan of rehabbing existing structures. If we could do it, we can be

[2:48:53] in compliance with ADA and we can add the, you know, drinking fountains, all

[2:48:57] that. Great. Let's, you know, reuse the stuff that we already have. I'm just

[2:49:01] saying that there I could see a situation in which um there are certain

[2:49:06] companies might approach us with a new construction instead of rehab. um and

[2:49:11] that it might be favorable to council depending on like how much it costs and

[2:49:15] whatever else. So, I just don't want to rule it out completely um because I know

[2:49:18] that we were talking about prefab versus rehab versus new construct and so I'm

[2:49:24] just requesting that we leave some room around it. Um

[2:49:29] and I think it would be great to have more than two bathrooms per park, but I

[2:49:34] think at least two makes sense. And if they're single cell, that means they

[2:49:38] could be unisex and that or whatever, you know, their family restrooms.

[2:49:43] » Yeah, there's some like weird things in the building code, but I think we

[2:49:47] there's ways of working around that. It's building code is is written as a

[2:49:52] very um gendered >> it would be best if they were not

[2:49:56] gendered, especially if they're single stall. movie theater.

[2:50:00] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[2:50:01] » Another thing that we Joe and I talked about is to make them ADA accessible.

[2:50:06] There's going to be a need for extension of walkways to the bathroom. So, we've

[2:50:12] been looking at that as well. >> Yeah, I think Prospect is the probably

[2:50:15] the hardest one because there's an ADA path there and there's definitely not an

[2:50:19] ADA path at Candy Pain. However, with some of the play structures, we've

[2:50:23] actually gotten an ADA path closer to that. Oh,

[2:50:29] » but like essentially what we're hoping for out of today is number one, we want

[2:50:33] to go with rehab and potentially replace and we that fact could be added into the

[2:50:37] into the bid. It just um just looking at the cost and talking to

[2:50:42] to Jerry um really the cost to to renovate is usually always

[2:50:48] less expensive. Um but we want to make sure that you're good with this plan. Um

[2:50:54] that our plan is just to renovate what we have. Uh or potentially new and then

[2:50:58] go through the CDBG process uh to get the bid created. But that's not going to

[2:51:03] be a tomorrow thing because it does take ample time and there's only so many CDBG

[2:51:09] staff and all of these parts will be done.

[2:51:13] » 954. So we move forward if we do have move forward. Uh so

[2:51:22] you know with regard to prospect part it it I mean it would be great to have the

[2:51:26] ADA path anyway you know about the bathroom. Um

[2:51:31] most uh yeah just like if can we expect like

[2:51:37] seeing the RFP for after CDBG go through it within the next couple council

[2:51:42] meetings. So it depends on I I will get back to you on that just because uh if

[2:51:48] this gets approved because to see the CDG RFBS to be a that's a lot

[2:51:55] much longer document we might be able to actually fine-tune it and get you

[2:51:59] similar to what this doc is but with just a little bit more detail.

[2:52:03] » That sounds great. Okay. Further

[2:52:09] down >> Mayor Brown.

[2:52:11] » Yes. Council member Phillips. >> Yes.

[2:52:13] » Council member Tusk. >> Yes.

[2:52:15] » Council member McCle. >> Yes.

[2:52:16] » Council member. >> Yes.

[2:52:19] » Thank you. >> Mayor move to extend the meeting until

[2:52:25] 11:00. >> Support.

[2:52:28] » All right. All in favor say I.

[2:52:34] » 10:30. We have a whole another page that says

[2:52:38] to go. >> Yes. Um the council receives you have

[2:52:41] 199. >> Yes. Whereas city of Columbia is a

[2:52:44] member of the Michigan municipal league and their annual convention will be held

[2:52:48] in Traverse City October 7th through the 9th 2026. And whereas the city has

[2:52:52] received a request from MML to designate an official who will be in attendance at

[2:52:57] the convention as our official voting delegate as well as a designate

[2:53:02] as well as designate an alter alternate I'm sorry. Now therefore be it resolved

[2:53:07] by the council of the city of Senny that blank be appointed as voting delegate

[2:53:12] and that blank be appointed as alternate delegate for the Michigan municipal city

[2:53:16] annual convention to be held in Traverse Cities October the 7th through the 9th

[2:53:20] 2026 so

[2:53:27] » if I may um council member King is the only council member who is currently

[2:53:31] registered for the conference >> but they do want us to designate

[2:53:36] on um me would be the voting and then possibly an alternate if we have

[2:53:40] somebody else who would come. >> Okay. I'm sorry. I saw your email

[2:53:46] there. >> Yeah.

[2:53:52] » One thing

[2:54:01] » and then the alternate will be council member Kane.

[2:54:06] That's kind of cool.

[2:54:12] » Do we need to like cuz it wasn't writing

[2:54:21] conversation on Fridays?

[2:54:34] Yes. >> Council member Tus.

[2:54:36] » Yes. >> Council member MC.

[2:54:37] » Yes. >> Council member Ke.

[2:54:39] » Yes. >> Mayor Brown.

[2:54:40] » Yes. >> Motion carries.

[2:54:42] » Wait, who seconded that?

[2:54:49] » Yeah, just so resolution number 2026-200

[2:54:55] resolved by the council of the city of Deleni. Whereas the Frog Island parking

[2:54:58] lot replacement project has been has been awarded and whereas the city

[2:55:03] requires project oversight and construction coordination services and

[2:55:07] has solicited a propo proposal from OM the city's engineer of record. Now

[2:55:12] therefore be it resolved that the city council approves a proposal submitted by

[2:55:17] OM in the amount of $142,825 and be it further resolved that the

[2:55:22] mayor and city clerk are authorized to sign this contract subject to approval

[2:55:25] by the city attorney and that any change orders may be approved by the city

[2:55:30] manager to facilitate completion of this work and I so move

[2:55:34] » by supported by council member.

[2:55:38] » Good evening city. >> Good evening.

[2:55:42] I am if you have any questions

[2:55:50] questions I can add just one thing um that I'm

[2:55:55] sure council's aware of but this is part of the METC funding for infrastructure

[2:55:59] that we received so this would be a good hunk of that.

[2:56:06] » Thank you. which this MBTC funding is specific to reconstruction of Frog Adler

[2:56:13] as well as DVW.

[2:56:20] Um, first I just uh want to up list that the

[2:56:26] comm's team did you know do some outreach to the public or to let them

[2:56:29] know this was happening soon and that there would be some conflict with IC

[2:56:33] pride and I thought that was good communication to give people

[2:56:37] expectations of what to expect. Um I am worried about how that's going to go. um

[2:56:44] if we might have like a plan for busing people or something because there will

[2:56:50] be um much less parking than in than previous years. So we've actually worked

[2:56:55] out with the contractor the lot is going to be open and safe to park in during

[2:57:01] Ipsy Prime. So for the 30th and although they did start on concrete removal I

[2:57:06] believe today I saw a giant truck full of concrete rolled down the road. Um the

[2:57:11] concrete that is most crucial to the success of Ipsy Pride cites associated

[2:57:15] with the ramps around market plaza and at southern end parking lot are to

[2:57:19] remain intact till after pride. Great. Yeah. So we're ensuring accessibility

[2:57:23] the best we can. Rumble of the bumble is going to have more challenges likely.

[2:57:27] However, >> do we know kind of the date to start the

[2:57:30] end? It's approximately middle of October I think is the end and the start

[2:57:34] was yesterday. >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:57:38] » Um yeah.

[2:57:42] Just one other comment is um I heard a lot of feedback about parking in um

[2:57:50] specifically metering and so I know that there's been some discussion about how

[2:57:55] to tackle that for the Long Island lot. I'm just kind of bringing up that there

[2:57:59] probably needs to be more because we got or at least I got a lot more input the

[2:58:04] last few months about different considerations and why we

[2:58:08] might meter and why we might might not. So um it I don't see it as part of this

[2:58:14] plan right now for the reconstruct but I imagine is that something that's being

[2:58:18] integrated at some point. >> So ultimately the plan is to meter it so

[2:58:21] that we can maintain it. >> Is that going to be part of the

[2:58:24] reconstruct? >> Not directly. No.

[2:58:27] » Yeah. But something that will come within within the next month.

[2:58:31] » Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

[2:58:35] Further comments, questions for

[2:58:41] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[2:58:44] » Council member Tusen. >> Yes.

[2:58:46] » Council member McConey. >> Yes.

[2:58:47] » Council member Hay. >> Yes.

[2:58:49] » Mayor Brown. >> Yes.

[2:58:50] » Council member Phelps. >> Yes.

[2:58:51] » Motion carries. Council member of 2011. resolved by the council of visiant

[2:58:58] whereas the profit road bridge design superstructure replacement project will

[2:59:02] be veted through the MDOT local agency program and is programmed for the state

[2:59:05] fiscal year 2028 funding through the neighborhood roads fund and whereas the

[2:59:09] city requires project oversight testing and design services and solicited a

[2:59:14] proposal from OM the city's engineer of record now therefore be resolved that

[2:59:18] the city uh city council approves the proposal submitted by OM in the amount

[2:59:23] of 305,860 60 and be it further resolved that the

[2:59:28] mayor and city clerk are authorized to sign this contract subject to the

[2:59:30] approval of the city attorney and that any changes uh change orders may be

[2:59:34] approved by the city manager to facilitate completion of this work and I

[2:59:37] so move >> by fellow supported by counciloman

[2:59:47] » again would love to answer if you have any questions

[2:59:54] cross bridge.

[3:00:01] Um,

[3:00:05] this one

[3:00:08] I mean one of the things I think I saw was that there was going to be expansion

[3:00:12] of the sidewalks. That sounds great. um

[3:00:18] thing I always want to bring up in any of these major reconstructions or um

[3:00:24] changes to our roadway is non motorized including bike and so I'm wondering like

[3:00:32] what are we doing as far as preparing and thinking about future bike

[3:00:36] infrastructure and how the bridge would be

[3:00:38] » so I believe we're still looking at the feasibility of adding dedicated bike

[3:00:42] lanes or at least space for added bike lines Um the superructure is very dep is

[3:00:47] very wide right now because it is two lanes.

[3:00:50] » Um so I believe that we should have ample space. We're still in the design

[3:00:56] phase though. So I I can't guarantee and one of the things that the planning

[3:01:00] department is actually pursuing in parallel is ensuring that there is

[3:01:04] actually added to the non-motorized transportation plan a provision um that

[3:01:10] uh one of the goals of the city is to approve non motorized transportation on

[3:01:14] all these bridges and significant infrastructure features features because

[3:01:18] that helps us actually secure funding uh from our federal partners to supply

[3:01:23] these things. Um, right now it's a we bit interesting. Um, but it's still a

[3:01:29] good plan for the long term and should help us uh in other bridge replacements

[3:01:34] in the future, which we hope not to have to do on our own for quite some time.

[3:01:38] But, uh, the Michigan Avenue Bridge is coming up under MDOT's perview in

[3:01:43] approximately 2030. So, that is something that we are hoping to

[3:01:49] ensure that they consider their design. As you've noticed, no doubt the

[3:01:53] sidewalks on both sides are rather narrow and if nothing else, we need

[3:01:56] wider sidewalks. >> So, is that meaning that we're probably

[3:02:00] considering going down to one lane each direction? That makes sense to me given

[3:02:05] that seems like the traffic is not impeded now. It's probably less wear and

[3:02:09] tear on the bridge in the long term. And um yeah, that sounds good to me. So, I'm

[3:02:15] just like hoping then there's some like conversation in the design. We want to

[3:02:20] plan for the future. We want to plan for the road shift. We want to see.

[3:02:24] » Thank you.

[3:02:32] Please follow. >> Council member McClean,

[3:02:35] » yes. >> Council member King,

[3:02:37] » yes. >> Mayor Brown,

[3:02:38] » yes. >> Council member Phelps,

[3:02:40] » yes. >> Council member Tusk,

[3:02:41] » yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you. You have two or two.

[3:02:50] resolved by the council of city of whereas proposals were solicited for

[3:02:54] janitorial services for several city facilities and whereas the bid of 59,400

[3:02:59] annually uh submitted by facilities 360 of Ann

[3:03:03] Arbor Michigan meets the specifications is within 5% of the lowest qualified

[3:03:07] bidder subject to the city's level preference guidelines and would best

[3:03:11] service the interests of the city and now therefore be resolved

[3:03:18] That's the city council of the city of epsilenia award 2026 gitorial services

[3:03:23] bid to facilities60 for an annual cost of $59,400 and authorize the city

[3:03:29] manager sign the contract documents and any change order subject to approval by

[3:03:32] the city attorney to complete the board of this contract support.

[3:03:43] » Yes. >> I'm sorry.

[3:03:45] » Okay. Sorry.

[3:03:51] » Again, once more. >> Yes.

[3:03:53] » After 10 10 p.m. on my roll. So, I'm just here if you guys have questions.

[3:03:56] [laughter]

[3:03:59] » Questions for me. >> McDonald's. Uh how come we're changing

[3:04:05] services? >> Uh we have had a lot of feedback from

[3:04:09] stakeholders about the RNA services. It has not been universally good.

[3:04:18] I've also been under contract with them for about five years now. So

[3:04:24] it's time

[3:04:32] Council

[3:04:39] member McCle, >> yes.

[3:04:40] » Council member King, >> yes.

[3:04:42] » Mayor Bren, >> yes.

[3:04:43] » Council member Phillips, >> yes.

[3:04:44] » Council member, >> yes. Motion carries.

[3:04:47] » Thank you. Council member King, you have 203.

[3:04:50] Whereas the city of Islami help helps to host hundreds of events per year both

[3:04:55] public and private in its in its parks and public areas as well as within the

[3:05:01] Islamic pray house. And whereas the special events policy was last

[3:05:06] significantly revised more than 10 years ago. Whereas the city has reviewed the

[3:05:13] policy and made updates to align with the current ordinance and the adopted

[3:05:17] policy goals of the community. Now therefore be resolved that the city of

[3:05:22] city council adopt the special events policy as move by councel king

[3:05:28] » support >> by council member.

[3:05:36] this one. As I said, generally my rule is after 10 p.m. I'm only here to answer

[3:05:40] questions, but I did send you all an email earlier on that compiled some of

[3:05:44] the questions I had been asked uh prior to the meeting uh both at parks and arts

[3:05:48] last night and generally via email from members of council. So, uh one was how

[3:05:54] are the insurance amounts said? Generally, there's on the events of our

[3:05:57] legal council. Uh two, there's a discrepancy between an amount mentioned

[3:06:01] in the text under 5.2 alcohol and in the table, which is correct. The amount of

[3:06:04] the table will cost adoption. Uh that table as well will take precedence

[3:06:10] correct the amount of text. What happened to the capital fee? What was

[3:06:13] it? Um we addressed that earlier on in the larger fee schedule exception. Uh

[3:06:19] the community events policy, it doesn't seem to automatically apply to

[3:06:22] nonprofits. That is an intentional choice. Uh oftent times people who are

[3:06:27] not nonprofits uh help community events. So people who are individuals, Anthony

[3:06:32] Williamson is usually a great example. uh he helps to host things like uh the

[3:06:37] Parkridge Summerfest. He is very active in about at least three different

[3:06:43] organizations that I know of and sometimes he's doing it as an Anthony

[3:06:47] Williamson thing and sometimes he's doing it as men and women working for

[3:06:51] change or part of the Parker Committee or this or the housing commission and

[3:06:56] it's it's fascinating and wonderful and we want to see more in the community. Um

[3:07:01] but we know that other uh individuals actually do step up to help run some

[3:07:06] truly lovely events that bring a lot of vibrancy to our our community. Um so the

[3:07:12] goals that we have intended to reach with the community events uh was to uh

[3:07:19] encourage more events that were open to the public, provided lowcost recreation

[3:07:23] opportunities and to um and vendor fairs that provide market opportunities for

[3:07:28] local artists and artisans. So, nonprofits are sometimes organizers of

[3:07:32] these events, but not always. And nonprofits occasionally hold private or

[3:07:36] semi-private events such as donor appreciation events or employee things

[3:07:40] or uh events that are specifically for their clients. Although we'd love to

[3:07:45] host them in our parks and the freight house, uh we recognize this does not

[3:07:49] always align with the stated intent that we've heard from Council on Parks and

[3:07:53] Arts. So, it's if council wants to open that up, of course, it's your will. Uh

[3:07:59] we're just aligning with what we've heard so far. Uh security deposits, what

[3:08:04] are they meant to cover? They are meant to cover and have been charged when

[3:08:07] there's significant damage like tire rods in the parks or broken pictures and

[3:08:12] frames in the freight house. Um they're meant to cover the cost of site

[3:08:15] restoration or repaired items. Uh security deposits, much like other fees,

[3:08:20] are also forfeit when there's a ruler ordinance broken. Uh the most common

[3:08:24] ones are driving in the park without approval or staking things down where

[3:08:28] they shouldn't be staking things down. The vast majority of the time deposits

[3:08:33] are fully profited. Uh when would these changes take effect?

[3:08:37] We addressed that earlier on. Um yes, generally these fees are a lot

[3:08:43] lower. The aim here was not to cover the entire cost of putting on events for to

[3:08:49] staff and the operational budget. Um but just to cover the direct cost in many

[3:08:56] cases of having a person there to either check on the site beforehand to assist

[3:09:01] with an event uh as it's going on or to check on event afterwards to do the

[3:09:06] direct setup. So we are now attempting to as we have in years past incorporate

[3:09:11] some of the ongoing maintenance costs, the costs of maintaining things like

[3:09:15] barricades, costs of uh maintaining the electric in many of our parks, uh fun

[3:09:21] things like that. So this is generally incorporating only the operational

[3:09:28] costs. Yes, the direct operational costs for

[3:09:33] actually having the event capturing of the maintenance costs. So the things

[3:09:39] like janitorial and whatnot for the non-resident events with the

[3:09:44] understanding that residents are subsidizing the events already through

[3:09:49] the general fund and debts. self. Um hopefully that explains things

[3:09:56] to come into a little bit more depth, but we've heard demand for lower fees

[3:09:59] and we've attempted to accommodate that. Um what is the process if something new

[3:10:05] or weird or cool happens? What happens if exception needs to be made or

[3:10:08] something is done on the fly? So we know that one policy can't anticipate

[3:10:12] absolutely everything uh or every situation. So in section 6.1 we provide

[3:10:18] for usually large and complex events and in section which would include actually

[3:10:22] every new parade. So the only parades that are currently considered under this

[3:10:26] policy are the existing parades or processions the memorial day procession

[3:10:30] and the fourth July parade. These are extremely large and complicated events

[3:10:36] for both the organizers to put on and for us to to help with.

[3:10:41] Um so another parade or similar type of event like a 5K uh that would be

[3:10:47] considered an unusually large or complicated event and that would

[3:10:50] actually come to council for the for your approval. In section 7.4 four which

[3:10:56] is um the chapter or section about community supported events of council

[3:11:01] supported events. Uh we provide for a scope or budget impact changes for city

[3:11:06] partner sponsored events uh that will often require counselor parks and arts

[3:11:11] position review. You are welcome to build in more flexibility if you see

[3:11:16] fit. Uh noise permit. So there is a 2hour

[3:11:21] gap. Uh, you are of course welcome to fill that in as see fit. Either louder

[3:11:27] from 10:00 a.m. to noon or quieter from 10:00 a.m. to noon. And in my email item

[3:11:33] nine, um, I do provide a couple of thoughts.

[3:11:39] Then there are some typos andor inconsistently phrased things. Can those

[3:11:42] be fixed? Yes, this those can be fixed without council specific action. We can

[3:11:46] do things called scrims

[3:11:50] where it doesn't affect the actual policy. We can fill uh errors like

[3:11:56] number of issues and of course yes we will be updating

[3:12:02] questions

[3:12:06] questions.

[3:12:20] Um, page 472, when we get into these

[3:12:25] community events, um, just for clarity, it says like a

[3:12:32] medium event is 250 a day or large event 350 a day, etc. And then it says

[3:12:38] community event 40% discount. Does that mean it's 40% of 250 a day?

[3:12:44] » Okay. >> Or 40% off of that price, I'm sorry. Not

[3:12:48] » Yes. 40% off of that price. >> And then uh the security deposit that's

[3:12:55] listed is the only security deposit. >> Yeah, there's no discount to the

[3:12:58] security. >> Right. Right.

[3:13:00] » Okay, sounds good. Um

[3:13:07] I think you know we had that when we talked

[3:13:11] earlier about this applying to exist existing um

[3:13:18] applicants. Um you suggested that it gets changed.

[3:13:24] So we did have the opportunity to take a look at the pending events. everybody

[3:13:28] that has already signed a contract, they're um they're already at a lower

[3:13:32] rate than this would actually provide. And the people that would benefit from

[3:13:38] lower pricing, uh we've encouraged them not to sign the contract until we see

[3:13:43] what happens to that. >> I do know of one event that is not true

[3:13:47] for >> I would love to look them up,

[3:13:50] » what events for Bread and Puppets on September 30th.

[3:13:56] They're being charged like 4,000 when by this one it would be

[3:14:04] October 2nd. >> Nope.

[3:14:07] » Uh September 30th.

[3:14:18] We did not have a time to go into a full dive as to whether or not something

[3:14:22] would be classified as a community event necessarily under the

[3:14:27] new uh schema. So that's actually a good point.

[3:14:33] Yeah. So I mean that would bring it from $4,000 to 450 plus security deposit. So

[3:14:39] 950. go. Um I do think that the whatever events um

[3:14:47] haven't occurred yet, but people are in contract, they should know of this

[3:14:50] change and they should be able to access this change because it's significant.

[3:14:54] » Yeah. >> Is that okay? You don't have to do

[3:14:59] » the will of council and it would be easier to explain to all applicants if

[3:15:03] there is an actual resolution or something included that I want to that

[3:15:06] isn't that that does not seem like it is a win of step.

[3:15:11] Okay. So, where >> were

[3:15:15] all of these uh contracts signed after the start of the fiscal year or some

[3:15:21] before? >> I would have to look on a case by case

[3:15:24] basis.

[3:15:28] » Sorry, you said that was what date again? I'm sorry. I had to do the two

[3:15:32] factor. >> September 30th.

[3:15:36] Anybody

[3:15:52] know where this resolution is on? What page it's on?

[3:15:56] » I'm using the portal. So number one is it

[3:16:00] » maybe it's 483 special events >> 203.

[3:16:05] Yeah, I mean the portal.

[3:16:10] » It looks like that contract was on the 5th of August.

[3:16:19] » Yeah. So this was helpful. >> Okay. So I will just offer then a

[3:16:25] amendment to the existing resolution that says

[3:16:32] um uh therefore be it resolved that

[3:16:38] uh staff reach out to um

[3:16:43] existing reservations and contracts with special

[3:16:48] events um to so that they aren't

[3:16:53] uh aware of the new policy change and and that uh if applicable that that

[3:16:59] those changes apply to their event

[3:17:05] is that supported by council member Kane

[3:17:11] » discussion on the amendment

[3:17:20] we're going to say something or Um but this portion would be fine or we

[3:17:25] could just provide any applicant with the updated fee structure and say here

[3:17:32] this is what you actually owe now rather than just say we change this just

[3:17:36] say here this is the so just update their existing

[3:17:42] » with the notice >> that would be preferable

[3:17:45] that be way easier um yeah it'll And that's a lot of contracts to review.

[3:17:52] I'll be honest, but we'll check >> that are in this fiscal year.

[3:17:57] » I think was that what you were you were getting at?

[3:17:59] » Well, I was going to say anything that you know

[3:18:05] at the contract prior to the change in the fiscal year because essentially

[3:18:08] those fees would have been the last >> between June 1st was it and now

[3:18:13] » July 1st and now. >> Yeah. Basically in that time period,

[3:18:17] anybody that's signed a contract, they should, you know, this should apply to

[3:18:22] them now. >> Okay. And it's so this would actually be

[3:18:26] specifically for events that may uh may qualify for the reduced community rate

[3:18:34] because that's not something that we check for in in our initial law.

[3:18:40] » So then would the amendment be different from that? That's a

[3:18:47] fellow >> provide all

[3:18:50] events that's scheduled following uh the new fiscal year the updated rate.

[3:18:57] » So any events that signed a contract for pay fees on or after July 1st of this

[3:19:03] calendar year >> we provided the updated

[3:19:09] » right? >> Yeah they can accept that as a friend

[3:19:14] lane. Did you write that down Tracy? >> Yes. You said that

[3:19:20] » this further discuss further discussion please follow.

[3:19:28] » All right. This is to amend the resolution.

[3:19:32] » I thought it was >> uh it was a

[3:19:36] » Oh, I'm sorry. To change the the language

[3:19:40] what we Yeah. [laughter]

[3:19:43] » Mayor Brown. Yes. >> Council member Phillips.

[3:19:45] » Yes. >> Council member Tuska.

[3:19:47] » Yes. >> Council member Mccleley.

[3:19:48] » Yes. >> Council member Q.

[3:19:50] » Yes. >> The amendment carries.

[3:19:51] » Okay. Now we're on the amended schedule policy.

[3:20:03] » Appreciate the work putting into this. Thank you

[3:20:07] and arts commission and many staff today. Thank you. Council member King,

[3:20:14] » yes. >> Mayor Brown,

[3:20:16] » yes. >> Council member Fellows,

[3:20:17] » yes. >> Council member Tusker,

[3:20:18] » yes. >> Council member McCree,

[3:20:20] » yes. >> The amended motion carries.

[3:20:22] » Thank you so much. Uh, Council King 204. >> Quick question about the noise policy,

[3:20:28] the noise permits. Would you prefer to be noisier earlier or quiet or later?

[3:20:35] » Noisy earlier or quieter later? >> It also applies to screen closures.

[3:20:41] There is be your earlier nestled.

[3:20:45] » No. >> So there the adopted noise permit

[3:20:49] policy. Um so events are required I'm going from

[3:20:54] » um to be no more than 76 dB before 10:00 a.m.

[3:21:00] However, after 12 noon they must be below 80 dB.

[3:21:06] So as you know decibel scale is a logarithmic uh progression. And so

[3:21:11] there's actually quite a difference between 76 and 80 in space.

[3:21:15] So we've uh currently effectively there's a 2hour furniture period.

[3:21:22] » Well actually the underlying noise sort of put so it's opposite but it is more

[3:21:27] entertaining.

[3:21:31] » So you're saying do we take the decimal that gap? Do we fill it from the times

[3:21:38] or do we fill it from times [clears throat]

[3:21:46] » whatever?

[3:21:54] » Yeah. >> So I think they've already passed the

[3:21:58] motion that have to be a separate motion. Sorry.

[3:22:02] » You could do that and you did the events policy. Now we're gonna do parks and

[3:22:08] events fees. Why don't we just do that? >> So messy

[3:22:13] part of fees >> is

[3:22:20] by the noise subject. There's no property challenge.

[3:22:27] » So you want to just have someone you don't seem like you like that, but is it

[3:22:32] okay if it's okay? It is our council's council

[3:22:37] » 204. >> Whereas the city has updated its special

[3:22:41] events policy and whereas the policy provides a free framework that offsets

[3:22:46] the city's cost of operations and maintenance related to events held

[3:22:50] within the city. And whereas this policy also describes a new community events

[3:22:56] policy that provides a reduced rate for the certain event conforming to the

[3:23:01] specific criteria. And now therefore it be resolved that the Sandy City Council

[3:23:06] adopts the fee schedule proposed for the park and events fee schedule as proposed

[3:23:12] and attachment A of the adopted policy as

[3:23:16] council.

[3:23:21] And that thing we said about >> Yeah. We want

[3:23:24] » there be it resolved that the noise uh permit thing will be adjusted.

[3:23:31] » Isn't that right? >> Yes.

[3:23:34] » Yep. >> All right. [laughter]

[3:23:36] » So the noise permit policy will um extend the time period for the 76 decel

[3:23:44] permission to be till 12. >> Perfect. and getting back in terms of

[3:23:52] » so more quiet time. So more quiet time. >> Yes,

[3:23:55] » absolutely. >> I wouldn't call it quiet.

[3:23:57] » Well, couldn't >> relatively quiet

[3:24:01] » until the comments or question is is unravel.

[3:24:06] » It is >> from council.

[3:24:11] » Thank you. >> Please call the role.

[3:24:15] Yes, member fellows. Uh, yes. >> Council member Tus.

[3:24:20] » Yes. >> Council member McCle.

[3:24:22] » Yes. >> Council member King.

[3:24:24] » Yes. >> Motion carries.

[3:24:25] » Thank you. Council member King 205. >> Where the city has updated its special

[3:24:32] events policy. And whereas the policy provides a a fee framework that offsets

[3:24:37] the city's cost of operations and maintenance related to events held

[3:24:41] within the city. And whereas this policy also describes a new community events

[3:24:46] policy that provides a reduced rate for certain events conforming

[3:24:51] to specific What am I reading the wrong one?

[3:24:56] » It's the same thing. >> It's the same thing. It says house.

[3:25:01] The policy also describes a new community events policy that provides a

[3:25:05] reduced rate for certain events conforming to specific criteria. And now

[3:25:10] therefore be resolved that the issuing city council adopts a fee schedule

[3:25:15] proposed for the break house fee schedule as proposed in attachment B of

[3:25:20] the adopted policy.

[3:25:23] support

[3:25:31] » and they came in a packet in the first one and so you know I am council member

[3:25:35] you have a question >> thank you mayor yeah so clarification

[3:25:41] is this fee schedule the same as what we just passed the

[3:25:45] » no it's close but it's not the same

[3:25:49] » so which one which one governs. >> This one governs because it's

[3:25:55] » it amends the one we did earlier.

[3:25:58] » Exhibit. >> Y

[3:26:00] » unless you don't pass it. >> Exactly.

[3:26:04] » I got a don't have it in front of me, but I got to see that. So, does it cost

[3:26:11] more? Does it cost less? >> Yes.

[3:26:14] » Exhibit B in the fee schedule. The fee schedule in the um moment

[3:26:23] » the policy. >> Okay. And does it also include the

[3:26:27] amendment last? >> The policy includes that amendment.

[3:26:31] » That amendment dropped it for nonprofits.

[3:26:33] » Yes and no. So the policy that applies to special events is the same as the

[3:26:39] policy that applies in the freight house or community events. So it has to be

[3:26:46] free, open to the public. um if it's a vendor event then it has to meet certain

[3:26:52] thresholds in order to qualify. We did attempt to craft it around existing

[3:26:56] events and as far as residency for the artisans or other vendors we did base

[3:27:03] that on 1978 uh rather than attempt uh

[3:27:11] yeah so let me read that here. So free to attend free to attend open to the

[3:27:18] public if a vendor based event then 60% or more vendors are residents or have a

[3:27:22] regular storefront within the city of the or 80% are within 481 19897 and

[3:27:27] vendors cannot be charged more than 20 an hour to participate

[3:27:32] or aids in one or more of the following community based goals. More access to

[3:27:36] local parts opportunity for local artists increases tourism regional or

[3:27:39] global city prevents a variety of opportunities to the community. I need

[3:27:44] is a offering um and provide who provide certification opportunities. So this is

[3:27:50] intended to encompass the vast majority of things that are currently considered

[3:27:56] as >> there. So

[3:28:00] that I think covers the spirit of what we had tried to carve out last time.

[3:28:08] » Yeah, that was the attempt >> and thank you for that and

[3:28:13] Is it also the case then for those that they would pay 40% of the base?

[3:28:20] » Yes. >> And so if the event organizer and I want

[3:28:25] to say this applies to both parks and the fairy house if the event organizer

[3:28:28] is a resident even if that event organizer is a business. Uh so I've used

[3:28:34] Schultz Outfitters is the perfect example. Um if Schultz outfitters is

[3:28:40] hosting a class either at Riverside Park or in Freigh House, they would be

[3:28:44] charged the resident rate as their base rate because they are historic within

[3:28:49] the city. They are within the city. >> So the car that you've created

[3:28:56] would be considered more expansive than the one that we created last time.

[3:29:02] » Yes. everyone that had been included last

[3:29:05] time would also be subsumed in this and then there would be additional

[3:29:09] » except for the the cases where we have nonprofits that have a private event. So

[3:29:13] that usually happens when they have a fundraiser event or donor appreciation

[3:29:19] something like that.

[3:29:26] So community event would have $150 an hour, 40% of that and then they would

[3:29:31] have the application fee and the security

[3:29:36] that would be a

[3:29:40] question for Bonnie.

[3:29:45] » Is application fees the same across all event applications?

[3:29:51] » They scale up with the complexity of the event. So something simple like a if I'm

[3:29:58] uh attempting to rent a pavilion, uh it's very straightforward. I believe

[3:30:02] that's a $10 uh dollar application fee for the pavilions that do not have

[3:30:08] power. And it is slightly more pavilions that do have power because there's

[3:30:11] usually back and forth about how much power is there, where is the power, what

[3:30:16] can you do with power, do you really want that power, do you want this power,

[3:30:19] uh when do you want to turn, all of that fun stuff. And then we also have to

[3:30:23] check it to make sure it's actually optional. So there's more that goes into

[3:30:26] that. Um and then the application fee then goes

[3:30:32] up for these the events. So that is um ones where there's more than 50 people

[3:30:38] expected. So that is beyond a simple pavilion uh or field or amphitheater

[3:30:43] rental. So that's when you're open to the public expecting more than 50

[3:30:47] people. Um that goes up to a $100 application fee in the parks and then

[3:30:53] the application fee for the uh great house is almost $100. And that

[3:31:00] reflects the amount of staff time and effort that goes into the application

[3:31:04] process, making sure that people are getting what they need, that they

[3:31:07] understand what is uh required of them and what we do provide. over time with

[3:31:13] this new policy that is quite a bit more clear that may actually go down. But

[3:31:18] there are events that are very straightforward. They know what they

[3:31:21] want and bing bang boom, easy peasy. But there's also events for you to have

[3:31:26] maybe a first time event organizer. Um, thanks

[3:31:52] from uh noon to 6. And so walking them through all of the requirements of that

[3:31:58] is sometimes very easy and other times very challenging. So this is intended to

[3:32:03] reflect the disperate effort in those events and scales of those events.

[3:32:18] Question

[3:32:31] member Phillips. >> Yes.

[3:32:33] » Mayor Brown. >> Yes.

[3:32:34] » Council member Mle. Yes. Council member. >> Council member.

[3:32:42] Motion carries. >> Thank you.

[3:32:45] Gio 206.

[3:32:49] » I'm very sorry. >> So I misspoke when we spoke about

[3:32:52] community events in the freight house. I apologize. I have a headache this

[3:32:56] evening. So the entire building is not a black point discount. It is $150 per

[3:33:03] hour. Um, so

[3:33:08] weekend per hour for days. So that is not the

[3:33:14] 40% discount. It's a actually a little bit more for weekdays. Um, to

[3:33:20] incentivize those weekday events a little bit more. It is a

[3:33:24] check here.

[3:33:30] It's exactly 40% discount actually on the weekends. So, but it applies equally

[3:33:36] to resident economics.

[3:33:42] » Yeah. >> If I heard correctly, that just doubled

[3:33:45] what I think >> this is.

[3:33:49] So this is exactly 40% of

[3:33:56] this resident rate and this is more than 40% off of the resident grant but it

[3:34:02] applies to both resident and non-resident but this community event is

[3:34:05] its own category. It's in parks where community event is not its own category

[3:34:11] and it's 80 40% discount. So it's a better deal

[3:34:15] for the great 40% final 40% discount on this.

[3:34:22] » 40% discount though. It's not a 40% discount. It was 40% of the 200. That

[3:34:28] was the original the original fech schedule for

[3:34:35] that we had talked about. >> Correct. So this one

[3:34:38] » $200 carve out gave it to them 40% of that which took 200 to 80. If I hear

[3:34:45] what you're saying now, it's been taken from 80 to 150. It's just double

[3:34:53] » but yeah, slightly less than double, but it is significantly more

[3:34:57] » points.

[3:35:02] Reconsider.

[3:35:06] » I've never done >> just move to reconsider. He's on the

[3:35:10] prevailing side. So if anybody >> support

[3:35:13] » Yeah, support. All right, we move in support to recons the vote on that.

[3:35:18] Okay, >> so it's you support by council member

[3:35:21] Tus. Thank you. Please follow the consideration.

[3:35:25] » Council member Tusen. >> Yes.

[3:35:27] » Council member Mley. >> Yes.

[3:35:28] » Council member King. >> And this is just to have a conversation,

[3:35:31] but I know it's no questions. I guess I just say yes.

[3:35:34] » You're correct. >> Mayor Brown.

[3:35:37] » Yes. >> Council member Phelips.

[3:35:39] » Yes. >> We will now reconsider the motion.

[3:35:41] » All right. Thank you. Okay. So, it's back on the table.

[3:35:46] Um, as I was that I was like, "Yep,

[3:35:52] » yeah, this this is fairly tricky." Um, I mean, my goal is

[3:36:00] is to create no one who was a net loser from what we thought we passed.

[3:36:08] What? Two weeks ago, three weeks ago, whenever we last voted,

[3:36:12] U and for that carve out group

[3:36:17] it was 40% of $200.

[3:36:22] That makes that's $80.

[3:36:27] » Nobody signed at that rate. >> I'm sorry.

[3:36:30] » Nobody has signed at that rate. >> We're waiting for the rate to come

[3:36:33] through. >> So that rate went into effect on pass

[3:36:38] that >> we didn't pass it. There was no there

[3:36:40] was amendment to something that we could pass

[3:36:44] back

[3:36:51] » but this was this information in the packet.

[3:36:56] » Yeah. What's being discussed? >> So it was the fee schedule was never

[3:37:02] passed the 40% would have been on the old fe structure what that was.

[3:37:08] But if the intent is to have that be 40% of 15 is that is the intent to be. So

[3:37:17] our baseline cost to have somebody staff the freight house to ensure that it is

[3:37:23] open is around $35 an hour. Um and actually more than

[3:37:30] that. So that's just straight up staff cost them about $20 an hour plus

[3:37:36] etc. So >> payers

[3:37:40] » well it's either >> Yeah.

[3:37:46] » Yeah. >> You know rough a rough would be to

[3:37:51] modify that 150 by by 50%.

[3:37:56] We're just slow%.

[3:38:09] » I I don't think my question was directly about that. It was about was why is it

[3:38:13] the same for resident and non-resident? That is one of my question.

[3:38:19] » It's not >> it's not one is resident city employee

[3:38:23] and the last role is non-resident. And then there's three different

[3:38:28] » the security deposits are the same though.

[3:38:31] » So the first >> So which one should I be living on? I

[3:38:34] have it printed out. I just want to look at it because I thought when you went

[3:38:38] over there that's what you said. >> Page 474.

[3:38:41] So

[3:38:54] » the previous

[3:39:07] » And it was based on but it was based on a bigger number, right?$200.

[3:39:11] at that time, but >> it was

[3:39:14] » so that you pay.

[3:39:28] » Yeah, they want you to go back and >> she was just doing it over there. Yeah.

[3:39:38] » Okay. What is the outcome that we're looking for?

[3:39:41] » So, if the intent is that you want them to pay

[3:39:44] » $80 >> 40% discount, was it a 40% discount or

[3:39:48] you want to pay $80? >> It was it was $80.

[3:39:52] Just say that >> 80. And could [clears throat] the

[3:39:55] community events would be for any one means a community event doesn't matter

[3:40:01] if they're resident or not. So, Yep. And so, as long as it aligns with community

[3:40:05] of the policy as previously stated.

[3:40:10] » So I move that the 150 be modified to eight supported

[3:40:17] by council member. Might I suggest also so the 80 is the

[3:40:23] weekend rate. If you would like to review the day rate

[3:40:27] as well that is 75 per events.

[3:40:34] So there's not a huge difference between the two right now.

[3:40:42] » I don't want I don't want to confuse things. So

[3:40:45] » okay, we're >> already confused.

[3:40:47] » Yeah. So the motion is just to decrease community events for the entire building

[3:40:54] weekend from 150 to $8, >> right?

[3:40:58] » Per hour, right? >> Okay. Council follows for the amendment

[3:41:04] or you guys have >> uh I mean I was just going to bring up

[3:41:07] that is two separate categories. Um and by reducing the rate um I do

[3:41:15] understand the incentivizing weekdays versus weekends. And so

[3:41:22] I don't know, I could imagine it being like $100 for weekend

[3:41:27] or $100 an hour for weekend booking and 75 for weekday.

[3:41:32] But yeah, either of these months are fine

[3:41:37] with me. >> Because right now it would be at 90

[3:41:42] which is only about $10 more. >> No, it would be at 150.

[3:41:48] It's currently at 150. >> No, I have it right here. So, it's 150,

[3:41:54] » but I thought it Well, where are we getting the minus 40% from?

[3:41:58] » So, that's not that was just what was brought up in the last meeting as um the

[3:42:02] request, but now the the amendment is to just move that 150 to $80 an hour.

[3:42:09] » And so, that would make it only $5 more than what it is from weekday to week.

[3:42:14] Right. And that is sensitive modification.

[3:42:20] » Mayor, I have no objection to to somebody modifying the $75.

[3:42:25] » There is there is >> it's a community event. There is it does

[3:42:30] incentivize resident and employee and then non-resident. So if we're looking

[3:42:36] at the community event, yeah, it's $5 cheaper, but

[3:42:41] lot of community events on weekdays. So we want to direct more community events

[3:42:47] to the weekdays to see more utilization of great house overall and more foot

[3:42:52] traffic into town as well.

[3:42:57] » Well, but I still think 75 is still a good rate to incentivize someone who was

[3:43:04] afraid officer. I mean, I don't think that

[3:43:07] » Yeah, I don't think that would be deter folks. I think this is that would

[3:43:11] make it Yeah.

[3:43:15] Sorry. >> I want to make sure that you guys get

[3:43:20] what you want in one shot preferably so we never have to see each other again.

[3:43:27] » Maybe not quite so. >> So, we have an amendment on the floor.

[3:43:31] It's about weekends only um to move it to $80. Is there further discussion on

[3:43:36] the amendment? Council member Fellows. I guess my question is just for like why

[3:43:40] $80? Why not like $100?

[3:43:47] » My answer. >> Yes, of course.

[3:43:49] » Because what we passed last time was 40% of 200 equals 80. That's exactly where

[3:43:55] the 80 comes from. As I remember it, it was 40% off. So,

[3:44:03] I have it actually.

[3:44:11] Okay.

[3:44:23] For me, I'm also looking at it as 150 and the weekday is half of that 75.

[3:44:32] So to drop that to 80 again, Bonnie spoke about how much per hour

[3:44:39] we pay someone to be in a building. How would how would that look if we

[3:44:45] drive it to 80? And I do think I don't know. I think 80

[3:44:50] is too low for the for the weekend. That's one of our prime spaces here in

[3:44:56] the city.

[3:44:59] And I mean, I think the other part to consider is that it's only for the

[3:45:03] community events, not for the other two, >> right?

[3:45:06] » Um groups of uses. Uh, and so it would have to meet those

[3:45:11] criteria for it to be considered in community event. So that already kind of

[3:45:14] wields it down to what it it could be. Um, I am fine with somewhere between 80

[3:45:21] and $100. I I can't make any notions. I think um when I was looking at this

[3:45:27] initially and I saw you know that the weekdays were half of the weekends, I

[3:45:31] felt like a a greater um you know range between the two did

[3:45:38] incentivize the I get um incentivize it a little bit more. Um but I am not I I

[3:45:45] don't want to fight about this. I think that we want people to use the freight

[3:45:48] house. We want these events to happen and as long as we are covering the cause

[3:45:51] of what it requires to open the doors, I think that is enough for me.

[3:45:57] We have an amendment on the floor. So,

[3:46:02] » is that enough? Was that enough or is that only the $35? Is that the cost?

[3:46:08] That is the absolute hard floor at which we

[3:46:14] should not go in for that covers just the cost of somebody being open

[3:46:21] and to uh attend the event and be available in case

[3:46:26] » because they're at the event the entire time.

[3:46:29] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[3:46:31] » So I would say I would adjust it to 100 at least.

[3:46:34] » Well, we have an amendment on the board right now for 80. So we need to

[3:46:39] vote on that. >> Would you consider changements at 100?

[3:46:44] » Okay. So then we'll we'll call the RO >> on the amendment.

[3:46:50] » Yes. On the amendment for $80 a month. >> Council member McCle.

[3:46:54] » Yes. >> Council member King.

[3:46:56] » No. >> Mayor Brown.

[3:47:01] » Yes. >> Council member Fellows.

[3:47:04] » Yes. >> Council member Tusa. Yes,

[3:47:07] » the motion the amendment carries. >> Okay, so we are on the amended schedule

[3:47:12] again.

[3:47:16] » Further discussion on this is now attempted.

[3:47:20] » Thank you. >> Quick question.

[3:47:23] » It's the same question. >> What's the same question?

[3:47:28] » So it just depends on the event and nobody can't technically answer because

[3:47:32] it depends on how long the event is. So if the event is longer than four hours,

[3:47:38] the fee will not even cover that employee.

[3:47:42] » 75 per hour. An hour. Okay. Okay. >> Per hour. So yeah, it'll be covered.

[3:47:47] » It'll be >> So again, I do want to emphasize we're

[3:47:52] not really covering a lot of our maintenance costs. We're not covering

[3:47:55] our capital costs, but we are covering the absolute direct operational costs.

[3:48:03] Just just to clarify, so as that is an hourly rate, so somebody that rents the

[3:48:10] the freight house for 10 hours, pay $800.

[3:48:12] » Yes. >> Not a small fee.

[3:48:13] » No, not at all.

[3:48:17] » Okay. Anything further [clears throat] from council?

[3:48:22] Who's call?

[3:48:26] » Mayor Brown. >> Yes.

[3:48:28] » Council member Fellows. >> Yes. Council member Tusen,

[3:48:31] » yes. >> Council member McClean,

[3:48:32] » yes. >> Council member King,

[3:48:35] » yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you.

[3:48:38] » Um, it is 1051.

[3:48:49] » All right.

[3:48:52] » All right. Okay. Resolved by the council of the city of Salani. Whereas the city

[3:48:56] awarded a contract to OHM for professional engineering services. The

[3:49:00] payment or construction of Cornell Road Avenue to Bor Trail just south of Mahu.

[3:49:05] And whereas after soliciting neighbor feedback, the city wishes to amend the

[3:49:08] design to include roundabouts. Now therefore be it resolved that the city

[3:49:12] of Saleni city council approves an amendment to the contract with OM to add

[3:49:16] additional design survey and permitting services in the not to exceed amount of

[3:49:21] 38,200 bringing the new total to 278760.

[3:49:27] Um be further resolved that the mayor and city clerk are authorized to sign

[3:49:30] this contract. The amendment is subject to the approval of the city youth

[3:49:33] attorney and any changes change orders may be approved by the city manager to

[3:49:37] facilitate completion of this work and I >> support

[3:49:46] roundabouts is perhaps a misnomer and I apologize for that. Technically traffic

[3:49:51] circles would be exactly the same. TV time,

[3:49:55] the typical teeny tiny. So, it's not going to be at the scale that you think

[3:49:58] of when you think about roundabouts. Um, you may or may not think of them like

[3:50:03] what you see up at Gettys Superior or at state andor. These are single lane uh

[3:50:09] traffic circles uh that you may see more have seen over in neighborhoods in Ann

[3:50:14] Arbor. Um they are intended to calm traffic and to facilitate traffic. So uh

[3:50:22] these would be in lie of stop signs at several intersections but they do

[3:50:27] overall have a significant effect upon how

[3:50:32] traffic and compliance with speed limits. They do also serve to define the

[3:50:37] amber as far as a maintenance and operational uh impact. they do have

[3:50:46] uh

[3:50:49] I don't want to say a positive impact upon maintenance because of course any

[3:50:52] additional or different infrastructure does require more maintenance but in

[3:50:56] scale of things from uh no intervention to

[3:51:02] not throwing absolutely everything in the book including speed home speed

[3:51:06] tables and uh bumpouts these are a lot easier to work around and through for

[3:51:12] things like snow removal and even for salt water because they work with the

[3:51:17] natural crown of the road.

[3:51:28] Um, it it seems like we might run out of

[3:51:32] time before you voting on this, which um I was actually probably going to suggest

[3:51:40] we table this anyway because um I've been getting a lot of feedback

[3:51:46] from residents on Cornell uh who were really not satisfied with

[3:51:52] the public input session. Um, unfortunately, uh, I've been told by

[3:51:59] more than a few people that they felt unheard by staff. Um,

[3:52:04] and so I think we need another input session

[3:52:08] um to for me to feel like any sort of plan moving forward would

[3:52:15] make sense because I just got such negative feedback about it. And

[3:52:21] I am wondering about the traffic circle idea. It seems kind of unconventional

[3:52:27] for a residential neighborhood. So it's actually pretty popular right now. Um

[3:52:32] there are lots and lots of Ann Arbor. We're seeing more of them in Pittsfield

[3:52:35] Township and even road commission roads. Um so it would be brand new in its but

[3:52:41] they're not new and they are broadly accepted in

[3:52:46] other factories as well. I'm not saying I'm full I can be convinced. I'm just

[3:52:51] like it is new. And I I did hear one resident ask for traffic circles, but

[3:52:58] that was just resident. Most residents I was hearing from want more um access to

[3:53:06] cross Cornell Street. So like better pedestrian

[3:53:09] access. Um especially with the you know some of the crosswalks are not visually

[3:53:16] safe because of the hill. >> Yeah.

[3:53:18] » Um yeah so we are um all concepts included an improved crossing at

[3:53:24] Whitmire uh for Whitmire I should say but it's a little bit up the hill from

[3:53:28] Whitmire proper to address some of those visual concerns and then it's a raised

[3:53:32] crosswalk as well. Yeah, it came up just to um just to point out that through our

[3:53:38] federal funding, we have to have another public meeting for roundabouts

[3:53:42] specifically. So, that has to be done or else MDOT won't even permit us or draw

[3:53:47] too big for this. So, we did um budget that we're going to have some public

[3:53:51] input to specifically for a roundabout, not about not even about traffic homing

[3:53:56] or anything else, but if you're proposing a roundabout, but getting

[3:53:59] these LAP funds, you have to do that. So, I just wanted to point that

[3:54:06] » because they they can be squirrely, you know, they're they're new, so

[3:54:10] » polarizing. >> Yes.

[3:54:12] » Yes.

[3:54:17] discussion.

[3:54:23] » I mean, I would propose that this waits until we get another public input

[3:54:28] that's not just specifically about the roundabout, but um that there's a little

[3:54:33] bit more outreach to residents so that because it's going to be a major

[3:54:38] project, full reconstruct, right? So, >> if we want to do it in 2027, we should

[3:54:43] proceed. >> Um, I'm not going to operate under

[3:54:47] urgency like that. I think there's enough um negative input from residents

[3:54:51] that we should take it seriously and I'm sorry to bring that news, but you know,

[3:54:55] I can miss this neighborhood very heavily. So, I know pretty well like the

[3:54:59] level of dissatisfaction that's going on. So, and you propose that we um visit

[3:55:04] this for next meeting uh so we can get input session

[3:55:14] motion. >> Yeah, I move to do that.

[3:55:25] » Okay, I support I need a I have a question.

[3:55:30] the table that there is no

[3:55:36] » right. Council member Fellows.

[3:55:40] » Yes. >> Council member Tusen.

[3:55:42] » No. >> Council member McClean.

[3:55:44] » No. >> Council member King.

[3:55:50] » Okay. >> Mayor Brown.

[3:55:53] » No. >> Council member King.

[3:55:57] No.

[3:56:01] » Will that table go?

[3:56:07] » Further discussion. All right. Please call the rules.

[3:56:13] » Mayor R. >> Yes.

[3:56:14] » Council member Fels, >> no.

[3:56:16] » Council member Tusson, >> yes.

[3:56:18] » Council member McCree, >> yes.

[3:56:19] » Council member King, >> yes.

[3:56:22] » Motion carries. >> Thank you.

[3:56:25] » There does need to be more in to extend

[3:56:29] » 11:15.

[3:56:35] » If you're going to do it, please do it. >> All in favor till 11:15.

[3:56:43] » All in favor?

[3:56:48] I >> Okay.

[3:56:58] by the council of city of SL where underground storage tanks US at both the

[3:57:02] public works and the fire department fueling stations are experiencing vapor

[3:57:05] lock when employees are trying to refuel vehicles and whereas the industry

[3:57:08] standard solution is hurting the suction system to a submersible turbine pump and

[3:57:14] the vapor locking issue does not occur with submersible turbine pumps. Whereas

[3:57:18] the city's fuel management and monitoring equipment is in need of

[3:57:20] upgrades which would optimize efficiency and accuracy in fuel management tracking

[3:57:24] and reporting. Now therefore we have resolved that the city of landing city

[3:57:28] council awards contract for underground storage tank pump conversion and

[3:57:32] upgrades to the key reader at DEW and upgrading the DW fired beater root

[3:57:38] monitoring systems to RW first serve in the total amount of 73,638

[3:57:45] » support.

[3:57:51] So point of personalization I don't feel well so I'm going to leave. Does that do

[3:57:55] we have a form? Okay fine

[3:58:05] questions from council advice.

[3:58:14] Okay. Follow up, please.

[3:58:18] » Council member McClean, >> yes.

[3:58:20] » Council member King, >> yes.

[3:58:23] » Mayor Bre, >> yes.

[3:58:24] » Council member Tus, >> yes.

[3:58:26] » Motion carries. >> Thank you, Council King. 208.

[3:58:41] » I'll be back. Oh, you can't. >> Yeah.

[3:58:48] » Yeah. Might we have a recess for one minute?

[3:58:57] » Two minutes.

[3:59:00] » Stretch these last week. Those

[3:59:05] statements receive the next meeting.

[4:01:08] We're back. Okay. >> Um, council member King.

[4:01:18] » Okay. So, we are accepting and filing the appeal of Alex Alexander Monroe

[4:01:24] today. I'm >> support

[4:01:31] accepting the appeal acknowledging its receipt and then

[4:01:35] » uh formal motion regarding PQR will be >> ruled upon at the next meeting.

[4:01:41] » Okay. Is that good? Because you said that you have a microphone.

[4:01:45] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[4:01:46] » All right. >> So we accept

[4:01:48] a ruling will happen for the following meeting. The next meeting. Okay. Thank

[4:01:52] you. >> Just get the next agenda.

[4:01:54] » All right. Thank you so much. Um, >> fireworks.

[4:01:58] » How's my thing? You have our last resolution.

[4:02:01] » See, I have two of them here based on I have 191 and 192. Which one would you

[4:02:06] like me to read first? >> Uh, 191.

[4:02:10] » Okay. >> Right. Yes.

[4:02:12] » Is that right? >> All right. Whereas the city of Italy has

[4:02:17] received a request from Ace Pyro LLC for a pyroch permit for fireworks displays

[4:02:21] on August 29th, September 4th or 26th, October [clears throat] 17th and 24th,

[4:02:28] 2026 said right here stadium 799 North Road, Eastern Michigan University and

[4:02:34] where the fire department will require certain inspections. Now therefore be

[4:02:37] resolved by the council city of SL that the pyro technic permit is approved for

[4:02:41] ace pyro LLC subject to approval by the fire department. So

[4:02:45] » support by council member Clint supported by council member two.

[4:02:50] Um we have uh Chris Pavas here from Pyro. That's

[4:02:55] » hi Chris. Thank so late. Sorry. >> Good evening. I get it. I get it.

[4:03:01] » I it was pulled off for a couple of u I think questions. Um, I we get this every

[4:03:08] year. Uh, so I don't know if we need a a lean in right now, but I do have a

[4:03:13] question about the highlighted quote at the top. Can you just explain when it

[4:03:18] says EMU has removed the audible effect fireworks for their football games? What

[4:03:22] does that mean? The audible enhanced effect is um formerly we had a what we

[4:03:29] call in the firework industry a salute go off with each touchdown uh at the

[4:03:34] direction of EMU and concern last uh over the past years from city council.

[4:03:39] We decided to remove that aerial salute. So now after each touchdown uh there

[4:03:45] would only be what's called a mine where it's just um sparks that shoot up from

[4:03:50] the ground. Uh it is still considered a firework uh but it is more of a whoosh

[4:03:55] noise versus your typical uh just salute in the sky.

[4:04:01] » Okay. >> Is that um

[4:04:05] the the cannon? Does that still happen? >> We are not

[4:04:11] » Yeah, we're not affiliated with the cannon. Uh I do have Will Stitilus. I

[4:04:15] think he's on uh from the university. He's the assistant athletic director for

[4:04:19] marketing. So if he's if he's here, he could speak to that.

[4:04:23] » Oh, okay. Thank you. >> Hi, Will.

[4:04:27] » Hello everyone. All right, here on the call.

[4:04:30] » Thanks for hanging out so late. >> No problem. Apprec appreciate you guys'

[4:04:34] time. >> Um,

[4:04:37] » as it relates to the Cannon, that is something that is a related to like our

[4:04:41] ROC program and is a tradition on game days. Uh typically it's fired off after

[4:04:46] touchdowns, but uh obviously with the timing of our games, it runs a little

[4:04:51] bit, but we are conscientious and we do note the 10 o'clock time frame that we

[4:04:55] do work with on that and make sure that is communicated to all parties related

[4:04:58] to games. >> And yes, I wasn't saying it to say I was

[4:05:02] against I just wanted to clarify the difference between the the pyro and the

[4:05:06] » Yep. Yeah, those are two separate entities.

[4:05:14] Thank you, mayor. Yeah, and for the for those staying with us uh on the line, I

[4:05:20] appreciate you doing that. Um no, I'm the one that pulled this off of the

[4:05:25] consent agenda. Um, and I would say independent of this particular item on

[4:05:32] the agenda, uh, I have received repeatedly

[4:05:36] questions, comments, pleadings from, um, members of the community, uh, all of

[4:05:43] them coming from College Heights, um, who have made

[4:05:48] broader, uh, points about the amount of noise, uh, the decel level. Um, I think

[4:05:56] it also the carrying that some may have something to do with all the um

[4:06:03] trees that have been masquered by DTE. Um,

[4:06:08] but there's there's some real concerns and and my interest is I hope that

[4:06:16] having this conversation spark of dialogue with the community about

[4:06:23] how late we do things, uh, how often we do things, uh, that make a lot of noise

[4:06:29] and that scare pets and that keep people from being able to put their kids to

[4:06:34] bed. and uh and generally make it difficult uh for those also veterans. Um

[4:06:41] I've had broader other conversations about fireworks in general um and

[4:06:46] continue to hear people uh who just don't like them and and the noise is the

[4:06:52] main the main issue. So, as I told the mayor, I I'm not looking to rain on

[4:06:59] anybody's parade here. not looking to uh not have this happen this year. Um I had

[4:07:07] planned to vote no just simply to send that message and uh and ask that that be

[4:07:14] a catalyst for a discussion. Um we've lost uh one of our members here a few

[4:07:20] minutes ago. So with that, if I were to vote no uh then

[4:07:28] these measures would fail. Um, and that's that's not what I'm trying to do.

[4:07:32] So, I'm going to go ahead and support uh these two items. Uh, but I'm just I'm

[4:07:38] hoping uh especially for our friends at EMU um that you would take the good

[4:07:45] faith effort to have a conversation u with us with the community um and just

[4:07:50] talk about what we might do uh to make it a little bit more more livable and

[4:07:55] maybe look at the technological fixes that that might create some barriers uh

[4:08:00] that would mitigate the the impact of some other noise.

[4:08:05] I mean I'm happy to participate in any conversation or help to bridge whatever

[4:08:10] is necessarily by multiple

[4:08:15] to the university. So um okay anything further

[4:08:20] call the vote please. >> Council member

[4:08:23] » yes mayor Brown. >> Yes.

[4:08:24] » Council member Tus. >> Yes.

[4:08:26] » Council member McCree. >> Yes.

[4:08:28] » Motion carries. >> Um so what is the second one? Cuz I only

[4:08:32] have one that was on the agenda. So if I may, my apologies. Um

[4:08:37] the sorry um Chris had asked that these be two separate because one was the

[4:08:42] normal one that they have done before and this is an additional event that

[4:08:47] they want to do after um the homecoming date. But

[4:08:51] » oh >> Chris can explain that more.

[4:08:53] » Okay. Well, it's 11:11. I don't I I think we need I think we need more than

[4:08:57] four minutes. >> I do.

[4:09:02] » All right. Right. I don't know. So, okay.

[4:09:05] » Okay. >> No, it's not on the table yet.

[4:09:09] » Okay. No, I'm I don't know. Go ahead. It's not on the table yet. So, you

[4:09:14] » resolution 192. Where is city of received request M LC for additional

[4:09:18] fire tech permit for an additional firework play at the conclusion of the

[4:09:21] game on September 4th stadium 799 North Eastern Michigan University. Whereas

[4:09:25] fire department will require certain inspections now therefore be resolved

[4:09:27] with council cities. Perfect is approved by see by

[4:09:34] » support >> supported. Hello again.

[4:09:37] » Hello

[4:09:41] » in two minutes. >> I I don't know what Okay, this is for

[4:09:45] after the game. There's nothing else that we're supposed to hear about.

[4:09:49] You want to explain what this is? >> Yeah. Uh and Will can chime in at any

[4:09:53] point. This is for aerial display after the game. That'll be taking place by the

[4:09:57] inter mural the intramural fields. Uh they uh requested ACE to do this to

[4:10:03] enhance the um the entertainment package for the game. Um so postgame uh

[4:10:09] 10-minute firework display. Um again these are traditional professional

[4:10:15] display fireworks. Um, and we have opted to not use anything that just goes up

[4:10:21] and bangs and has no visual effect. Um, just out of respect since that's a noise

[4:10:28] maker and we're trying to keep that out of the city. [snorts]

[4:10:34] » No salutes. >> No salutes. Got it.

[4:10:37] » Anything from council? >> No.

[4:10:42] » Mayor Brown. >> Yes.

[4:10:44] » Council member Tus. >> Yes. Council member MC.

[4:10:47] » Council member King. >> Motion.

[4:10:50] » Thank you. >> Thank you, council.

[4:10:53] » Thank you. >> Anything pressing for council?

[4:10:56] » No. >> Council member.

[4:11:00] » I mean, no, we don't have enough time, but I do have a list.

[4:11:04] As I >> uh anything I mean, we got two minutes

[4:11:08] on Muslim. >> All right. Um I Okay, I'll bring

[4:11:12] something in the last few minutes. Then I'll get point privileges from there. Um

[4:11:16] the communication we got from embracing our differences about the destruction of

[4:11:20] the fortress in Riverside Park. I don't know if you saw that. I got an email

[4:11:24] from Nancy Margolas as well as one from Amanda Maymore about this and concerns

[4:11:28] about not being able to continue using Riverside as the display. I do not want

[4:11:32] to see that happen. So I we I I'll forward you what I got. I thought you

[4:11:35] were CCed on there so we can talk about it. um because how can we support

[4:11:39] keeping them in the in the park. It's been such a wonderful addition over the

[4:11:43] the years. And I'm not exactly sure what happened and and when. Um but definitely

[4:11:49] something that I I want us to look into and you know see what's happened down at

[4:11:52] Riverside because that's really upsetting you know like I mean and

[4:11:56] apparently the portraits like some of them are like destroyed pieces of them

[4:12:00] are tape on top of the actual um structure that holds them up. Um, and I

[4:12:06] plan to reach out to uh Nancy tomorrow to to find out more. Today just got

[4:12:11] away. It was so busy today. >> 11:15.

[4:12:16] » Good night. >> Good night.

[4:12:21] » Sign off these things.

City Council Meeting - August 18, 2026

Transcript