[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.