Uh first item of business is a resolution approving approving a request from that early bird LLC for development of a liquor license a district list liquor license at uh located at 1445 Lake Drive Southeast.

Uh can I have a motion?

So mo support.

Uh any discussion.

I don't know that we've got I I can give I'll give you a couple things because a development district is a little bit different than a quota um license.

So we have we have licenses that are under quotas for on premise um alcohol.

Um we've hit we've hit that quota because it's based on the population.

Um so then we the state also allows for development districts.

So um since these next two are in development districts, they because they're inside one of the um business corridors or the or the districts, then the there's allowed for uh development district license based on up up um upping the the restaurant and doing other things with it.

So that's why these are a little bit different than if we had a quota license.

Right.

Um and this is something I actually know maybe more than our clerk does about since I've had I've been involved in this business.

But um we have when we have liquor generic liquor licenses, they're limited by population and there is a formula for it, and there's a limited number of them.

So there's a secondary market that people sell them on, and you get lawyers involved.

So this is a new flexible tool that we developed, I don't know, ten years ago maybe, um, that allows us to essentially uh let these things pop up in business districts.

So it still means we ought to seem to me be asking the same questions to ourselves, which is like are we making it a community problem?

Like are there too many bars on this strip, or you know, are we getting negative negative community uh consequences from this?

Um and I will just say briefly that I both of these look are look fine to me.

I mean the early birds are good, well-run operation on Lake Drive.

Um doesn't seem to be like you know, we don't have Mardi Gras down on Lake Drive yet.

Um and um, you know, same with I mean I mean I shouldn't throw Shay on Mardi Gras, but you know, we don't have like big chaotic things happening on on Lake Drive and uh 701 Wealthy too.

That's an area with a lot of good restaurants and bars, and nice to see development going on there.

So um any other discussion of this one.

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh that brings us to our next one.

That's the resolution for from uh approving a request from terraformal holdings LLC for development to district liquor license to be located at 701 Wealthy Southeast.

The move to support.

All in favor.

Uh any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Great.

This brings us to our third, which is um just to refresh everyone's memory.

We had the um at our last meeting we had the public hearing about this project.

This is a resolution to approve the amendment to the Brownfield plan, the City of Grand Rapids Brownfield Develop Redevelopment Authority for Pleasant Hills Phase 3 redevelopment.

Good morning.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh yes, this is uh this is the third phase of the habitat project.

Um so this is going to uh raise an existing building to make way for 27 residential for sale uh homes.

And uh we're they will be serving 80 to 120 uh percent AMI uh with 16 of those expected for below 180 actually.

Or I'm sorry, below 80, not 180.

Got it.

So we'll need a motion, Mayor, so moved.

Support.

Okay.

Um any discussion?

We had I think an opportunity to look at this at the at the public hearing.

Um seeing no interest in discussion, then uh I'll ask for a vote.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, motion carries.

And I don't see and see the developer here, but um uh if he's watching and he if he or she or they are watching on TV, um, we're sorry that it took so long at the last meeting for you to uh get in front of in front of us on that business, but glad to be the end of it now.

Um that brings us to our next item uh eagerly awaited, and that's the resolution accepting the Grand Empath's climate action and adaptation plan and prioritizing certain actions.

Can I have a motion?

So moved for it.

And uh city manager, if you want to kick us off on this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I want to thank this commission and the public for their work on this plan over the past three years or so.

And uh I will just add a couple of things and then ask uh Miss Wilkinson to offer additional perspective.

But um planning is what has made our city great as we celebrate our 175 years of anniversary.

We have all kind of plans from uh plans for our natural resources around water, trees and parks, as well as mobility and economic development plans.

And if we're continuing to uh will continue to be a great city, not only of today, but the future, we will have to plan accordingly.

And so as uh we review this review this plan in your consideration today.

I think there are a couple of questions that have come up in how do we make sure we continue to grow in a responsible way with both our built environment and our natural environment ensuring that we are doing it in a responsible um in a responsible way, knowing that we cannot solve this alone.

Not one city alone, but certainly not one government alone that will take uh support from our federal and state government as well.

And with the concerns around the federal government's effort to declimatize it, if you will, it's uh budget or natural or uh clean energy incentives, uh, that makes this even more challenging.

And I know there have been a lot of support for this plan, and we appreciate our members of the community who have voiced uh the support for making sure that we protect both our natural and built environment, but there's also lots of concerns, and so I think what you'll hear today, uh, based on your direction that you have given us uh to prioritize uh 20 action items from this plan, as well as the resolution uh clarifies intent for the plan to uh do what we can to protect our environment, natural resources, but also to make sure that we do not further widen the gap of achieving some of our other goals around housing affordability and having unintended costs of increasing the cost of development and making housing and other development more unattainable.

So with that, I'll turn it over to Ms.

Wilkinson.

Thank you, City Manager.

Good morning, Commissioners.

This is a resolution accepting the Grand Rapids Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and prioritizing certain actions.

In 2021, the City Commission passed a resolution declaring climate change a crisis, understanding that climate change impacts were already occurring in Grand Rapids and would continue to occur.

Seeing an increase in temperature leading to hotter summers can lead to health impacts like heat stroke and heat exhaustion, and can see a rise in crime.

An increase in precipitation, extreme weather events happening and larger bursts provide greater implications for flooding and drought, which can impact our communities, our environment, as well as our infrastructure.

We're also beginning to see impacts that are beyond our borders impacting our local air quality from Canadian wildfires.

All of these reasons are what was considered to include in the resolution from 2021 to create a climate action adaptation plan with community-wide science-based targets.

The 2020 resolution also aligned with other sustainable urban development practices and plans, such as the Green Grand Rapids Plan and the Economic Development and Mobility Plan, amongst others.

And community engagement of this plan occurred over three years and developed a plan with community goals, strategies, and actions that work towards our community-wide science-based targets, which are 62.8% per capita greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2030 from our 2019 emissions and 100% by 2050.

While reaching these targets may be challenging, as the city manager said, due to federal funding changes.

The city is committed to advocating for federal and state funding to ensure that the local community does not bear the cost of a global crisis.

On April 29th, the City Commission held a public hearing.

While we have heard both support and concerns for this plan, this plan aims to mitigate those harmful climate impacts by working on voluntary and incentive-based actions that avoid unintended consequences that could hinder the housing and development affordability.

On July 15th, the committee of the whole provided direction to staff to bring back a resolution to accept the climate action adaptation plan with the 20 priorities and updates identified on July 15th.

If approved, the Grand Rapids Climate Action Adaptation Plan will be accepted with the prioritization of the 20 actions and be consistent with other goals in the city, such as economic prosperity and affordability, specifically housing affordability.

If accepted, the Office of Sustainability will begin implementation analysis through the end of the year, focusing on identifying and analyzing cost, greenhouse gas emission reduction potential and co-benefits for the strategies and actions, prioritizing those top 20.

With that, we look forward to your discussion and your vote for the plan.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

So I certainly want to thank everyone who's been involved in the long work of getting us to this point.

And I want to thank the city staff who's worked on this.

Um certainly Doug Matthews played a big role here, even though he didn't take the microphone.

Um City Manager for his direction on this.

And fundamentally, um, you know, this is a this is an interesting issue because we are trying to take action as a city about largely around carbon emissions.

Well, those are global.

And so this is us attempting to do our part.

But if nobody else does their part, we're not going to solve this problem.

But we don't want to be as a city in a moral position where we're not taking appropriate action that we should be taking proportionate to our city.

Um and so that's good and it's important, and so and I think it's a moral statement.

Um at the same time, I'm glad that uh we raised up a little bit in later drafts um the point that I've made again and again in the last while, which is the most impactful environmental thing that folks can do generally is live in cities.

And so the city of Grand Rapids existing is an environmental uh action and people living in cities is an environmental action.

In fact, people who live in cities have about half of the carbon footprint of people who don't live in cities.

Um they don't have to drive as far.

There's all kinds of they don't mow their lawns as uh they don't have they don't have lawns that are as big.

There are all kinds of reasons, but it it turns out that you know one of the most environmentally friendly places in the world in terms of c uh carbon impact is the island of Manhattan.

So density is good, cities are good.

And uh so the uh a plan that leans into our strengths is really important, and that's one of the reasons why I think there's been real concern that we keep a laser focus on housing affordability in town.

And as I've said a number of times, like there's really only two ways you can get to affordable housing.

One is you subsidize the cost, and the other is you keep the cost of actually making that housing down.

And so it's really important that we, if we want affordable housing in town, we keep really focusing on keeping the f the cost of actually building in town low, or we're not gonna we're gonna have struggles with having affordable housing.

The good news is we have real need for housing in town.

We have real opportunity to have welcome more people into our city.

And those are people who might have lived in a not city environment.

So the more we can do to build up our city, the more we're actually doing uh to work on climate change.

Um course the reason cities work is because that's where the jobs are and that's where the housing is.

And so making sure that our work on climate change doesn't scare away investment in uh employment, doesn't uh slow down our work on housing, uh, is really really critical.

And that's one of the reasons I'm certainly grateful to this commission for doing the work of coming up with the first 20 steps, because I think those first 20 steps are exciting, interesting.

Um, you know, there was some there's I've heard and we've all heard some feedback about you know the fear of mandates.

There are no mandates in those first 20 steps.

Uh and uh you really can't run a marathon until you start running.

Um so we're gonna start running now, and we are gonna start doing things, I hope, if we pass this plan, and we're gonna focus on those 20 things, and the first thing we're gonna do is we're gonna try to put some meat on the bones and figure out how expensive they are, what they cost, what order we can do them in.

Some of them are free, some of them are just zoning changes and ordinance changes.

Um some of them are going to involve priming the pump, like if we did a uh uh green revolving fund, for example, that's something that we don't really spend money on, but we have to prime the pump.

Uh and then some things will cost money.

And those are those are places where we're gonna have to l continue to listen to the community, ask for feedback, ask where people want to prioritize.

Um, but I'm glad that this conversation has really landed us on a focus on really making sure that we build a city that has more density, more uh affordable housing, and I think that that's really really critical um as we talk about environmental work because as I said, I think the most important environmental thing all of us residents in the city can do is keep living in the city and invite more people, welcome more people and make more space for people in our city.

So that's that's my two cents, and I'm certainly um prepared to vote for this.

Uh Commissioner Kilgar.

Thank you, Mayor.

And uh it's been really interesting with this plan.

Uh it's brought about a lot of really good conversation.

Um I think one of the best aspects that it's highlighted within community is we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think it was an interesting conversation to have from some folks, and it was nice to see them recognize this of these two are not conflicting things.

So adding density, pouring into our housing, focusing on that, and focusing on our climate, don't live in separate sectors.

They dovetail.

They're together.

Uh it's same thing on supporting our businesses.

Um, you know, foremost, it's important to know that the po there's no policies, ordinances, or other regulatory measures uh that go into effect as a result of our decision today.

So this is not a regulatory document.

This is not a a document saying that you have to do this.

What I've been saying to folks within community, and I've met with the mayor, uh the mayor, Commissioner uh Belchak and I met with groups and dozens and dozens of residents across the city uh in the months leading up to this vote about what their concerns uh were.

Um so uh some of the concerns were, you know, oh, I want to go back to the metaphor that I've been giving folks is it's like going to your doctor.

So your doctor will continuously tell you you need to eat better, get better sleep and work out.

You're not gonna go to jail if you don't do those things, but life is gonna get significantly harder.

And so climate can't wait.

Our city things doing things, whether it's supporting our businesses, whether it's building more housing, it's gonna get more challenging if we don't act on climate.

So I'm so thankful to uh to to have this action today.

I want to read a a letter here uh from a group, a uh multiple groups within uh the uh state here, both in Grand Rapids and throughout uh our peninsulas.

Climate cabinet, the Michigan Environmental Council, U.S.

Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development, Michigan Climate Action Network, Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action, Environmental Justice Caucus of Michigan, Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition, Ecology Center, and the Sierra Club.

Specifically because we had some of our partners within the business community, I thank them for their feedback.

Uh the GRAR, the Grand Rapids Area Realtors, and the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce.

I want to uh the GR chamber, I want to specifically address some of their concerns and that we've seen within community, both in calls, texts, and emails.

Uh so uh they say as a group of environmental organizations who are committed to advancing efforts to decarbonize buildings in the state of Michigan, we would like to bring in an important matter to your attention.

We have followed the climate action and adaptation plan, and we applaud the intentional planning and collaborative spirit of the City of Grand Rapids and its Office of Sustainability.

The Climate Action Adaptation Plan is a strong step forward to establish a foundation for intentional climate action in the city and serves as a framework that we can build upon for future years.

It offers a wide set of goals for the city to continue to work on and prioritize moving forward and does not preclude additional work beyond the initial phase of this plan.

As organizations with special interests in building decarbonization and utility affordability, we are supportive of the goals and strategies that are outlined under the residential home section of the CAP.

Michigan is still operating under outdated residential energy energy codes and saddle homeowners with higher bills.

These strategic goals outline ways to create incentives, educate contractors and homeowners, and expand re expand resources to improve the energy efficiency of both existing housing and new construction in Grand Rapids.

These are positive opportunities that could both save money and reduce pollution.

However, there have been recent efforts uh claiming that the goals included in this section would make housing unaffordable.

These claims are unsupported, misleading, and untrue.

The facts are indisputable.

A failure to act will cost all Michiganders dearly.

The CAP is an important blueprint on how to avoid and reduce these costs.

First, the CAP provides blueprint for the city, not a regulatory framework.

Nothing in this CAP can be constructed as a mandate on homeowners.

Further, some of these attacks, sadly, within community have been offered without evidence.

They repeat similar claims that we have heard spouted in opposition to updating Michigan's building energy codes, a fight that we have been engaged in over the past few years.

State law requires these state codes to be updated on a cadence of six years at the maximum.

While an updated 2021 energy code was passed earlier this year, the implementation is currently blocked by a legal challenge.

We empathetically have supported updating our statewide codes to the recent 2021 model code for many reasons.

In the absence of updated statewide residential building code, we rely on the actions of cities, such as Grand Rapids to continue moving forward with increased energy efficiency efforts at the local level.

While we wait for the challenge to the statewide code update to play out in the courts, we encourage you as decision makers to support these efforts in the CAP and not fall prey to tired assertions that energy efficiency does anything but make housing more affordable for the residents of Grand Rapids through lowered utility cost.

So I I'm very thankful to receive this letter.

We as local lawmakers and policymakers have to do our part, and this is just that.

Thank you.

Looking forward to voting yes.

Commissioner Rowland.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

I appreciate my my colleagues' um thoughts as well as the intentionality that you noted to about our you know this plan um language being included to to try and uh curb any sort of increase in prices that might um be passed along to housing developers and business owners and and things of that nature.

Um I I know I've you know personally shared some some concerns since this uh came before us, you know, several months back at this point.

Um I'm really grateful that the city staff has um provided a lot of information and answered a lot of the questions that I have, so I I do want that to be um to be made known.

I think uh ultimately uh many of the concerns I have still remain, and so I don't plan to support this today.

Um I'm happy to not duplicate my thoughts here, and we'll share some more um at our afternoon meeting just to kind of expand a little bit more.

But um again, I'm just grateful for the staff too to work with me and and have uh use some of my concerns um primarily around the pricing piece.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any others, uh Commissioner Sassy.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you for the the review, uh Ms.

Wilkinson, and I also see Miss Allison Sutterwaski in the building who's uh part of this work and you all work closely together and other members.

Um thank you both um my colleagues before for recognizing all three of them.

Um just you know, the difference of opinions, which I think is been if there wasn't, this wouldn't be city commission, whether it's been issues of public safety, whether it's been on a previous lead ordinance.

There are all these questions that exist, and I think it's important to remember that.

Because at the end of the day, the the items that help us to conform to good government and consider everyone's perspective are things like our budgetary process, our zoning, other ordinance that we would consider working with our state and federal officials to identify needed dollars.

I think this, you know, this piece of the climate adaptation plan.

I was I was sitting in my office and I I looked at a little notebook that I had from when I attended a state of this uh state of the city from Mayor George Hartwell, who many of you know was a strong advocate for sustainability and climate change when we probably didn't call these things sustainability and climate change.

You know, Miss Sutter shaking her head because she was part of that early work, working directly with businesses to understand how do we have a great impact to you know the bottom line, but also people and our planet.

And so I grew up in that environment working for a company that is very well known for their sustainability efforts.

And so for me, this has been um a a very clear process of looking back to plans like our economic economic development and mobile GR plan that I was a part of before I was a commissioner, our master planning process.

All of those pieces call for the things that we see in this plan, right?

Uh greater accountability, quite honestly, and I think the accountability for ourselves as a city.

Um last year when we did an update around sustainability, we talked explicitly about that uh while you know the sustainability uh office might not be very large, it's mighty.

Uh but that every single department inside of this city has to take responsibility for uh sustainability goals as a whole.

And um city manager, I think I can't remember if it was April of last year, we did a really robust overview of what that looked like from every single department.

And you know, just like we've taken in terms of you know a racial equity in this in this community in this city, it needs to start not just with that department.

They're the guide, they're the knowledge pieces, but they're really looking for every department to say from themselves what can they change and how do they connect and work with those constituents.

Um when we declared, you know, uh climate change is a crisis in 2021.

It was a very different time period than it was now.

But we all knew I think at that time that this something like this plan would come to fruition.

But then again, these things are so rooted.

I think that's the challenge sometimes I see with resolutions is they're important, they're declarations, but really the work is inside the different departments with different policies and planning and budgetary pieces.

Um I also want to say, you know, this past this past week I looked at my electric bill, and I don't know about all of you, but my electric bill was quite a bit higher than it was.

Um and while I can absorb that as a you know, a family of of two um living in a 1920 built house, not everybody can.

And you know, Annabelle, you talked about the floods that existed in in, you know, Texas and you know, um the wildfires.

And so I think at the end, we can't control everything, but what we can control, we should try to make an impact.

And um to to think that I I think one of the things that was frustrating to me was to think that those that and I would say it hasn't been one group, but certainly uh the GR Climate coalition to say that they weren't considering the cost of homeowners was really frustrating because I know this group of people, many who are involved with and a lot of other initiatives, think very deeply about what are the realities of individuals and have continued to put um those that are living um on major corridors, say like in our uh Grandville area neighborhood on Cessor Chavez, where we had a truck route, thinking about what those impacts of that air quality were.

So I thought I was gonna be bright, be brief, be gone, because but I'm not.

Um but I just want to say, you know, I've supported this from the beginning.

I look forward to the continued work and the analysis.

Um thank you again for recognizing that.

Annabelle, thank you for being um really thoughtful in how do we support all of the interests in the city, and I I think that's our job, and uh I well be voting yes for this.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Commissioner Balchuk.

Um thank you everyone for your hard work on the plan.

I really appreciate um the comments from my colleagues and the mayor.

Um it really has been uh a very uh in-depth process that was preformed long before I sat on this seat, and we'll continue long after, hopefully.

Um this plan is like many of our master plans that we have to help improve the long-term vision of what we want out of our city.

I really feel like it's important for us to remember that it is really about building a city that is resilient, a city that is forward thinking, a city that is looking for economic prosperity as well as what does it take to live sustainably, or at least even maybe in a rejuvenating way.

But none of these action items are gonna happen on their own.

They are there are a few that pertain directly to the city and what we have control over.

It is gonna require everybody in our community at every level to be a part of this.

There are no mandates except for a few things that the city itself has control over.

So I want to emphasize again that it is up to us as citizens, as developers, as real estate agents, as regular ordinary business owners, as regular ordinary moms and dads, to do what we can put our values where we really mean to see progress.

And so this is important for our public health, it's important for our economic prosperity, it's important for the future.

My ten year old deserves to have a place that they love, can afford, and are is healthy to breathe the air, drink the water, and enjoy our green spaces.

So and that's just you know, one of my three kids.

So I believe that this is the right thing to do going forward.

No plans ever perfect, and we can only keep iterating, and that is exactly what I think have been the attempt here in the few months that we've had to review it and go in depth.

And I appreciate everyone's hard work on that.

So I will be voting for this.

Not seeing anyone else, I'll ask for vote.

All in favor say aye.

I all opposed.

I motion carries.

That brings us to our briefings.

Uh the first is presentation from the city attorney's office on a uh potential discussion about noise ordinances, and I will just um say that this is something that I asked the city attorney's office to look into because of uh concerns uh that we've been hearing from citizens about amplified noise specifically around um health care facilities, and so I'm I don't want to steal your thunderfill, but um I think the the conversation here is around a fairly narrowly tailored uh approach to um helping mitigate that that uh potential stress for people around that those noises and also the potential patients.

So if you want to go ahead and brief us, that'd be great.

Sure.

Thank you.

And I will uh talk a little bit about the history of why this has changed a little bit in the last couple of years and uh the role that our city attorney and I had last fall when it kind of came back on our radar.

We spent a lot of time with the neighbors, and I want to s um appreciate and give some respect and admiration to the neighbors and the neighborhood association and the businesses down in the neighborhood that we'll talk about because they've been very patient, they've been very communicative.

I know that they've reached out to the ward commissioners and been engaged in that respect, and they've recognized what I think you'll all recognize that this is a little bit more complex and has some further reaching implications if we do change our noise ordinance because amplified sound is something that is uh not necessarily in a vacuum.

We see amplified sound at community events, we see it in neighborhoods occasionally, we see it at protests and other assemblies.

And so we do have to be very cautious and mindful about First Amendment constitutional implications.

But we are going to really kind of focus in on amplified sound at healthcare facilities because that's the nature of uh the community concerns that we've heard most recently.

Um and and this has been not all together new.

Prior to 2023, there was a health care facility focused on women's health care on Fulton Street, and at that time uh in 2023 and prior, we did hear similar concerns related to uh noise complaints but also patient privacy complaints for how individuals were using amplified sound and protesting um at that particular facility.

That facility closed in 2023, excuse me, and uh the primary women's health care facility most similar to the Fulton Street um facility is down in Heritage Hill on Cherry Street, and it's the Planned Parenthood location.

And so they provide critical services to individuals in our community, and we uh have looked at whether or not we should further regulate noise at similar medical facilities in our city.

Um the First Amendment right to free speech and the right to protest uh carries some restrictions.

The government can regulate the time, place, and manner of how that activity is conducted.

What we cannot regulate is the content.

And I ask you to be very considerate and conscientious about if this is to move forward from a additional regulation.

We are not talking about content-based regulation of what people are saying.

It's how they are saying it or where they are saying it that is something that uh the local government can contemplate and restrict.

Um, this is what our current noise ordinance says about prohibited noise and amplified sound.

And it's an imperfect ordinance to be quite honest with you.

Noise enforcement is somewhat similar to enforcement of something like littering.

Uh sometimes a citizen sees it happen, but it can be very hard to have the police respond and gather the evidence and uh whether or not it should be a criminal enforcement activity or a citation can be a little bit um more complex.

But right now, people are prohibited from operating any device creating amplified sound on public property or public right of way that is louder than average conversational level at a distance of 100 feet or more, measured vertically or horizontally from the source.

We've learned a lot about how noise is measured and whether or not decibels is the right way to measure noise.

In fact, uh noise volume and noise tone is all measured a little bit differently, and there's not really a great way when you live in a city and there's ambient noise and other sound to put like uh X amount of decibels is the right amount of sound.

So uh we've decided to use this conversational level at a hundred feet more, a hundred feet or more as the way we will enforce sound uh amplified sound violations, and to be quite honest, it's usually an educational-based approach.

If people are making uh amplified sound in violation of this, there's a desire to get them to comply with the ordinance, and oftentimes people do.

Um, but it's uh something that maybe isn't uh the highest priority on public safety's radar when they're getting called out to active felony investigations out in our city.

So, in general, it's been a somewhat of a challenge to be as responsive as maybe some neighbors would like us to be when there's other things going on in the city that requires those resources.

Now, many special events and uh even protest activities will get a um relief from our noise ordinance and they'll allow um ask for an exception if they're organized and they know they're gonna use amplified sound, we can allow them to use that uh in a way and manage that in a way that's not going to interfere with other events and other community things that are going on.

So I want to just let you and everybody else know that if people want to use amplified sound, there are ways to do that uh in addition to the ordinary regulation.

Now, from a timing perspective, we really had some uh amped up communication with the neighbors and the neighborhood association in the fall of last year.

We sat on porches, we talked to individuals.

Some days we went out there uh to this particular location, and the sound of lawnmowers and leaf blowers was louder than the amplified sound that was going on at the health care facility.

Other times it was really quite disruptive.

Uh it was loud and it was uh something that maybe looked and smelled and felt like a noise ordinance violation, but um it was intermittent, so it wasn't necessarily constant.

The the behaviors that I recognize on the few times that I was out there was occasionally the protesters were on loud speakers, sometimes they were engaged with people walking by, pedestrians and in regular conversation, but from uh 10 to 2 10 a.m.

to two p.m.

block, there's constantly people in this location making noise, and sometimes it seems like it's in violation of the noise ordinance, but it's certainly disruptive to the neighbors.

Now we haven't had uh to my knowledge a ton of complaints by patients about their privacy, and I think that that's at least something worth noting because if we're going to regulate amplified sound at health care facilities, it has to be in the name of patient privacy or privacy.

Uh this is a mixed use uh place with businesses and residences.

Um there is other business and some industrial traffic to a certain extent for some retail shops going on there.

So this isn't about content because I think a lot of people can get lost in the argument of do we like or dislike the message that's being demonstrated at this particular facility, and that's not the right reason to regulate um under the Constitution.

Uh around the same time that we got a letter from uh neighboring business that was concerned, the attorney general also put out some additional statewide guidance on how uh localities and the state can regulate uh certain activities.

So uh this isn't the only type of time, place, and manner consideration that is uh under consideration.

You can regulate protesting, picketing, and amplified sound at funerals.

Uh this similar activity too close to polling locations.

And in the middle there, you'll see that protesting and picketing that impacts medical facilities was also specifically addressed in the AG guidance and deemed to be an appropriate regulation, balancing some of the conflicting or or tense constitutional rights that we talk about.

These are some bullet point cases pulled from the AG's memo.

Noise restrictions and a buffer zone around clinic entrances based on concerns about ensuring the health and well-being of a clinic's patients are appropriate.

Uh medical facilities and recovery periods might justify that noise should or could be regulated more intensely at those sorts of facilities.

And additional concern with respect to medical facilities is adequate access to the facility for patients and for family members.

So when you have a large amount of people gathering and maybe demonstrating in front of an entrance, the law seems to support a buffer zone at an entrance.

But this is kind of our downtown medical mile sector heading south, and I say this to try to impress upon you how many medical facilities we have in the city.

So while we've received quite a bit of very good robust communication from one medical facility down in the Heritage Hill area, you can see in that upper left-hand corner the map of our city.

We have medical facilities from the far west side all the way to the belt line and down south and east.

So if we are to regulate amplified sound further, um we're talking about uh regulations at all medical care facilities, likely.

So I don't have a recommendation for you as you may have sensed whenever I come up here to talk about a topic, usually there's some legal tension around the topic.

There's some probably community expectations that deserve some additional conversation.

But what we really need to know from from this committee of the whole is whether or not there's an appetite for further regulation and w what does that look like?

Uh you know, if there is a appetite for regulation, uh, we're gonna have to go back and look at is it a 500-foot setback?

Is it at entrances?

Is it you know something a little bit more narrowly tailored?

But uh we can do that.

We can't do that work until we hear from this body to see if uh a majority are in support of further regulation.

City manager.

Yeah, I want I want to thank City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney for their work on this.

I I should have said this earlier.

This was originally scheduled for conversation at the public safety committee on July 29th.

Some of you have asked for that.

And unfortunately, we could not get to that item today, and so we'll make sure the public safety committee gets uh an update on this discussion.

But since the majority of the commission is here today, we wanted to continue the conversation today since we couldn't do it at the last meeting.

Um thanks for thanks for the briefing.

Um obviously we start with Voltaire's famous statement, which is I disagree with your what you say, but I'll defend it to the death uh your right to say it.

Um so yeah, the First Amendment's incredibly important, and uh it's profoundly important that we um allow in our democracy people to say what they want to say um and not uh not try to put barriers and limits on it that don't make sense.

Now that being said, um my ability to express an opinion uh can uh can be done in such a way that it's you know makes your life unlivable.

And um I think you touched on uh some important points there.

Obviously, we're talking about amplified noise.

So anybody can stand in front of a health clinic and say whatever they want or yell whatever they want um at the top of their lungs uh if we were to regulate amplified noise.

That certainly wouldn't stop people being out in front of health health care facilities and expressing their opinions.

Um the you know, one thing you didn't talk about, and I don't know that's the Supreme Court's gotten around to talking about a right to peace and quiet, but it's certainly something that um that I think implicitly we all acknowledge is um you know we have a uh the right to be let alone is maybe uh I mean I guess I think there's more specifically, I think about you know, like loud cars and loud mufflers on motorcycles and loud jet skis and all that.

Well, are they letting me alone?

They're not putting it in my face, but the noise certainly can travel a mile.

Um so we live in a city, city has more noise than than other places, um, and so expecting a silent city maybe isn't isn't a realistic goal.

Um, but it's still true that if you go to cities without that have less noise, I find it pretty positive.

Um and so I think in general questions about how people can have peace and quiet is an appropriate conversation.

Now in this case, we're talking about a very narrowly tailored thing.

We're not talking about stopping speech, we're talking about stopping amplification.

Uh we're talking about doing it around health care clinics, and and I think it's important to note that okay, there's maybe a precipitating what precipitated this conversation was maybe one site.

But we all know there's been a lot of conversation in the community since COVID about vaccines.

And we could tomorrow have people decide to start being in front of anywhere that provides vaccines with megaphones yelling their opinions about vaccines or you know, being I mean, like there's there's there's lots of ways in which I can imagine there are things here where we want to protect not just patient privacy but also the right of the community to not have disruptive levels of noise.

Um I happen to live more than a hundred feet away from the place that's been the focus here, but I will certainly say that when I walk around the block, um I have I am often assailed by or have been assailed by that noise, and it's just a little weird to be walking around the block with family members, and there's a point at which you can't have a conversation um and be heard very well because there's somebody across the street uh amplifying whatever they're saying at that at that place.

Um so I think that um uh uh uh noise ordinance tailored specifically to f uh to amplified sound and a noise ordinance specifically tailored to health care facilities is a very conservative and reasonable thing to contemplate doing.

Um so I would I would be in favor of directing the city uh attorney to move forward and and uh try to come up with some specific reasonably tailored ordinance here.

I might be in favor of something wider, but at least um I'm certainly not opposed to a conversation that's tailored on those two axes.

So I don't know if uh Commissioner Sassi.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you, Mr.

Strom, and I just want to say uh much appreciation to you.

I feel like you've always gotten these very narrowed conversations, whether it was when we talked about public safety measures and 2022 and 2023 and now this item and many thanks to you and Ms.

Hitchcock for meeting with the neighbors.

I see um representative from the neighborhood um association here today um who has continued to work with businesses.

Um the business, the attorney that we received the letter from was it was a newer business that had just relocated there.

Obviously, mayor living closely and and having that.

I think the I I echo um the sentiments that I would also be in support of that.

I think generally what we've seen is something, while maybe something larger could be possible, I think in terms of what might be uh presented as uh an anti to that, making it narrower would probably be uh in our best interest, just like we've done with some of the public safety measures.

So that's you know, just my thought.

Um, I want to be representative of the neighbors that have continued to to call me and to meet with me and to ask me for updates.

And I think, you know, there is this aspect.

I think we've also in the past heard from um Mr.

App, who works with businesses in that district, who also had numerous concerns, I think, in the last couple of years, um, just looking at Miss Barons there regarding some of that amplification.

Again, not the content.

I totally uh understand and and and want that in place.

I think we're we're living in a time where we need to to make sure that that consideration that's why I think our our special events offices work so closely for individuals to understand what are those what are those pieces that they can partake in to make sure that they're uh you know following those ordinances.

Um but I I just really appreciate you, City Manager, for moving this to the committee of the whole because this had been delayed.

Um I think there were a number of considerations and you know, just you would we've seen our agendas over the years, but I I just want to continue to tell to share with our all of us colleagues that the neighborhood is is looking for what can be that balance and that relief.

I think you know, as we move away from the police department responding to, you know, sort of every call, we want our police department to be working on the most egregious things.

They've already worked to identify, you know, a co-response model.

I think this is also another way.

How do we take that alleviation and let you know the police department do the work that is really intended for them and how can we, you know, uh you know, to everyone here, this is not going to stop perhaps that somebody would violate said ordinance that we would do, and I think that's important for all us to know.

But to say this is a city that has these values, and we're trying to balance all the needs of everyone who lives here who has businesses here.

So I am definitely in support of this.

I would hope that others, um, I've spoken with some of you about it before.

Some of you have also met with the neighbors.

Um while this may seem like a narrow issue, this is impacting quality of life in in a neighborhood and businesses and you know, has again I I think you know, calls to our non-emergency line have been made, but then the question is again, how do you weigh that out with the other calls that are coming through?

So thank you.

Any other uh Commissioner Purdue.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you uh so much for the presentation and um I appreciate the due diligence being done ahead of time with talking to the um attorney general and and doing some of that case law research.

Uh so I you know this one is tricky uh because I think right now um we are at a time where protecting the right to protest is really fundamental and key.

And so I wouldn't want to do anything that uh jeopardizes that both optically or otherwise.

Um however, um I do share some of the concerns around um impacting medical facilities.

I think I think my I I I would like to learn more, but really I think the key operating word is impact.

Like what do we mean by impact?

That's such a broad, vague word and uh word, and I'm sure the the memo from the attorney general probably stated a little bit more about examples of what that means.

And I think about the impact of protesting and picketing on individual patients versus um kind of the institution as a whole.

So for example, we see huge changes to our health care system that are in the pipeline.

Um there might be folks who think that you know they're in support of an institution's involvement or advocacy.

There might be institutions uh that are not as involved and folks want to protest or have their voice heard outside.

And so those are two very different scenarios to me.

Someone who's protesting and interfering with someone's access to care versus someone making a statement, having their voice heard related to that institution and and advocacy efforts and mobilizing efforts.

So that gives me some pause, and again, I think fundamentally we really need to be m ensuring that we're doing everything to protect uh the right to protest and First Amendment.

So I'm I'm open to hearing more, particularly around medical facilities, but I'm moving a little bit cautiously uh because of the two reasons that I mentioned, unless you have a um more specific detailed response now or or later when this comes back to us.

No, but just maybe a little bit of uh I I appreciate the comments that I've heard thus far.

I will say that you know we've heard some calls for doing something more aggressive like as far as even banning amplified sound everywhere in the city because maybe everybody finds amplified sound obnoxious and that would be the broadest maybe arguably unconstitutionally vague way to enforce amplified sound and make everybody get a special events permit for amplified sound.

What we've done is looked at the cases and most courts and jurisdictions say that a number of feet from an entrance of a medical care facility should or could be kind of sacred ground for the patients and for the families.

And I don't think there's a magic number out there but you know if you look at what would be reasonable to set back amplified sound and other protest or picket activities what we're what we would suggest is probably amplified sound is the right place to start based on some of the community concerns that we've heard and that would be a pro in my opinion and an easy tinkering to the current noise ordinance as you build in a buffer zone which is a certain amount of feet it's easy to enforce because then if you see someone use the using amplified sound within that buffer zone as kind of a quick ticket um as opposed to a volume measurement of conversational sound amongst other ambient noise within a you know uh a neighborhood so uh that's probably what it would look like if we got some direction from this uh commission to move forward but um you know there there might be some additional conversation about operationally what's the right amount of space I don't know is it 300 feet is it 500 feet is it more um yeah so if we move forward with looking at additional options in addition to looking at case law would you what would that outreach how would you tap on experts in the First Amendment space in the healthcare space patient space advocacy space to make sure we're designing this in a way um that truly hits the intended target and really limits those unintended consequences I think we just look at other sit cities that already have this in place and what has held up held and upheld if if that's the case I think we have started to do that.

I believe the city of Detroit has a similar uh ordinance and it might be 350 or 500 feet.

It's we're not gonna push people off the block.

They're going to be able to utilize a block but not all medical facilities look alike.

Some have one small entrance point others have multiple entrance points.

And so I think we'd want to hear from the medical community to make sure that we're uh understanding their expectations too which is why this this probably isn't a fast quick change but um whenever we change an ordinance we have a first reading we have public comment we have uh an approval and a a process that this commission uses and then we have ultimate implementation or effective dates.

Yeah just to summarize I would be interested in exploring this only within the context of buffer zones and with that input for the medical community.

I would I would also like to offer mayor that in addition to listening to the public and to the uh medical community uh we also need to hear from our police department who ultimately will be the um responsible party for enforcing it and this would put them in even more direct contact with people who are protesting and there is intended and unintended consequences when we ask law enforcement to begin to prioritize these type of nonviolent type of issues.

So I think that's part of the discussion we should consider in addition to the legal ramification, the operational considerations and whether or not this is the best and highest use of our police department's time.

Yeah.

So actually Commissioner you had comment um just just to add to Commissioner Perdue just to um I I understand the pains of possibly that noise but back to your point that it's about the thing rather than the you know be because I I don't as you showed on that map the number of medical facilities around our city that we don't see this going on in any of their other areas right and so if the content itself is the reason for the thing that seems to be where a lot of that is coming from when you can say that you have a lawnmower or a leaf if you have any type of lawn company in the area that noise is going to be louder the the leaf blower is going to be louder than someone on this loud speaker and I don't see that person talking for eight hours a day because that's a lot on your voice anyway.

So that makes me think about that and then it makes me think in the future that this could become very messy as we continue to say well you know this person went down the street and they got on the loud speaker and sets up for a few minutes and then somebody calls the police well the police got to run over here to try to first find this person and this person over here is you know I mean it just it feels like it's it's getting ready to be real messy and and that makes me real nervous.

Well, the police got to run over here to try to first find this person, then this person over here is you know what I mean.

It just it feels like it's it's getting ready to be real messy, and and that makes me real nervous.

But thank you, Commissioner.

I it is true that we have an order noise ordinance on the book right now.

So it's not like we're comparing something to nothing.

We're talking about whether we can make our noise ordinance uh more effective and whether there's the will of the body to do that.

And so it's true that you can all almost always extrapolate anything.

You can say I don't want to have a slippery slope argument about like, oh my gosh, what if we do this and you know, all of a sudden, you know, we've we're spending we gotta hire an extra thousand police officers to enforce because everyone in town buys a microphone and stands on a street corner.

I mean, we don't we don't need to get into I mean we've got some lived experience with enforcing an ordinance that we have.

Uh and we, you know, certainly might want to hear from a police chief about how much time and energy is spent enforcing the ordinance that we have.

The question is, I guess, from my perspective is can we make something that's more effective and can we uh target it address generally a problem where we have a specific instance.

And again, I come back to someone can stand there and scream at the top of their lungs.

Um the the problem I have with amplifying it is it makes it easier to be disruptive for a long period of time.

Uh and I'm not sure that that's expressing your opinion, that's just being disruptive.

We're all expressing our opinions right now, uh, and we're using amplified noise to do it.

Um but we're not, you know, I hope being disruptive.

So uh the other thing I would, if I could, um I forgot to bring this up, but one of one of my um things that I find problematic about our city code right now that I hope we can have a discussion about in the future, is that there is a dear's a brief statement in our in our city code in general that says when the when a specific ordinance is silent about what you mean by no person shall, that what that becomes is a misdemeanor.

And I hope that we can in the coming months and years have discussions where we are constantly training ourselves to ask do we see a scenario in which we actually want to lock somebody up in the Kent County jail for 90 days for doing behavior X.

So in the case of this ordinance, I have got absolutely no interest in uh making a crafting an ordinance which would be a misdemeanor.

So I certainly want this to be a civil infraction.

I'll get in front of that.

There's a whole chart of which ordinance violations are civil infractions, and that's kind of a uh not unknown but under component of our code of ordinances.

This is not uh misdemeanor in and of itself.

It compounds to be a misdemeanor if someone continues to violate and f be found responsible for noise ordinance violations, but it it would be a civil infraction out of the gate.

Well, and I actually think that escalating civil infractions are probably more um I've got more appetite that for that than I do for criminalizing this kind of behavior.

So, you know, we could certainly have a first offense $25 fine, second offense $250 fine, third offense $1,000 fine, and then repeat offenders would eventually fill it in their pocketbook.

Um but a first offender, it would be the level of a parking ticket, it'd be like, oh, I didn't know you couldn't do that.

Rats, kind of like parking in front of a meter without paying.

Like so, I want I would I would I hope we can as a city have a conversation about well-intentioned people who don't know the law, um, if they're dealing with a civil infraction, get a fairly mild consequence, but then once you know the law, we expect you to conform to it, and so penalties can go up without it getting to a criminal level.

So I wouldn't want this to be something that would actually escalate to uh to a misdemeanor to a misdemeanor level, no matter how many times you did it.

I I would be more I would be much much have a strong much stronger appetite for escalating fines for repeat offenders than um than misdemeanor than actual like potentially jailing people for doing this.

So, Commissioner Prue.

Thank you.

I I would be interested in in hearing more about that and how we might make that the latter happen, Mayor.

Um, I I'm I just want to clarify.

I um I hear what you're saying, Commissioner Knight.

Um when I hear responses that we don't want to go down slippery slopes, I totally disagree.

Like we want to say where could this lead us?

So I think asking the question of what are the unintended consequences, um, I think the language of kind of painting um protesters as disruptive when that's part of the tactic of protests and mobilizations and grassroots advocacy.

Um I feel discomfort actually pursuing this at this time.

Um so I just want to go back and put on the record that um I I I think that we all feel and want to do something to uh help the women who mostly women who are kind of targeted in the protests related to those heritage hill-based facilities.

I think our heart goes out to them, and we are trying to find ways to uh protect them and make them feel more comfortable um within our legal bounds.

And I think I agree with Commissioner Knight that this can take us on a very slippery slope.

And when I think about uh potential implications on the entire city, how subjective noise and what proper noise is and what's quiet is, um, I'm not as interested in going down that route if we can avoid it.

Uh Commissioner Robbins.

Yeah, thanks, Bri appreciate the um first of all framing this as a uh you know a First Amendment issue, not a content issue.

So I I do have some concerns, I think too, and I I know you know we're talking about we have to be careful about talking about this specifically from a constitutional perspective, but then it's almost like there's the unwritten um it could quickly become about the content, I think, in the end, just based on you know, we're we're doing a broader um you know change that impacts all types of facilities.

But if it's coming from you know one specific one, um uh it seems like maybe to me it would leave open the door for people to then say, well, you're just targeting us based on the content, not just based on the the constitutionality of it.

Um so that's also a concern of mine, I think.

So and I just I think given all the other things that we're trying to work on and prioritize as a city, I guess in my mind this this wouldn't rank super high.

Um I'm I mean, if it came back further down the road, I'd be happy to look more at it, but I just think um given some of those concerns.

I mean, if there's time to to look at what other cities have done, uh if there's you know strong precedent for something, then sure.

But I would just say I I I know slippery slope is uh some call it a logical fallacy, but I do think there's merit in saying that you know we're we could be opening up somewhat of a can of worms too um around the enforcement pieces around um you know legal legal risk.

So uh I have a little bit of hesitation about this as well.

Any other discussion?

Okay.

Um city manager, I don't know if we want to poll for interesting.

Yeah, I think it would be good for us to get clarity from the diet.

So I heard the mayor, I think Commissioner Asassi.

Commissioner Belchak, your I have not weighed in.

Um I would be interested in pursuing it for education and learning more and what is possible.

Um I think that uh everyone has brought up good points, but uh there's there's still room to figure out where we could fall.

And I think what I hear is the question being asked, can we should we continue to explore?

And I say sure.

So Commissioner Purdue, Commissioner Robbins, and Commissioner Knight express some concerns, Commissioner Um Gilgore.

And due to our guidance, I'm fine with us moving forward with it.

So I hear the majority of the commission would like us to continue to look at options and uh bring back our analysis for potential consideration.

Uh should we do that with public safety committee or just back to the committee of the whole?

I I think we got enough guidance with the uh city uh commission, committee of the whole, and we'll if uh would work with the city attorney and coming up with the uh timeline to to look at this.

But in terms of priority, I want to just be clear.

We we to Commissioner Robin's point this is not going to be the top priority for public safety, but we'll continue to analyze it and put together a reasonable timeline to come back and address it.

Thanks.

Uh that brings us to staff update on the third board equity fund.

Thank you, um Mayor, and uh I should also say uh this presentation is on your agenda today because we uh had initial plan, we had communicated you would would put it on the economic development project team, which is later today.

But because uh the fact that the Third Ward Commissioners are on uh the dies here, not on that uh body, as well as we've heard uh requests from other members outside of the third ward about the progress on the third ward equity fund.

We wanted to do this at uh the committee the whole.

So Ms.

Barrens, our deputy city manager will lead us in the discussion.

All right, thank you.

So uh we just wanted to provide a brief snapshot of uh the history of the investments through this third ward uh source of funding.

So um we provided this as part of our budget presentation for fiscal year 26 as well.

This is just a brief summary of um funding over the prior years.

I do want to point out that uh actually up until fiscal year 25 for this fund.

We've we were for the most part utilizing federal uh COVID relief dollars, which as we've talked about before come with different uh limitations and opportunities than uh general tax dollars for fiscal year 25 and 26.

We are now using city general tax dollars, which again come with different opportunities and different restrictions, which is why some of the investments that are highlighted here are uh no longer options for the color of money uh or the nature of the funds, public funds that we're now using.

Um for those of you uh just that like me were wondering what ARIS stood for, uh, it's economic resiliency and recovery investment strategy.

So, again, uh a lot of the direct support for both individuals and businesses were tools that were uh flowing to us through uh federal or state dollars designed particularly to overcome some of the economic challenges of the pandemic.

Um you see that in fiscal year uh 2020, 21 and 22, there was a broad uh investment strategy there, so it was in individual uh relief, largely around housing, housing stability, housing repair, uh strategies to keep people in their homes, uh, some basic needs uh around youth in particular, and then small business support, whether that was activation to encourage folks to get back out there uh and visit their local businesses or direct support for those small businesses to adapt to a changing climate uh or to sustain them during some of those more challenging times.

Then in uh fiscal year 2023, uh really a big move to uh attract a significant uh project to MLK Park.

So uh prior to the third ward fund investment of an additional million dollars, there was a particular scope and redevelopment project envisioned at MLK Park.

Uh, this investment allowed for some additional architectural and engagement uh with the community and led to a much more robust plan for redevelopment and um expanded opportunities for both programming and activities with the updated MLK Park Lodge, and really was the first dollar in that helped us uh advocate at the state level for a substantial support for that project.

So really meaningful uh transformational infrastructure investment in fiscal year 23.

Uh fiscal year 25.

We are in the midst of continuing the investments that have been identified for fiscal year 25.

We've talked about these categories before, uh, so I will just get to the status of each of those.

So, with respect to infrastructure investments, uh we have two pedestrian crossing improvements in the third third ward that have been identified that we will be investing in, and though that work will be underway in uh the 2026 construction season using these funds.

So that's a crossing at Alger Street and Blaine Avenue Southeast and a Fuller Avenue mid-block crossing.

Uh there is also a robust investment and partnership in a cultural arts tour in the third ward.

Uh so the commission has already approved a contract with the Grand Rapids African American Museum and Archives.

They are leading the engagement around designing that tour.

Uh the technology platform and uh details of that will be continually updated with the commission and stakeholder group.

Uh we are also about to move forward with a mural project uh with a $50,000 investment from uh the 250,000 total that was earmarked for this particular area.

Uh so we will be going forward with a couple RFPs looking for both a location, so a building owner who's willing to donate, you know, big visible wall for uh one of our sort of iconic uh murals that you see around the city.

This would be in the third ward, and another RFP to help us find uh the project manager who would manage the engagement uh and the selection of artists and and the artwork itself uh and the logistics to getting that done.

And the intention behind this is really both to amplify the cultural arts tour itself, but to in an in and of itself create neighborhood identity, be an expression of uh culture and uh placemaking opportunity.

There was also a substantial investment in youth programming, uh, which is really coming to a close.

It was a lot of summer uh focused youth programming, um, both with the Grow 1000 program supporting enhanced uh opportunities for folks within the third ward, so allowing more employers, maybe nonprofit employers to take advantage of that program and to offer opportunities for our youth as well as uh partnerships with three community partners for youth programming.

So there was uh programming called NightQuest, which was a partnership with LifeQurban Outreach.

That was really basketball sort of focused and had a middle school program, a program for 16 to 21 year olds, and then some open gym time.

There was a program called or is a program called City Vibes, which was a partnership with the Urban League of West Michigan, Grand Rapids Public Schools, and Grand Valley State University, which had a variety of program and offerings on Friday and Saturday nights for youth from 6 to 10 p.m.

And then finally an eSports program was Save a Life a Day Outreach, and that was open to uh kids under the age of 18 on Friday and Saturday nights.

So again, um just the opportunity to engage and enhance and wrap our arms around youth in the community in the third ward in particular.

Um so the next uh steps on those, you'll be seeing updates, particularly on the cultural arts tour.

There may be some budget amendments, just move the dollars into the right places to uh to pursue those activities.

So uh you may see some of those things upcoming.

And then finally, we talked a little bit at the uh budget process itself about that the last investment.

So 425,000 of this uh million dollar fiscal year 25 appropriation was earmarked for small business support.

As I mentioned, we've changed the color of money, and so needing to better understand what opportunities that that color of money sort of foreclosed from past activities and also what it opened up.

Uh so we're now in front of you recommending that we transfer those funds to the Brownfield Redevelopment Authority andor the EDC Economic Development Corporation.

That is something that is authorized for general tax dollars.

It then allows those bodies to use those tax dollars for any of their qualifying activities.

Uh so that's actually a broader array of things that uh we could do than we can do as a city just directly.

Um our next steps on that would be to work with the city attorney's office on agreements with those two bodies.

So we want to make sure it's very clear as we transfer those funds what the intended use is, not only the geographic focus in the third ward, uh, but there's opportunities to channel it from the broad array of qualifying activities into specific activities that the commission may feel are most aligned with objectives for the third ward equity fund.

So just to briefly, and we'll be narrowing this down and bringing forward the agreement and seeking more input from you at a future date as we sort of narrow these things down.

But uh, just as a reminder, for example, the Brownfield Authority can use funds to close the gap between the development of housing and the maintaining that housing at an affordable rate.

That's called housing tax increment financing.

So there may be some program opportunities there to really focus investments in the third ward.

We uh have been offering emerging developer grants, uh, which again has been something that's been helpful on on multiple fronts, both to draw investment but to draw more people into the development sort of world and create that capacity across a broader segment, uh, create that opportunity for wealth creation amongst a broader uh segment.

So there may be something there.

We found the emerging developer grants to be very uh helpful to folks.

It allows us to put money into a project somewhat earlier, maybe and bridge some of that gap for folks that maybe don't have access to more traditional their own equity or more traditional uh funding sources.

So we're exploring what this additional funds may be able to do to enhance that existing program.

Um, and then again, with the EDC, probably the most continued work we need to do and come back and update you all in terms of their qualifying activities.

But we're really evaluating are we able to use uh their authority to do that small business assistance, whether it's in some form of investment or technical support.

So more to come on that, but our recommendation is to transfer it to the Brownfield Authority and/or EDC.

We would come forward with agreements that have more specificity on exactly how we would be setting those funds up then to be channeled at a future date.

And I know I already said finally, but I mean really finally now.

Uh, you also have the fiscal year 2026 appropriation, which again was a million dollars.

Uh, and so we're working now on bringing forward ideas and recommendations for that.

Uh from the staff level, we really are recommending a focus on transformational infrastructure, and there are a couple candidate product projects and opportunities.

Um, one would be around uh an infrastructure investment that's really in the planning stages now and will be the subject of a presentation shortly at uh EDPT called the South Side Creekways uh project.

So that is a trail planning project that is being run out of our parks department.

The planning dollars were allocated out of some ARPA funds that the city received, but it becomes that trail connection in the Silver Creek Corridor that will connect to the Oxford Trail, which has a major improvement underway, and will connect to the river uh Grand River Greenway Trails as well.

We're really uh in the midst of a robust planning process that you're gonna hear more about.

But it is focusing on the economic development opportunities of an investment like this, of a trail that becomes really sort of a neighborhood and regional, you know, sub-regional uh organizing principle, not only about recreation, but about economic development opportunities that could be unlocked by that sort of investment uh and about the placemaking opportunities and activation opportunities for sort of continued focus.

So more to come on that.

Another idea is transforming um existing major street corridor corridors with some sustained investment over time.

So both of these kinds of projects would obviously take more than the million dollars of the third ward equity fund.

But the idea is really to galvanize and show early support and then uh develop a sustained approach to kind of continuing those improvements.

So another opportunity is that sort of major street corridor transformation through streetscape, pedestrian crossing, other sorts of infrastructure improvements that can help revitalize a commercial area.

So we will uh happy to take some feedback on those ideas now, um, but also as we move forward and as you hear more about the South Side Creekways program, uh we're certainly open to more feedback as well.

Um so that is what we have today for our update.

Thanks.

Um I guess uh I'd like to kick it off.

A couple things um, and this is maybe maybe just a critique of uh headline, but the small business support, you talked a lot about um housing opportunities, and that's great.

And I think that um work we can do to facilitate housing investment is really I think important to everyone on the commission.

Um wondering at the time we came up with our recommendations, um the Brown uh pardon me, the um land bank was really in its infancy or nascence.

Um would it be possible to take some of that 425,000 and uh use it to prime the pump on land banking activities?

Could some of that be transferred to the land bank so that it could work specifically on housing um opportunities and and uh land acquis partial acquisition for small developers on the in the third ward um uh doing that kind of work and it could if it assuming it could be targeted ear or earmarked the same way, so that it was like specifically uh allocated to be used for acquisitions in that area.

That's that's one thing I wondered about that I wonder if you could speak on.

The other is um I continue to want to have us have a conversation about um the definition of this fund because um the third ward's big and not all the third ward needs help uh in ways that other parts of the third ward do.

And the the inception and the and I I think the the motivation be time be which behind even having a third ward equity fund was acknowledging um long-term structural disinvestment and underinvestment in some parts of our community, um, but they're not all in the third ward.

And so the if we look at neighborhoods of focus and uh census tracts where there's real need for help, um a lot of those are actually a lot of those are also in the first ward.

And nothing in the second ward leaps to mind.

My second ward colleagues may have some second ward areas that are in mind, but um I certainly think like the median voter might think that South Division is in the third ward, and it's not uh it's the first ward.

And so there's a lot of um opportunity uh and a lot of interest, I think, in the community and doing some good work on uh in that area, for example.

Um I'm thinking there's a lot of um sort of lower west side uh communities that could certainly uh use some support and investment of the same kind in the same kinds of uh ways that this is being used.

And so I I'm I'm a little reluctant to have a fund that's tar that's defined by a ward rather than defined by communities of need.

And so I would I would like long term to have this commission have a discussion about defining and clarifying because some of the third like Burton and the East Belt line is not uh what I think about as a as a place that really needs focused uh target investment.

That's in the third ward.

I think when we say third ward equity fund, we're almost always looking at uh urban core areas, but those aren't all in the third ward.

And so I think we need to keep having a conversation about how to most effectively help the most people with our dollars in the city and not focus on ward lines, which are after all political lines for voting purposes.

They're not investment lines.

Uh Commissioner Cilgar.

Yes, thank you, Mayor, for your feedback.

We did uh answer that question uh in budget season.

Um the um the majority of the commission was good on moving forward with keeping the third ward fund uh regionally within the third ward, but I really want to ensure that I get feedback um from our colleagues today on what's in front of us because this has been a very uh energetic conversation within community and constituents really want feedback.

Um my colleague in the third ward, Commissioner Purdue worked really hard with before I my tenure began with uh local small business owners about this fund.

And now that we know the parameters and what we can and cannot do with these funds, it's really important.

Folks still want to see something done.

They still know that dollars are available, so it's really incumbent upon us to now take some action.

Um so I'd like to provide my feedback and would love to hear from colleagues on uh exactly what Ms.

Barron's presented today.

Uh first and foremost, uh transferring the 425 uh thousand to Brownfield Redevelopment Authority and EDC.

I'm supportive of that.

I think that is a good uh use of these funds once again as we learn that okay, we couldn't support small businesses and local businesses like we thought, but this may be another way to um help champion some of the challenges that we have within community.

So really excited about that.

Recommended focus uh infrastructure focus as the former chair of the Vital Streets Oversight Commission, so excited to hear about this.

Um I really would like to uplift some of the concerns that I've heard from neighbors for many years now in terms of existing major street corridors.

There's uh groups all over the third ward organizing for street safety.

Um I think that's really important, and if we could prioritize one before the other, I would honestly have um I don't know if Miss Bearns, if you were thinking we'd be able to do this at the same time for fiscal fiscal year 2026, but before we put money into the South Side Creek Creekways, I'd like to see some of those major um street corridors uh be safer, uh be better for pedestrians, more bike lanes, things like that before the South Site Creekways, but that does not mean that I'm not excited about uh connecting.

Uh that is a constant concern and uh challenge at folks within the third ward say is we sort of feel like we're on an island, uh not connected to the downtown corridor, not connected to our neighbors in the first or second.

So this is one of those ways to connect folks.

So I'm excited about everything that you've presented today, and as one of our third ward commissioners, I would like to move forward with uh what you what with these recommendations.

Commissioner Rudo.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Ms.

Barrens.

Um this was a really great concise summary of a lot that's happened over the last year.

Um, especially as you say the the the change in the color of money and the difficulties that that that brought.

But I think we got to a really great um way to move forward.

So I thank you for all your work behind the scenes to get us here.

I wonder as follow-up if it would be helpful to send those eligibility allowances for both Brownfield and EDC to the full commission to understand how those rerouted um dollars from more like individual focused projects, um, or sorry, from ARPA-based uh projects, so what we can do with general fund will be helpful.

Um and then uh secondly, I agree with uh Commissioner Kilgore.

I mean, I'm excited about the future and really supporting transformational infrastructure in addition to some of the quality of life programming that we've been able to support.

Um as I think about 2026.

I know we have a few plans on ICE to totally transform Eastern Franklin Corridor as well as Burton and Eastern Corridor.

There's some major uh development happening at Oakdale and Eastern, and so essentially from wealthy and eastern all the way to Alger, we have some plans on ICE.

I can totally transform that major thoroughfare and corridor through the city.

And so all that to say in the same way that I would like to prioritize getting those across the finish line as we continue to invest in uh the creekways.

I know we have an update coming today, but essentially we're we're very early in that process, uh, whereas I think the other plans are are really um ready to, you know, taking some dollars to get it done and really transform uh South Town.

Um, you know, we can't we know we can't succeed as a region or as a city if a third of our city, uh particularly as it relates to economic development and business corridors is struggling.

Um five of our six business corridors, business districts are have tons of vacancy, has blight, um, and so I think these investments will mean a lot for the visibility of the place and the beautification, but also usher in new development, new support, everything from housing to small business um and everything in between.

So thank you all and and look for your support as we move forward uh for this year and next year.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Miss Barons for the presentation.

Thank you, third ward colleagues for your feedback.

I I too agree.

I think the conversation about this fund to me was settled as a second ward commissioner.

I think we have to continue to recognize, yes, there are there are parts in the second ward where certainly there has you know been disinvestment or you know, businesses closure or maybe not able to start up.

But when I my first year in commission, I really saw the opportunity to say the first and second ward wards both have districts that are in the downtown area.

And I think while that wasn't the only reason for the third ward fund, but it was a recognition that a lot of times when we have these catalytic projects that are happening in our downtown district, we're able to pull and connect money from different sources, and so that typically spurs that more private investment, right?

And so then what the public investment is just it's maximized.

So you know, and in the conversations that Commissioner Purdue and I have had over the last um three years on this converse on this body is really about that, right?

It's it is about the structural design of this work.

Um, I think then that allows us to, you know.

I was just telling you today about you know, somebody who called about something on Jefferson, and they were on the first ward side of Jefferson, right?

And so it I think it's about uh you said it earlier today, Commissioner Kirlgore.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I think I did that earlier today.

So it's a recognition of the way our city is designed.

We can't we're we're not gonna change that, and um, but this is a way to recognize how other um infrastructure pieces can come to play and how we could also drive further development.

Um I think the mayor's question about the land bank, that's something that um I asked you this morning, Commissioner Um Purdue, like you know, where where is that at?

You know, what does that look like?

Um, and then also what does this look like from other overlays of in other cities?

You know, we just had an overview about something very different about what was happening in the city of Detroit.

But how could we you know tell this story about um you know, kind of the history of Grand Rapids?

You know, we're celebrating the 175th year of the city, and how could we tell this story about you know encouraging people to come?

All the things that were changing, the zoning pieces we just took on, the master planning changes.

Is there a way to look at different vehicles?

I know, like for example, on our Michigan works board, um, we that body ended up creating a nonprofit entity.

I know there's back and forth with like you know, the cannabis entity that we created, but is there other vehicles that um say could be created to support this work?

Because I think, yeah, million dollars, we'd all be happy with a million dollars if we left here at the end of the day, but in terms of the kind of projects we're talking about are are not going to be not going to to do the work on the the time frame that we want to see it.

So I would also be in support of are there other um you know vehicles around I don't know, there's a lot of lawyers and a lot of smart people who can figure this out, but to support additional fundraising.

Obviously, we have our corridor improvement authorities, but that legislation is is is not all that old.

And so seeing other people out here, I see I see Mark out here and a lot of place making efforts, and just um would also like to explore that too because I think we're gonna always be at this.

Is it enough?

Where are we pulling from?

How can we support this idea of you know, kind of this history, how we want to change it, and then how do we move forward?

So thank you.

Um concurring with uh a lot that my colleagues have said, um, I think we need to always remember that um this fund in particular is supporting a community that has continually throughout history in this city uh been disenfranchised.

And so even when the people have been disenfranchised, they have still been able to figure out ways to how to uplift themselves and continue to go on and to create and to be entrepreneurs and create businesses, and so even that money going back into that community to help um build some of that back up.

Um I think is important, is vital, and that we have to continue to do that because I know that the third ward is large, yep, and and the second ward and first ward and all of them tend to cross lines somewhere throughout the city, but we also know what's happened in the core of this city, and so I think it is um behooving of us to continue to focus on that and and to really revitalize that space.

I believe um Commissioner O'Connor had said when he was here that it can't be just about a million dollars because a million dollars can go away really quickly.

How do we continue to invest in that fund to build that up so that this work could continue year after year and that we can continue to see the investment in our communities?

Um what really strikes me all the time when I come through our city and I see places where my family has had business along wealthy, and I see the line, the dividing line when you leave from one street into another area of our city, and that's really sad that that has been like that continually.

And we have some investment that's happening in there, but I think being able to um put some of this money in a space where we have uh some of our uh upcoming developers being able to do some things in the community, being able to support that work, support small businesses and people who are trying to do things to revitalize the urban core, because it can't just always be about the the city core.

It's got to be about the neighborhoods that help support that work and help support that core.

And so as we continue to move forward to be very focused on how we're being intentional in helping other parts of our community grow, thrive, build, and uh create a future that my children, my grandchildren, can be proud of and can speak to the history of that, not just only our personal history, but the history of this community and how we poured into our people.

Um so I'm definitely when you think talk about the transformation of the major street corridors and streetscapes is has really been important to me.

I remember being at the Urban League and literally having our youth go out every weekend and clean up that corridor of that corner within a mile of that organization and pick up the trash and pulling weeds and and making it look like a better place when people see something that looks better that makes them feel better, and then that helps the the mental health and also the thriving of the mindset of people to want to do better.

And so I really think that we need to continue to focus on how we're gonna continue to build this, um, but what other creative ways can we utilize these funds to help that central core of our city um grow and thrive.

Anyone else?

All right, thank you for the update.

Um that brings us to staff briefing on the Michigan talent partnership grant application process.

And I suspect this will be Miss Ronero because she's walking to the front.

Well, while she's on the way, Mayor, we've uh had this is another uh briefing we initially had scheduled for economic development project team, but since there is uh multiple interests across the dais uh on this topic as well.

We thought it would be good to give uh both the commission and the public an update.

I think Miss Renero sent a very informative email last week.

I think I also sent some uh a few months ago on the progress, and so we've gotten a little bit more information on uh where we might stand in terms of our competitiveness for this uh opportunity.

So Miss Renero.

Thank you.

Um so I wanted to talk go through the grant and talk about the timeline and some of the um guidelines.

Um, but I also just want to zoom out a minute um to just give you a little bit more context on how we got here.

So uh the state identified um some census tracks uh that were underwhelming when looking at our um talent uh attraction uh peers like Chicago, um, New York, Boston, right?

Like highly concentrated, dense, mixed-use uh neighborhoods that are walkable and vibrant.

And so uh this is this this grant is the state's attempt at helping, as the t the title would suggest, uh the state's talent attraction efforts.

And um this is a I think it's a 20 million plus uh grant.

Um but Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Detroit, and Lansing have been carved out uh specifically for 17.4 million of that that uh those that pot of money.

And the reason that we were carved out with the other three cities is because we have highly concentrated census tracks of uh talent pools that are defined between 25 and 34 years old.

And I don't want to compare us to Chicago, I don't think we want to be Chicago, but I think that the states uh look at this is looking at our four communities across the the um the numbers that the population of 25 to 34 year olds that the state has is only about a fifth of what Chicago has.

And so, right, we're really trying to drive home some efforts here around attraction.

Um so broad base, okay.

Um down okay.

Oh, that was the last slide.

Okay.

Okay.

So then the notice of funding opportunity was uh announced last fall.

Uh this again I just described as 17.4 million.

We've got one application per city.

It's a one-to-one match, and so uh we're trying to be really aggressive, but that's uh you know, a limited pot of money that we cannot possibly do all the things that we want to do when thinking about our list.

Um back in the spring, we evaluated across several different departments uh projects across the city and um worked with our worked with the technical assistance provider, the Smith Group that was assigned to us from the state uh to put forward a project that would be uh most competitive uh based on the scoring criteria that was most recently issued uh in July alongside the program guidelines that were issued in June.

Uh this is a deadline of September 25th, and so we're working closely again with uh across departments as well as our our partner DGRI, who Mark Miller is here, uh, if we've got questions for him more specifically on the scope, so I feel it newer to the table.

Um, but the North Monroe uh revitalization or Hill and River Network uh project is where we're honing in.

Uh and this is a this is a comprehensive connection strategy between Bell Knapp, the Grand River, uh North Monroe to downtown Grand Rapids.

Um so again, uh we've got more stakeholders in the room that can help us answer questions, but the the thought path here was that this is one of the areas of the city that has a large concentration of 25 to 34 year olds.

Uh this is uh a conversation that started back in 21 when DGRI issued an RFP uh to rethink this district, and part of the feedback that stakeholders provided in 22 was that there are a whole lot more accessibility uh desires across this district, both north and south and east and west.

Um and so again we're working to put the application forward uh now, and so that depend you know, so where we will hone in depends, but there's several components to this, whether you're looking at mobility across Division Ionia, uh north up to Bell Knapp uh neighborhood or over to the river uh and and um the vibrancy there.

So uh the deadline is September.

Uh we're gonna continue to work with the state's third party contractor to put forward an application, and part of that is actually finding uh folks that can contribute match as well as letters of support.

And so we're uh we're hustling right now.

And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have along uh with uh Mark Miller from DGRI.

Um well I guess I'll kick off and say um this is an interesting thing to have coming right after the Third World Equity Fund Um and reinforces I think what all of us agree, which is um it's an interesting project, and I and I I guess I get intuitively um in urban planning you talk about desire lines, which is to say you put past where people are walking anyway.

And so I get the impetus of this grant is to figure out where the cool kids are going and invest where the cool kids are going, and that's great.

Um and it's not an irrational strategy, right?

If people come to your bakery and they only want to buy your cookies, at some point you start making more cookies and fewer donuts.

Um it's also true that you know we are responsible for the whole city thriving.

And I don't I would love to have this commission think if we get this grant great.

Um that's great to get you know money from somebody else to do work.

Um but if we're going to be matching that and we're gonna be allocating money to an area that frankly, if you look at that map, isn't much of a community right now.

It's a whole lot of empty land and um there's some energy and there's some forward momentum there, but um uh I would I would hope this commission would think longer term about does that spur us to do essentially our own matching grant into some communities that uh could need some help.

And some of those are in the third ward, some of those are in the first ward, but I think that maybe uh this might precipitate a larger conversation about maybe we retain a third world equity fund, but we also have a neighborhood of neighborhoods of focus fund uh that runs in parallel to that where we can look at investing in areas that uh maybe grant writers don't think are cool um but still have our residents living in them and we want to make them cool.

And so um on the since we're you since we keep talking about uh uh chewing gum and talking at the same time.

Um I would like to I would I would love to have us think so this sounds great, but I want to like put a put a big pin here and let's have a discussion about whether we want to prioritize and emphasize some other city investments uh outside of this were this group.

I appreciate that you can only ask for one target and one grant in one area and rent in one area, and I believe you could you talk a little bit more maybe though before we get to other questions about like you had you presumably you just screen and this is where you landed, but can you tell us I get you just said young people are here, but can you go into a little bit more detail about other areas you considered and why this rose to the top?

And I believe you could you talk a little bit more, maybe though, before we get to other questions about like you had you presumably you just screen and this is where you landed, but can you tell us I get you just said young people are here, but can you go into a little bit more detail about other areas you considered and why this rose to the top?

Sure.

We looked at um the South Side Creekways project.

Um so connecting really Boston Square uh over to factory yards and daylighting Silver Creek and Plaster Creek, which um Carrie's gonna give a presentation here a little bit on uh with a little bit more detail, and I I think that um the timing of that one is a little bit farther um or it needs a little bit more uh attention.

Um and then we also looked at uh Bridge Street uh on the west side with uh the investment of the soccer stadium because I do want to emphasize this is a 50 percent match, and so we're really trying to take advantage of um dollars that have been invested right around the corner, right?

The medical mile, as well as Corwell's headquarter investment, which is is not uh minuscule, it's a hundred million dollars of investment, and they they are gonna keep going and add housing.

And so um I think that um the scoring criteria really emphasize some of the the timing readiness as well as just being able to bring um dollars, and so uh outside of um outside of that, those are the couple points that I would make on other um submittals.

Right, thank you.

Um any other questions from colleagues?

Commissioner Purdue.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I know this has been a topic of conversation for many a month.

Um, so thank you for bringing this and and the transparency of of sharing this with everyone.

Um, you know, mayor, I appreciate your comments, and and I I echoed them in so many ways, and I'll look at slide three at the list of um neighborhoods here that will be targeted with this project, and I wonder for the eligibility, transit rich, high density, high amenity, vibrancy, looking to con to attract and retain young people, why Cesar Chavez, Eastern Avenue, Kalamazoo, Division, BERT, and corridors are aren't also considered.

You know, I think Mayor brings up a good point about um, you know, like this is a this is a really cool addition of of stairs and connectivity.

Um, but as I mentioned in our last item that we have two transformational infrastructure uh projects on ice that can totally transform a huge thoroughfare through the city, um, and spur much more um walk more transformational walkability and attraction and so on and so forth.

So I do you know I see this as a missed opportunity in some ways, um, and I hear um kind of the deadlines we were on, the criteria, um, and I know we've kind of talked about this at length behind the scenes, and if this if this opportunity for this particular grant comes up again next year, um the team has committed to really taking a strong look at some of the kind of Eastern Avenue corridor and some of those other projects.

Um with that, I do have a few follow-up questions.

Um, because you you mentioned the the uh age concentration um as being a primary driver.

What census track were you referring to?

What census track is this of uh young professionals?

Yeah, you said this census track has the highest concentration of young professionals, 25 through 34 year olds.

Yes, I'm I'm sorry, so I'm so when thinking about this particular project, we looked at pockets of this.

I mean, we looked at all the um the city in total in totality, and this is one of many that have or one I wouldn't say many, but uh one of the highest um concentrations.

I'm I'm noting data that was pulled from uh one of the crafters of this bill back in the fall, um, and looking in particular at uh census tracks between um with young professionals concentrated at 250 persons, 500 persons, and a thousand persons, with emphasis on Chicago really being that a thousand person uh census track.

Does that make sense?

I'm I'm happy to get you more information in that regard, but that's what I know.

Yeah, I'll be curious to know um just for comparison's sake.

Do you know what the top three were by chance?

I don't know if you know by census tract, or I hear you say maybe maybe more by area or neighborhood.

You're talking about in Grand Rapids.

I can get you that map too.

I don't know them offhand.

City manager.

I I just want to re-emphasize that the process did not solely just involve staff's preference, but we were closely advised by the state by Leo when we brought our array of projects across the city, I think at least three.

And based on their technical analysis, they gave us feedback on what they thought would be the most competitive for the grant.

So while we could have put another project forward, we may not have been, and it would have satisfied maybe a local desire.

It may not have been competitive in comparison to other parts of the state.

And so unfortunately, based on the efforts that have been going on in this corridor, the planning efforts since 2020 or earlier, I think even preceding the Leo Award, there were area specific plans.

There seemed to be a little bit more advanced area specific planning that this uh grant could accelerate as compared to some of the more recent discussions in other parts of the city.

And so we fully understand that there are lots of opportunities to improve density and urbanization throughout our community.

And unfortunately, when again, this is this is not about a staff preference.

This is of the projects that we identified, which one statewide when looking at cities uh urban areas across the state, urban areas across the state.

City manager, with thought with all due respect, I think the the project though that I was referring to was not vetted as part with that rubric, is that correct?

The one on the Ms.

Renero, can you just the mayor did ask that earlier?

So the other two projects that we put forward can you focus on the South Side Creekways project, so Boston Square to factory yards and the trail connectivity that you'll hear a briefing on here at EDPT.

And then also uh Bridge Street West Side and the uh place infrastructure projects.

Excuse me, on the west side and connectivity to the soccer uh project, and just so the bunch of projects that I referred to were not Commissioner.

We're not uh part of that.

Excuse me, there's my time.

I just I just wanted to respond to that.

Yeah, I don't think the specific infrastructure.

The city manager was talking, Commissioner, so I'm trying to keep an orderly meeting going here.

I'm not trying I'm trying to order discussion.

I understand.

I know how to do that.

Thank you.

Well, I was I was trying to acknowledge the city manager was in the middle of saying something.

And so it's not a good idea.

Did I cut you off, City Manager?

My apologies.

I think I was I thought you were finished.

I was responding to you.

Okay.

Now, Commissioner, did you want to the floor is yours?

I was responding to to the city manager to say to say that that answer clarifies that the project that I was referring to related to Eastern Corridor and the transformational infrastructure that's in in place in the works was not vetted.

That was my point.

And I think this underscores where you were another you and others were saying, Mayor, around, you know, we have doubt, for example, we just talked about the Thur War Equity Fund.

We have other examples, other sources of funding to leverage to match, and other projects should be considered.

Thank you.

So I I I would welcome the commission again, just to bring back to the point to to make my point maybe again, but I think that this is something where institutional memory is going to be very important.

So this is a grant.

We might not get a dollar.

Um we might not, we might get completely rejected and all this money might go to Ann Arbor and Detroit.

Um it's a competitive grant.

And so if we but that doesn't mean that as a commission, we have to say, great, we got a grant for this, therefore we're only going to invest money in this place.

Uh it can it's more money that comes into our pot that we can work with.

Um, but it certainly means that we should remember this when we're thinking about where we direct our budgetary decisions and our priorities uh going forward.

But of course, this is all hypothetical now.

There's a grant, we may not get it if we don't get it.

Um but we might think about essentially ourselves committing to matching this grant in terms of uh our commitment to investing in other neighborhoods, because again, as you know, Commissioner Purdue and I think both share a concern uh that we really focus on what I think of as the Eastern uh Burton Hall corridor, uh the Kalamazoo corridor, there's a lot of exciting things going on there, and I think I think those things are at a tipping point and whether or not they're ready for this grant project.

I think those are things where um you know the commission's will engagement um and persistent effort um can absolutely do transformative work on the on the near south side of our town, let's say.

Um so I so thank you for the presentation, but I do think that uh this is something we have to put in a broader context.

And so it'll be interesting.

When does the award either uh you say we have to apply by September, so what's the timeline?

The deadline.

And then when will we know the answers?

It's a great question.

Uh, we've been finding out information um kind of as we go.

Um so I imagine by the end of the year, but I I I will check and ask that question.

Thank you.

Um other others, uh commit the city manager.

Yeah, thank you, uh Mayor and um Commissioner Purdue for your earlier comment question.

Now I do want to clarify.

I don't think that uh as you say the Eastern Corridor conversation was part of the consideration.

Uh what I would welcome, because I am quite frankly very unclear on final plans.

I think that would be a great economic development project team update on where things are in the planning process.

Um I've heard a lot of aspirational things, but I think in getting something ready for um you know, kind of investment ready, development ready.

I think uh it would be helpful to have a more formal conversation.

I checked with our city engineer, and I know while the CIAs and so others may have done local planning, I'm not I'm not sure it has come out of there with formalized recommendations uh for investment and development.

So I think that would be helpful to bring forward that uh more to light so that we can all have a common understanding of what the what the goals are and what the needs are in that area.

Well, and I I actually think that um if I could um a lot of the critical things the city can do, particularly in those quarters, turned out to be infrastructure investments, and so then that means that getting mobile GR involved in that conversation and involved in the visioning is going to be really important, and there's certainly at least seem to be fairly serious proposals at the state level right now uh for new levels of road funding, and if that happens, I certainly hope that we can start having start thinking and dreaming about ways to use that money transformationally and not simply to support the status quo.

Um I think that may be an opportunity for us to do some real multimodal dreaming and working, and particularly um again coming back to the walking and chewing gum analogy.

Um there's a reason that downtown is important in any cities because all there are a lot of jobs in the downtown core.

And so connecting our neighborhoods to the downtown core in feasible transportation methods that uh non not hugely affluent people can use.

Um that's where good transportation systems can really um do some work on equity, I'm convinced.

And so the ability to meaningfully and robustly connect some of those cores to downtown, they're not that far away.

They feel farther away than they are, and so infrastructure that can make that uh bridge that gap uh is something that I think we may we may be in a position to talk about because we may find we have new money.

But again, that's down the future.

The state uh I think they're probably buying pup tents right now because they're uh gonna close down state government and go live on the lawns for a month or two until they all get along.

Um we'll see whether they whether they manage to come up with a budget or not.

They're certainly blowing deadlines as we speak.

Um so anyway, uh thank you for the presentation.

Any other uh comments or questions?

Great.

So thanks for the update.

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Usasi.

Uh uh, Ms.

Renara, if you want to come back up.

I I think um I j I feel it necessary to say something at this point because I I think um what I'm sensing is some tension about process, and I don't know if that is you know, I I've listened to what you said, Commissioner, I've listened to what you were sharing.

And not that it's like one or the other, but I think this is um you know how do we function?

I think about our economic development project team and how can we make that more robust for some of these conversations.

No offense to John and the development center.

We get those reports, but I I I'm sensing the need to get into a deeper conversation of where we want to see these things.

I I do think it was funny that maybe it's not funny, but that we had this presentation just right after we had that.

Um this is a project that you know I've talked to a number of neighbors about, talked to DGR, other other folks about, and I know it's part of this longer term strategy.

Um, but that's you know, kind of that that conversation about what we just had about the third ward fund.

So I'm just wondering if it it I don't remember when we we made EDPT a stand is it technically a standing committee?

I think it is.

Um, but perhaps it's time to revitalize that in some different ways.

I also think it's important to know I don't think there's any third ward commissioners on EDPT, which has not been the case in the past.

So I I'd hope that we can reconsider that and that was part of some other conversations I had today about appointments.

So I think there is it just feels like there's a couple of pieces of the thread that we can like how do we operationalize this?

Because I don't hear anybody saying like they're disagreeing up here, but there's something that's a miss.

And I don't know what it is, and so I think if it's you know, maybe some of this the structural pieces that we could come back together on.

So I just felt I just felt that and I wanted to to share that for the for the whole body.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um that brings us to the end of our meeting.

Oh sorry.

Uh yeah, so uh there's been a request from a city attorney that we move into closed session uh for discussion of collective bargaining.

Great.

Uh uh City Clerk, if you take the role.

Oh pardon me, I need a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Yep.

Okay.

We do additional uh view too.

Uh still that'll be yeah, but that's I think I thought we're gonna do that after committee of the whole we're gonna do that after our regular meeting.

So okay.

Well, if we can do them both at the same time, then also for uh staff review that but that will happen after our um meeting in the afternoon, our two o'clock meeting.

So Commissioner Kildore?

Yes.

Commissioner Knight?

Yes.

Commissioner Robbins?

Yes.

Commissioner Purdue?

Yes.

Commissioner Balchak?

Yes.

Mayor LeGrand.

Yes.

And we'll be in room 601.

Great.

All right.

Meetings adjourned, except we're moving to cloud, I guess we're recessing the closed session, something like that.