Hi everyone, right now it's 9 15, which is the traditional start time of this meeting.

I am waiting on two of my colleagues to have quorum.

So those who are watching, I just want to come online and share that message.

And um we'll give it a couple of minutes.

I think Commissioner Belchak is is almost here, and then um if not, we'll make a determination.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

Our first item is a resolution approving a fireworks discharge permit for image engineering special effects for an indoor special effects at the Van Andal Arena in conjunction with Matt Reif Stay Golden Tour on November 9th, 2025.

Do you have a motion?

Support.

Hello.

I have no concerns.

Okay.

I'm not gonna say that I don't know who Matt Reif is, but I don't.

He's a committee.

That got me in trouble last time.

Yeah.

Um sorry, Steve Guitar, but anyways, all right.

No concerns.

Um, colleagues hearing that.

Uh all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries, thank you.

Resolution number two is one amending a project management agreement between the city of Grand Rapids and this uh Grand Rapids Public Museum.

Do you have a motion?

So moved support moved and supported.

Uh good morning, commissioners.

Um, the the current agreement was approved with between the city and the museum back in March of 2022.

Um this item just extends that um agreement for an additional three-year term for the city engineering department to work with the museum on um upcoming renovations and expansions.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

McCall.

Um, so I know we put some dollars toward the elevator, there's some other renovations that are happening at the uh public museum, so a lot a lot of construction going on there.

Um, colleagues, any questions on this item?

No.

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item number three is a resolution approving a three-year extension for existing agreements with a number of firms for professional and technical engineering services and approving an increase in the amount of such agreement agreements by 15 million for a total combined for all agreements not to exceed 30 million.

So moved.

Mr.

McCall.

Um Yeah, the the current agreements are with 19 firms.

These were approved back in March of 2023 for a three-year term.

The initial auth authorization was for 15 million.

Um to date, we've authorized 15 million dollars in services.

We've expended about 11.6 million.

Um with our upcoming workload forecasting and projects, it's recommended that we increase these for an additional three-year term and increase an additional 15 million in expenditures.

Um this supports various department projects, um, some like park projects with bathroom renovations, um, traffic safety safety projects, RFBs, signal projects, road reconstruction projects, projects at the Lake Michigan filtration plant, and wastewater recovery facility.

Great.

Thank you for that overview.

Colleagues, questions on this item.

Are there opportunities for more people, more companies to participate, or is that a whole new process that they would have to start?

I mean, we do have 19 firms, so we do put it out for um request for proposals each time and then select from the proposals received.

Um yeah, we would have to go out for an RFQ to I guess add additional firms to it.

There's not currently an on-ramp to get additional firms onto the contract.

Um, I think last time we solicited it was 180 some firms.

Um I think maybe we received about 40 proposals.

Do you know when that was?

Um, we awarded it back in March of 2013.

March 3, so yeah, probably you know, three or four months prior to that.

So all right.

Um I would just suggest looking at ways we can get more onboarding in the middle.

It's great to extend um terms for what we need, but if there was an opportunity to um get more people, we have new businesses starting, new construction and engineering firms that maybe want to get in, um, but they don't know how.

So um finding ways to do that would be my suggestion.

Any other comments?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Item number four is a resolution awarding a contract with brick plumbing LLC for replacement of private led service lines at various locations in the amount of six hundred and forty-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty-nine dollars eighty cents with the total project cost not to exceed seven hundred and sixty-nine thousand five hundred and forty dollars.

Total support.

Um yes, this project we received bids, um, five bids.

The low bid was approximately eleven percent under the engineer's estimate.

Um brick will be utilizing 7.55% microlocal business um participation.

Um the project is locally funded and includes about 200 private led service lines on the northwest side of town.

Um to date the city's replaced approximately 8200 led service lines, and we have um not counting this contract about 950 lead service lines on contract to be completed um like kind of in the next 12 months.

What's the percentage of the of the overall project then completed of that?

You said 859 or 8200 have been completed.

I think there's I don't have the exact number, but maybe like 17,600 remain.

I believe it's a little over 17,000 left to do how many little over 17,000.

17, okay.

Uh and we try to we're we're we're targeting 1900 a year, which we established that a few years ago when we were at 19,000 to try to get them done in 10 years.

Got it.

Thanks for that reminder.

And you mentioned uh these are locally funded.

Um I believe our recall that we got uh federal dollars at one point to help us do this.

So tell say a little bit more about how that's being braided today.

So um years ago we had the EPA grant, which I believe was 2021.

We got uh a little over five million dollars.

All of that money has been expended.

We focused that all on um disadvantaged or neighborhoods of focus area when we did the private side only, which was also so when we say private side only is those are leftovers from when we did our CSO separations where we did water main replacement at that time when the sewers are separated, but we didn't do anything on the private side because there wasn't a requirement at that time.

So when we're focusing on it now, like these that Jeff has talked about, um, these are in an area I believe it's between Bridge Street and I believe Lake Michigan Drive is where we're gonna be focusing with this particular contract, and those are all part of that old CSO area.

So the money that's being used at this time right now is coming directly out of operating funds in the water system uh operating budget.

And do you anticipate I have you all projected that that will be the reality moving forward for the duration of the project?

We just actually we just um I shouldn't say that that was that's a different grant that we put in for, but we put in for a grant back in December through the EPA for additional funding for lead service line replacements.

We still have yet to hear back on that, and I don't know where that stands at this point if that's even gonna happen.

Uh we continue to seek uh DWF drinking water revolving fund dollars and loans for a lot of this work as well.

Um with that um, you know, uh and we'll you'll be seeing something in the coming months with respect to the 2FY26 state drinking water revolving fund where we got essentially uh about two and a half million dollars in principal forgiveness in that type of funding.

So we continue to use operating dollars on the private sides primarily, and when we do the fulls, we're trying to capitalize those.

Does that make sense?

You said we do the fulls.

Fulls would be public's portion and private sides.

So when you see like the the Jeff mentioned the 900 plus lead service lines that are under contract right now, those are what we would be calling the full lead service lines or public sides.

So it basically from water main into the house.

Got it.

Thank you.

Thanks for that overview.

Um any other additional questions, colleagues?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Item number five is a resolution awarding a contract with Kent Companies in for certain repairs at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant and the amount of one million two hundred and fifteen thousand six hundred and seventy-eight dollars twenty-three cents with the total amount not to exceed one million six hundred and sixty-two thousand seven hundred ninety-nine dollars.

So moved.

Or moved and supported.

Um this project includes repairs to the facade and associated building elements addressed in an asset management plan at the Lake Michigan filter filtration plant.

These repairs were identified as the highest priority from a safety perspective and include a lot of repairs to the facade.

Um we received four bids for this project.

Cant companies was the low bid at uh 1,215,678, which was about 32 percent under the engineer's estimate.

Um it is a little bit specialized in nature of the work, um, so they're not using any MLBE contractors.

Um the items to request award of the approval of the contract award to Kent Companies, um, the total not to exceed of 1,662,799.

Thank you.

Additional questions, colleagues?

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Item number six is a resolution approving an increase of one hundred thousand for elder reservoir external cleaning and painting for a total not to exceed of two hundred and ninety-seven thousand fifty dollars.

So moved or okay.

This is another uh water system project.

This project was originally awarded back in May of 2025 for cleaning and painting of the Alger 5 million gallon reservoir.

After they pressure washed it, a number of holes became apparent in the surface that needed to be repaired, which we didn't have enough contingency money for.

So this additional authorization will cover the extensive hole repairs along with some roof vent necks that need to be replaced and some um Philister welds that are needed repair.

Dixon Engineering, who's the consultant watching this job will also be evaluating the interior of the tank, which was not on the original scope, was just the exterior of the tank, so they have not performed those inspections yet, but we may need to return to commission for additional fund um once depending on what they find on that inspection.

What's the age of the tank 50s, 60s?

It's it's actually early 70s.

Early 70s, okay.

That pump station.

Sorry.

Sorry about that.

Thank you.

Um so early 1970s for that particular tank and pump station.

The pump station was actually rebuilt a few years ago to kind of we actually downsized it to meet the lower demands in that pressure district.

Okay.

So I've seen it all my life, so that means I was not born in the 70s.

Just okay.

Okay, guys, it's Tuesday.

It's it's gonna be fun.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Item number seven is a resolution approving an increase in the scope of work and authorizing expenditures to the contract with Nagel Construction Inc.

in conjunction with rotomilling resurfacing of streets at various locations in the amount of nine hundred and thirty thousand uh with total project cost not to exceed uh six million four hundred and twenty-three thousand three hundred and thirty three hundred and sixty dollars.

So moved.

Support um this contract was originally awarded back on uh April 9th of 2024.

The contract reserved the right at the city's option to add additional locations upon successful negotiations with the contractor.

Um the contractor did express a willingness to take on additional work and recent work at some locations was also more extensive than planned, and we did add some additional locations.

So this item increases the amount of contract work with Nagel, the amount of nine hundred thousand um with kind of an additional one point two million added to the overall project from what was previously approved.

Great, thank you.

Questions?

Hearing none.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Next is uh resolution number eight, approving an increase to the construction management services agreement with Clark Construction Company for construction of fire department training facility at 850 Panel Street Northwest in the amount of eleven million eight hundred and sixty-two dollars with a total amount not to exceed forty million ninety-seven thousand seven hundred and fifty-four dollars.

So moved.

Moved and supported, Mr.

McCall.

Okay.

Um as you may be aware, the new Kendall Fire Station just held the ribbon cutting ceremony last week and um is now an active station as of last Friday, I believe.

Um this project kind of continues the the fire department trend.

Um it's their new fire training facility located at panel back in March of 25.

The commission approved an increase to the first phase of uh the first phase of bidding was completed by Clark.

Um this is kind of the final phase of bidding by Clark.

Um we're requesting um an increase of 11 million dollars to Clark's construction management agreement with total project amount not to exceed of 40 million ninety-seven thousand seven hundred-four, which would be the amount approved by this body to date.

Um it is important to note that um there is a separate burn building project that will be on this site and due to grant funding requirements.

Um that has to be bid separately, so that is not part of Clark's contract, and then the um the city will also be providing furniture to the site.

So that's the the kind of the 46 million dollar number that's mentioned in the memo factors in those two items, yes.

Got it.

What's the reminder, Chief?

What's the total amount of grant state federal dollars on this one?

Uh 15.

15 so fit 15 million uh from state and then 1.5 million uh which would be the berm building.

Okay from uh federal.

All right, yeah.

And then do we put capital dollars in this one too?

Yes, okay.

Capital reserve funds okay, great.

All right.

Well, congrats on the ribbon cutting.

I didn't get to go, but I heard it was good.

All right.

Um any other additional questions on this item.

All right, hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries, thank you.

Next is item number nine, which is a resolution approving a purchase agreement, accepting a deed and authorizing payments for construction of Grand River's Edge Trail East from Leonard Street to Ann Street, and an amount not to exceed uh 460,000.

So moved.

Miss Bearens?

So this a little bit unusual.

Normally this would be handled by the city engineer also, but in transition, and this one uh took a lot of hands to get it uh to get it forward.

So uh just uh there isn't much uh to see here.

Leonard to Ann Street is a trail connection that uh we have been trying to complete for some time and have Greenway uh funding dollars and a number of other funding sources to uh complete that section of the trail it's divided into a north portion and a south portion.

Uh both should be going out to bid in the next couple months.

Uh both should hopefully be completed before the end of next year.

Great.

And it does need construction needs to start by 2026 because this is ARPA dollars.

Uh construction, the ARPA dollars need to be fully spent by the end of 2026.

So both start and make good progress.

Got it.

Okay, yep.

Because this one has taken a while, so glad to see it.

Um 2026 right around the corner.

All right, thank you.

Questions on this ones, colleagues.

Hearing none, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Item number 10 is a resolution accepting a sidewalk and ill utility easement at 943 Godfrey Avenue Southwest in connection with Ockford from Norwich to Godfrey Reconstruction for $5,520.

So moved.

Support.

Yes, this items in connection with the Oxford from Norwich to Godfrey reconstruction project.

Um the easement is necessary to replace a sanitary sewer, um, which is kind of outside the road right away to the the north of where Oxford is.

Um the sewers actually currently in this location, but there's just no easement for it.

So this item will um offer $5,520 for the the easement.

Okay.

Great.

Um, any questions, colleagues?

Um, just to clarify, that is a permanent easement, right?

Or correct a per permanent easement, not a gradient permit.

So yeah.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Item number 11 is a resolution accepting a sidewalk and utility easement at 2787 Coy Avenue Northeast and construction with three mile road from Monroe Avenue to Plainfield Avenue resurfacing and authorizing payment for 1,650.

So moved.

Um the three-mile project from Monora to Plainfield is planned for resurfacing next year.

A roundabouts proposed at Coyton Three Mile.

Um, this easement will um just provide for the sidewalk to go um, I guess be relocated a little further.

Um to the it's this is on the southwest corner to allow that roundabout to go in.

I don't I don't think any utilities are associated with it, but we do call them utility and sidewalk agreements so we can put anything in them in the future.

Thank you.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item care item carries.

Item number two is a resolution accepting an easement at uh 3300 36th Street Southeast for nominal consideration of one dollar.

So moved or um Wedgewood Christian Services is doing some campus improvements um requiring a fire an existing fire hydrant to be relocated from its current easement to a new easement.

Um so this is a new easement that they've requested, um, thus the one dollar consideration.

Okay.

So thank you.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Item number 13 is a resolution scheduling a public hearing on an amendment to the Brownfield plan of the City of Grand Rapids Brownfield Redevelopment Authority related to 123 Ottawa redevelopment project.

So moved.

Support.

Miss Ronero.

Thank you.

Yes, this is uh for 125 Ottawa.

This is proposing to redevelop the existing office space above uh the retail um just a block over a couple blocks over here on floors two through four uh for 36 different units, ranging from one to two bedrooms.

Eight of the 36 will be reserved for under sixty percent AMI, which is uh one of the requirements for state funding that they're pursuing with through MISHTA.

Uh we've got total eligible investment at 11.4 million.

Uh the DDA did do their pass through on September uh 10th for the revenues, and then the only other thing that I wanted to mention is um we've got pretty significant uh subcontractor aspirational goals for the inclusion plan at 30 percent.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Questions for on this project.

Thanks for highlighting the AMI pieces.

I know I got a chance to hear here the overview in Brownfield and just continued um you know adaptive use of of these downtown commercial buildings.

Yes.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed item carries.

Item number 14 is a resolution scheduling a public hearing on November 18, 2025 on the draft fiscal year 2026 to 2020 2030.

Well, consolidated housing and community development plan.

So moved support.

Moved and supported.

Uh Ms.

Bohatch, thank you.

Good morning.

So this is our um new consolidated plan that's required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

It serves as a five-year plan and strategy for the allocation and use of your um of our formula funds that come through HUD.

So the community development block grant, the home investment partnerships, and the emergency solutions grants programs.

Um when we do our um processes though, in terms of our allocation, we add other resources as well, and so this plan would guide those resources.

So, for example, the justice assistance grant and the opioid settlement funds.

So we've been um working through um community consultations and focus groups.

Um we've had a survey that's out, and we've been looking at, of course, other plans that are out and available the city's master plan, um, the housing um assessment plans and other documents that are available in the community that are address community um needs.

And so we'll be bringing that all together in a draft, and it will be available for public comment between October 28th and November 26th, and then we will bring it forward to you in December uh for approval.

It is not required to be submitted to HUD until May, but it does guide our investment strategy, so our neighborhood investment plan and that framework and outcomes um need to be established so that we can start our funding process in January.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you for this overview.

Questions on this items, colleagues?

Do I'm curious?

Thank you.

Um I'm curious.

We had a recent public hearing in your world as well.

Well, um we always seem so similar.

Um fit together.

Yeah, I guess it's okay.

But I'm I'm curious.

There was some uh interesting feedback shared during the public hearing about um folks in wanting to know what dollars they can apply for as opposed to kind of the current process of being kind of in this pod.

Do you recall?

Yes.

Comments, just curious, your response.

So years ago, every funding source we would release an RFP for every single funding source.

And then you would apply to that funding source for your activity.

Um it becomes very, it's a lot to manage for one, and it's very complex how we do it now, um, but it also limits the ability because we are going to we have very limited funds.

So, for example, our emergency shelters grants.

We only have about I think it's 350,000, something like that.

So anything to do with homelessness and financial assistance would be applying there, and we would not be able to fund a majority of those applications.

And then we'd have to do this in a staggered approach throughout the year to try to um meet uh sort of I guess staffing uh capacity to be able to do those those RFPs individually.

Um, and quite frankly, my opinion is is that um you have more opportunity when we're looking at the whole big picture and being able to plug in available funding sources with appropriate eligibility because we can see across right everything that we're we're allocating as opposed to this very narrow focus of this funding source and these specific rules and regulations, and a project may not be eligible for those resources, but may be eligible if we were to fund it in a different manner with a different funding source.

So it really provides flexibility and allows us to maximize all of our resources.

So I hear what they're saying, and that's how we used to do it.

Um I think we're more effective and um have more opportunity for better outcomes when we do it in one process.

Um when it comes to um I didn't hear a request to revert back to the old way.

I think folks recognize that you know you have you've made a lot of process improvements.

Uh more so what I heard was um, and this is again based on those three minutes, so you might have had a longer conversation with them.

Um, but is there any way that even within this updated process that uh folks can have a bit more transparency about each of those funding sources, the requirements, the eligibility, that sort of thing.

So I think that's something to consider.

And that's that is on our website, but we can we can explain that um what those uses are.

It's is in our plans.

We can but we can do a better job.

Okay.

I was gonna um add to that.

I think and I don't this might have been always ongoing, but um different sessions that you have like throughout the year that we're sort of uh preempting applying for different funds where people can come and review and to see if it's a fit.

So um I don't remember when those usually happen, but I remember that they do this month.

This month, okay.

So we tried to do it in sort of well in advance so people can prepare.

Yep.

Yep, for the application.

And I think I'll just add from being on the committee.

Um, this is more so for those who are applying, is don't apply the day before it's due.

And I and I and I and I'm and I'm you know not being facetious because we can see when somebody opens application.

And so that is a question that we've asked at the committee level of when are the applications opened.

And and not everybody, so you know, those of you are watching who are like, Commissioner, I didn't, but there is, and so and we do that because again, beforehand our staff members, you know, if you're you get into it and you run into something, then I know like I know somebody who did get some technical assistance last year.

They didn't end up applying all the way.

There were some things that happen.

Um, but I think just also knowing that as well is what are some of the best practices, especially I think in this federal government standpoint.

So I just wanted to add that from the last committee.

Yeah, then that was a good point because someone did comment in the public hearing about wanting more time for their applications.

And Commissioner Asassi is correct.

So we tracked those um that those metrics in terms of when so there's lots of opening the day that they open, but it's when do they go in and actually start working on it?

And well, well over the majority, um, start about three days before it's due.

Um so yeah, I think it's just um I mean, have I been guilty of doing a grant the day before it was due?

Absolutely.

Um not for the city of Grand Rapids.

I don't have any City of Grand Rapids funding.

Um it's just I think with this process, you know, philanthropic funding versus grant funding, I think just you know, different requirements, different things to consider.

So thank you for hosting those sessions and then did you want an explanation about the different public hearings, how it ties together.

I'm sorry.

Sure, yeah.

Okay.

Um so the five-year plan sets your um sort of your allocation strategy and needs for a five-year period.

Um, and then on an annual basis, we do an what's called the annual action plan.

That is the funding process where we make those recommendations to you, and that serves as our application for those federal funds.

So we're telling um the federal government um what we plan uh to fund how much and what we're going to accomplish with those resources.

Um so and then um at the in the fall, we are then holding a public hearing hearing on what actually happened.

So that was the CAPER.

So that happens for those programs that for the the year that ends on June 30th each year.

And so that ties to every year of that five-year plan.

And I'm gonna, yeah, and I'm gonna end you right there because I'm looking at the time.

Thank you.

But if if there's additional questions, we can you're always here, Connie.

So thank you.

Uh you've been here for a long time and you're always here.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, item carries.

Um item number 15 is a resolution scheduling a public hearing on October 21st, 2025, to consider a naming new park space at uh 680 Cesar E.

Chavez Avenue Southwest to Unity Park.

Do you have a motion?

So moved.

Miss Claypool.

All right, good morning, Laura Claypool with the parks department.

Um in 2024, the department began the process of a formal naming search for Plaza Roosevelt, which it's currently known uh for the space at 680 Ceres Chavez Avenue.

And through an extensive community engagement process, the name Nibaro Plaza was brought to uh the commission on April 29th.

Um the department was asked to go back out and do a second round of engagement with the top two names.

Um engagement took place over July and August and included postcard mailings to 1500 residents, email communications, a large banner at the site, um, multiple social media posts, inclusion in the neighborhood newsletter, and uh tabling at three events during that time.

The response for the second round was almost double the first round.

The voting closed on September 8th with Unity Report.

Unity Park receiving 232 votes, Navarro Plaza receiving 183.

The stakeholder group met on September 11th, and the park advisory board, they approved it unanimously, and the park advisory board also approved the name new unanimously on October 1st.

Uh so we're seeking approval of a rev a resolution to schedule a public hearing for October 21st to consider Unity Park.

Thank you, Miss Claypool.

Um I know that this was some back and forth and some work um and appreciate the uh taking the feedback around community engagement.

I want to say thank you to those that were part of that.

Um, you know, the committee, those that all voted.

Um colleagues, you have any additional comments or questions on this item?

I just concur with your statements.

Uh thank you for doing this, and I look forward to the public hearing.

All right.

Well, thank you.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries.

Next is a resolution confirming special assessment nuisance roll number eight uh eighty-eight hundred.

Um, do you have a motion?

So the board Miss Jasper.

Good morning.

Good morning.

So um July 29th, the city commission issued an order for the assessor to create a special assessment uh roll, uh, 8800 for unpaid charges for services or code violations issued between January of 2025 and June of 2025, and as required by city ordinance, property owners were notified, and the special assessment role was open for public inspection.

And in addition, we also post this assessment roll to our city website.

And the city commission sat as a border review September 9th.

We received six appeals.

And we're recommending that you grant appeal number one for $13.50.

Appeal number five for $379, and partially grant appeal number two to reduce the charge to 410 dollars.

Um, and with this, we're requesting that you confirm the special assessment nuisance rule, and the amount will be 359-231 and 98 cents if uh you do grant those appeals.

Great.

Thank you for overviewing that and pace to come down or to come and talk to you in 901 and to see what's going on, right?

Um colleagues, any questions on this item in the update?

So uh appeal number five.

Yep, or I'm sorry, appeal number two was originally one thousand one hundred and thirty-eight dollars and ninety cents, and we're recommending that you reduce the charge to four hundred and ten dollars.

Yeah, I see that in attachment.

Is that the only one that this includes or the all all the changes that are included in this?

So there's three changes that we're recommending.

Number one, appeal number one for thirteen dollars fifty cents, appeal number five for three hundred and seventy-nine dollars, and number two to reduce the charges.

Okay.

Any additional questions or hearing none?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Item carries, thank you, Paula.

Item number 17.

Our last item is this is a discussion item, which is not typical for this committee.

Um, but uh let me first read it.

Discussion of a new request to rename a portion of Delaware Street to Amelia Penway.

Um, and this has Miss Barrens on here, but I'm gonna just share a couple of comments, mindful of the time as well.

So, colleagues, you know that this item came before us.

Um, and we moved it forward.

There was a public hearing.

Um, we heard from a number of neighbors on Umatilla, um, some who were questioning why they there was another street renaming that hadn't been done, and really just feeling that they felt that that was not the best use on their street.

Um, I know I can speak for myself and I don't want to speak for anybody, but listening to people who live on a block um definitely sway me a lot of if I'm gonna move forward with something.

I think the question was also how do we apply the policy of the street renaming in this instance?

Certainly a horrible tragic death of a young person to lose their life, um, 15 years old.

Um, and we also saw this playing out in other ways as the um the show that features GRPD um had an episode related to his his tragic murder.

Um and I think really we also had another uh street renaming at that time, and so taking into account at least for me what people on the block were saying, and also really reflecting on what that policy says is somebody who has made contributions during their lifetime, um, which is hard to to have that discussion with a um with somebody and and regarding their child, everybody's life is important.

Um, but really um what could be a better way that we could identify those that are victims um who have been victims of gun violence in particular?

And so at that point, we decided not to move forward with that motion.

So the motion you know essentially died.

We did not consider it.

Um I had talked to um Corey Penn, who is a Millier's father many times, and I know others on commission have as well, um, to let him know that um and to explain that because I think sometimes if you're coming to commission for the first time, it may not be clear.

Um let him know that that had ended, and then he had come back and submitted a letter as well.

It was in our packet, I think the last meeting um asking for a consideration of a different street.

And so um did have some conversations with colleagues, you know.

I think any time somebody comes back to us, I want to be able to vet something out in the end, and my decision, I think the decision collectively as a whole is that decision to not move it forward um uh would be the same outcome, say if there was a new process.

So why would we have somebody go through that process if we were gonna do the same thing?

Um, and then stay very committed to um and I know Commissioner Purdue, you brought this up, you know, June um is gun violence awareness month.

Um we had missed that time frame when uh over this summer, but how could we recognize, particularly in a uh city-led proclamation that would speak to you know this being sparked by Amelia's father, Corey, um identifying in conjunction with different things we do, like our prize or other um arts organizations a reflection to recognize those that have died by gun violence and then most disturbing and probably very hard to hear over the weekend is that there was another young man who was who was shot on Umatilla.

And so, you know, I think the question is not about it, I think for all of us is not about did this person's life matter absolutely.

Is this father working so hard to make sure that his memory is is gonna be there forever?

Absolutely.

You know, uh Mr.

Penn talked about young people coming to him and just expressing their sadness of what they witnessed on that block.

And so um, and also recognizing that we have um we have identified a specific policy.

So just because this is a no, it doesn't mean that there's not another way to recognize in a more robust and probably ongoing way, and also recognize that there's many other people who also would like to recognize gun violence and that we need to continue to identify this as a major public health um issue in our city.

So that's a little bit of my soapbox.

Um Miss Barons, I know you had an opportunity to talk to to Corey Penn as well.

Uh certainly, and I don't want to speak on his behalf.

I expect he'll continue to advocate um as he has.

I just wanted to uh follow up that I did speak with Mr.

Penn about um reaching out later this week to establish a way that we can engage with him and other interested stakeholders on the follow-up of what is a better way to memorialize.

So coming up with tangible things for the commission to consider in the future that would be responsive to that need.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any final comments on this item.

Hearing none, um, thank you all, and thank you.

Um and again, as a reminder, the decision about um the street renaming is solely that of the city commission.

So while it might take some time, it does go through our engineering process.

Um I think we're also having uh community engagement involved.

Um in the end, it it is the the commission's decision.

So I think in the memo though, it does outline that um the final census is this request is not me require conditions for approval and therefore city staff will not continue too further process the the request.

Yes, I would say yes, and knowing what our stance is, you know, even more makes that you know because I think the conversations that I had after was that there was a desire to say if this were to come before us, we would still apply the same the same consideration to that.

You know, and I would say, you know, in the individual conversations that I had.

So and I think we're with ever with not everything are we always a hundred percent, but I think in this regard, there is you know, all seven of us agree that this is uh a different way.

I don't know if it's a better way because I it's Mr.

Penn's decision of what he wants to do, but we think it is the appropriate way, following our guidelines and making sure um we don't forget victims of gun violence throughout the year.

So all right, with that we're adjourned.

Thank you.