Our first item of business is a resolution regarding uh liquor control.

Uh Madam Clerk, if you could thank you, Mayor.

Brands is seeking a liquor license for their support.

Thank you.

Brands is seeking a liquor license for their new catering facility on Hall Street.

All the vetting was met.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Second item, I believe Ms.

Rennero is going to introduce for us, and that is a resolution establishing an industrial development district for Falk Material Wood at 1920 Northbridge Northwest.

I believe this has been in front of us for an overview previously.

So moved.

Support.

Ms.

Renero.

Yes, this went to public hearing at last commission meeting.

Uh just a reminder this project is the construction of 82,000 five hundred square feet of protect production facility for Falk.

And we'll add 14 new employees to the company with ranges of wages between 25 and 55 dollars an hour.

The value over the life of the abatement, uh, which is 12 years is about 1.8 million, with the city's portion because of the split with Walker at 337,000.

So I just wanted to give you some context there on the value.

Happy to take any questions.

But um we used to get a simple um cheat sheet on these sorts of things that sort of projected out expected income tax uh gains.

I don't know that I saw that.

Yes, we have the table.

Oh, please tell me.

I'm I'm seeing a project projection table.

Are you guys seeing it?

Uh well I don't have it in front of me.

So if you could just highlight that briefly, that'd be great.

Oh, sure.

Yes.

So the um total uh investment amount for real property is 8.8 million roughly.

Uh we talked about the average hourly wage.

Uh generated uh total new new generated taxes for one year is 156,990,000, which is where I'm multiplying that by 12 to get my 1.8 million roughly in value.

Uh taxes paid that first year will be $87,914, abated uh $69,076, and then we have a column on the far right dedicated to the City of Grand Rapids portion of those dollars.

Okay.

Okay, thanks.

Uh any discussion, colleagues?

All right, thanks.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Brings us to our next item.

Also, Ms.

Ranero.

Can I have a motion for this?

This is the um 12 years industrial facilities exemption for Falk also.

So moved.

Support.

Same project, correct?

Yes, it is the same project.

So we just talked about the district.

This is about the exemption certificate, and we can bring them at the same time over the course of the public meetings uh with the city, different than what a neighborhood enterprise zone would look like, for example, for the next agenda item for 125 Ottawa.

But any discussion.

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Brings us to 125 Ottawa.

Can I have a motion?

So moved.

Support.

So at the last commission meeting, we saw the public hearing for the neighborhood enterprise zone.

We're talking about the uh Brownfield plan amendment this morning.

Uh this is approving an amendment for the Brownfield plan at uh 125 Ottawa.

To jog the memory, this is a rehabilitation of an existing office building, floors two through four into 36 residential apartments.

This will be our second transition from office to residential downtown led by Sam Cummings.

And um will allow us to submit the work plan, the Act 381 work plan to the State Housing Authority Mishta tomorrow, uh uh assuming that's supported at our Brownfield Redevelopment Authority meeting.

And then at the next com at the next commission meeting, you'll see the neighborhood enterprise zone district back before you.

Great.

Any discussion, colleagues?

Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That brings us to our briefings.

Um and Ms.

Eddie could come.

Oh no, mayor, before uh you start.

Yeah, I'd like your permission to step down from the dais here.

I uh hope you all know that I'm interested in the permanent position.

I intend to uh compete and uh submit my information on this, but I think uh to make sure that you get an unbiased uh approach and if you have any legal questions, we've set you up with legal counsel other than myself on this particular item.

I'll go sit in the audience and receive this for the first time with the public.

Thanks.

Uh and I didn't uh I talked to the our city attorney briefly beforehand.

I don't think we needed a substitute for for uh for him on the dais for this discussion since this is just briefing.

But yeah, go ahead.

Good morning, O'Vail Bar leader.

As you are aware, we are beginning to be able to do that.

Sorry, good morning.

Oh Vell Barby interim HR leader for the city of Grand Rapids.

As you are aware, we are beginning the recruitment process for our next city attorney, one of our most critical appointed leadership positions to support a comprehensive professional and competitive search.

We have engaged mosaic public partners to lead the effort.

Today I would like to introduce you to Mr.

Greg Nelson from Mosaic, who will be leading the effort on behalf of the city.

Greg has a strong background in executive level public sector recruitment and brings deep knowledge of the unique skills and leadership qualities required for a successful city attorney.

Today he will provide an overview of the recruitment process and the timeline.

We are looking forward to working closely with Greg throughout this process and ensuring that our approach is thorough, transparent, and aligned with the needs and expectations of the commission and the community.

With that, please join me in welcoming Greg Nelson.

Thank you and good morning.

Uh as a native of Peoria, Illinois, the weather feels very familiar.

Uh so uh it's good to be in Grand Rapids.

I've met very nice people already today and looking forward to working with the commission on this very important recruitment.

Um it's often said that the appointments of the commission are some of the biggest decisions you'll have to make.

Uh you don't have many positions that you're able to select, um, but the city attorney is a very key one, and we're here to work with you in partnership to have a successful outcome.

Um I won't belabor the introduction.

I thank you for that, oh Oval.

Um, but I want to just kind of get into what to expect over the course of this recruitment and how the city commission will be very heavily involved in this process and what to expect going forward.

So I I like to think of um three phases of a search, and we'll go through those in a moment.

Um that is going to be one to develop a candidate profile to really understand what you as a city commission are looking for and need in your next city attorney.

One is to uh actually do the work of outreach and recruiting.

Uh that's probably the part that everyone goes to right away when you think about a search is generating candidates and having um good diverse options for you to consider at the end, and then third is to um have that selection process, a thoughtful selection process that's gonna yield you the candidate that you're looking for.

And then we'll go through the timeline and next steps in the presentation again.

First part of the recruitment is going to occur um mostly in December, and that's developing the candidate profile.

Second part will be early 26th outreach and recruiting, and the third part, the selection process will be likely around March.

And we'll go through the timeline in more detail.

So the purpose of the candidate profile, as I mentioned before to you, is to really call out and as specifically as possible, identify what you as a commission are looking for in your next city attorney.

No two cities are the same, and no two searches are the same, even in the same city during different periods of time because it's your needs change.

And so I really want to spend time listening and learning and understanding from all of you and identified stakeholders of what the specific attributes we should be looking for in candidates.

And um and so we'll meet with each member of you one on one.

Um we also want to meet with key members of the city staff, um, city manager and other key executives, just because they work very closely with the city attorney and they have a perspective to be considered.

And then other key stakeholders, and again, I don't know your city like you know your city, so I'm working with your team to help identify those key stakeholders.

Um so after today, um, I think there are three major touch points for the city commission.

One is in providing input in the candidate profile development.

And uh I'll be scheduling time to meet with each of you one on one to get your individual perspectives and talk about the search process, but mostly for me to listen and learn.

And at the end of this process, close to the end of the month, we're going to have a candidate profile, which we use as the recruitment brochure.

And we really want that document to help self-select.

We want candidates to read the brochure and understand if this job is right for them or not right for them.

The ones that feel called to it and feel like they're aligned are often candidates that end up being the best candidates.

Some will pick it up and say that's not for me, and that's fine.

We really want to focus on the candidates that are well aligned.

Again, these activities will occur through the month of December, and by the end of the month, we should have the search open.

And that takes us into the second phase of the recruitment, which is outreach and recruiting.

Our goal is to always generate a diverse selection of qualified candidates to give you choices.

We are somewhat limited by your charter that the city attorney has to be able to practice in the state of Michigan.

And while we will advertise nationally looking for those attorneys that have maybe been in Michigan, maybe left and came back, our most fruitful ground will be within the state because that's where the most of the qualified candidates will reside.

And things we do to generate candidates, we source candidates from uh five primary areas.

One is uh a passive way, which is advertising, which I just touched upon.

We're gonna uh do an advertising campaign that's designed to attract the candidates that we're looking to recruit.

Um is going to be direct outreach, uh interacting with people that we either know or have connected with in the past, either as candidates or seeking nominations, asking them if they can recommend good candidates as well.

So that's two and three uh four, uh, which is probably gonna be our most fruitful in this search is through research.

We're gonna identify every single person that we want to try to reach and do direct outreach to them.

Um the best candidates are not looking for work, uh, they don't go home and look at the job boards, they are busy doing good work where they're at, and we need to engage them and start a conversation about Grand Rapids and why this may be a good match for them.

And then five, uh, increasingly uh over time, no surprise.

Um, social media LinkedIn campaigns are also very successful as well.

Um this outreach and recruiting phase, I'll be available to provide updates throughout the process.

We're gonna work really hard to manage candidate confidentiality as long as we can in this process, as you can imagine, uh names will become public at some point, and we want to make sure that candidates know when that will happen, that there are no surprises, um, and at the same time try to attract the maximum amount of talent that we can, and that's always a challenge because people don't always want their current employers to know that they might be looking at another opportunity.

So we're gonna work with your uh legal staff to identify where that right balance is and uh manage confidentiality.

And the outreach and recruiting should occur through January and February.

Um the selection process again is to design our the goal is to design a thoughtful interview and selection process that is gonna give the city commission the best information possible to help select.

Um I will be here again on site to facilitate that process and um help you kind of just keep your eyes on the candidate profile and the attributes that we really need to be focused on as we are uh selecting candidates, and this is another opportunity where the full city commission uh needs to be involved, and really everybody needs to be there as part of this process.

Uh, once that process is yielded yielded the candidate that you're interested in.

We have some final vetting to do.

We'll do much of it along the way, but there are some final steps, and then I'll work with the city and the HR team uh through negotiations with the candidate with the goal of having an appointment uh for your next city attorney in April.

Um I provided in the presentation in the slide deck in very small print on the screen, but um, some more specific dates and targets of what we just covered in the process.

So, again, next steps um are gonna be for me to schedule meetings with each of you uh with identified stakeholders.

Uh we've already collected all the information from the HR team, they provided us that already, and we're already working on the early steps of the profile, but you'll be hearing from me over the this week and next to get those meetings scheduled.

We are coming up on the holidays, and so really we want to make the best use of this time to be ready to open when the market is prime, and that is right after the holidays, or at least right after Christmas, that week where people are often not working as much and maybe more reachable and thinking about the new year and new opportunities and what they may want to do the next year.

So I think timing for the search is ideal, honestly.

Um if we were a couple of months earlier, timing could be a challenge, but I think timing's ideal in this case.

And I'll pause there and see if you have any questions from you nodded.

Was not as like this.

Yes, thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for the overview.

Um I'd like to zone in a little bit on what you mentioned related to outreach and recruiting.

You mentioned uh the role of Michigan-based candidates.

Um my understanding is there's some sort of period in which if folks don't have their license and period in Michigan, they can obtain it, and I understand it's pretty reasonable.

And so with that understanding, I don't want the majority of our search to to focus on Michigan.

I truly will like a a true national search.

Um so I wonder if you could speak a little bit more to that with your response to that.

I can.

And I've already started some conversations about that with your legal team.

Um early conversations are that if someone is able to obtain their Michigan license through reciprocity, in other words, their license in another state, and that state has an arrangement with the state of Michigan where they can get their license through reciprocity, um, that could be a viable candidate because that process is relatively efficient.

Um if someone needs to go through the steps to get their license for the first time, kind of the full steps, um, that would probably be problematic.

Because your charter requires that in order for you to appoint your city attorney that that attorney be admitted to practice in Michigan.

And so um we could certainly focus broader, and I'll gain that direction from all of you meeting with you uh in hoping to attract candidates that can come into Michigan through reciprocity.

Do you know how many states have that with Michigan?

I don't know, but we'll we'll know for sure.

We're just in the early stages this, but we'll do that.

Okay, I'd be curious to know that.

Go yeah, go ahead.

One more.

Um if did you have something on this?

Yeah, actually, um, so this is something that colleagues I'd like you to consider and and uh you know we should have some consensus on.

But uh the answer uh Commissioner Purdue is not many.

Um but it's also true that um I think there's a question of whether we want to take a more relatively more aggressive approach here or a relatively more conservative approach to how we interpret the charter.

So uh the charter saying someone has to can't be appointed without uh being able to practice in Michigan is unambiguous on uh at a first cut.

On the other hand, uh every law firm in America hires um people who haven't passed the bar and then hopes that they will pass the bar.

So there would it would probably, if we were to choose, for example, just give a hypothetical someone who practiced for 30 years in New Jersey, uh moved here and you know became a pastor for 10 years and decided they wanted to be our city attorney.

Uh New Jersey doesn't have reciprocity, so they'd have to go take the bar.

And the bar is only only given a couple times a year, so that lengthens the process, and then they have to the state bar has to bury your application your test scores in the backyard for two or three months before they look at them.

You'd think they'd be able to score them on the way out the door, given it's all given we have you know computers got invented, um, but it still takes a couple months for you to get your bar results back.

So realistically, you know, if uh you know someone if that hypothetical person wanted to get licensed in Michigan, it's at least a six-month process.

Then the question is if we all decided yes, this is the perfect person, there's probably a way that we that would survive legal muster that we could make that person an interim, or we could hire them in the city attorney's office but not have them be the head of the office um and make their appointment provisional.

Now I'm just I'm just speaking very, very I'm getting ahead of my skis a little bit here because the city attorney hasn't given us hasn't given me any guidance on that.

But that's my intuition is that there would be space for us to do that workaround.

It would have some inconvenience associated with it and be substantial inconvenience because we wouldn't have an official city attorney for about six months longer.

Um we could almost certainly have that person in the office.

And if the expectation no, then we also risk what every law firm risks, which is they don't pass the bar.

And that person doesn't pass the bar, then it gets a little awkward and embarrassing.

And the question is um do you let that person go because they didn't pass the bar?

So that's a it's a complicated discussion.

Yeah, no, that's helpful to understand a little bit more about what that will look like in practice and see the concerns with extending um uh this process another six months.

So thank you for speaking to that.

The other question I have is is related to your advertising methods.

I just would love to hear a little bit more because you you mentioned it separately from social media and LinkedIn.

Can you talk a little bit more about where this advertising is, what type of is it, is it paid, what's your typical reach?

Um just say more about kind of the success of your advertising work.

Sure.

Yeah, um just speaking generally, uh, when we do an executive search, we develop an advertising campaign, and we're gonna look in three general areas where we place advertisements, and they're all paid advertisements.

Um, and there are gonna be those that are very specific to the industry itself.

So there is both a um international municipal attorneys association uh that's very specific to this field of municipal law.

Um there are oftentimes state associations that are similar.

So that's gonna be one category.

Uh a second category are gonna be general government sites, and so for example, the international city county management association, while on its face is really an association for city managers, it really has membership across all municipal professions, and there are a lot of city attorneys that are members there as well.

So that could be another general government advertising site.

And then third, we're gonna advertise in sites that are gonna help us to achieve a diverse candidate pool.

And so there are gonna be associations that are directed at um specific demographics.

So, for example, the National Forum of Black Public Administrators, the local government Hispanic Network, and so on.

And we want to um hit those three categories in our advertising campaign, and then separately from that um we advertise and promote on LinkedIn as well.

Great.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um she was pointing at me, that's what, yeah.

My thanks for thanks, colleague.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Nelson.

We had an opportunity to chat.

Um, and so thank you for outlining this overview.

And I think it's really helpful to have this conversation because you know, um, you know, colleague, you it just shared the experiences of sort of we are doing a national search.

You know, for me, one of the pieces that I'm looking for is somebody who does have experience with Michigan state law.

I think that is an important thing to me.

Um, you know, we're in the state of Michigan, we're governed by obviously the charter and our state laws here, and so you know, I think we have a lot of boomerang effects here in the state of Michigan.

We've had a lot of um activity of people who have been here and who have left and who've come back.

Miss Barron, aren't you one of those people that were here and then you left and you came back?

And um, you know, I'm sure there's other people in the audience like that.

So I'm hopeful that through that, I would also say all those entities that you mentioned.

Um we have strong membership in ICMA, you know, NFBPA, uh, all of those groups.

So I'll I'll uh I think that's also another positive that we've been uh we've been a site of conferences and hosted in different areas.

Um my question was really around so those are just some of my comments, but my question was around you know, during that um the outreach and recruiting and then getting to that timeline of um, you know, kind of in between that to the candidate screening and evaluation.

What is a what is a um typical or you know, would be a good sort of you know, search to yield um for a city our size and for the position, obviously.

We've you know, getting that profile, salary, all those things.

Um are you are you apologize?

Could you restate the question?

I'm not sure if you're what would be a realistic, you know.

I think um I mentioned to you today, I think our mayor is the only person who has done a uh uh uh hiring an appointed individual.

So this is my sixth year, but I haven't I haven't been a part of that process, and so um could you share for us what would be a typical amount of candidates that you would feel okay?

This constitutes a strong candidate pool.

Obviously, you'll have some people who apply that might be you know pulled out, you know, people apply for jobs for all sorts of reasons, but what would be a um realistic and successful candidate pool than you could go into that screening process then to present to us?

Thank you, Commissioner.

I thought that's where you're going.

I just wanted to be sure.

Um so I hate to say it depends, but it depends.

Um there are a number of factors that are really gonna affect uh the size of the candidate pool.

I really like to think about it in terms of quality and not quantity, and sometimes you can have really large numbers of candidates and not have the person you want.

Uh, and sometimes you can have a very, very small candidate pool and have several great choices.

So quality is more important than quantity.

And a lot of it will depend on the direction you as a commission give me.

Um in the issue, for example, that we just talked about about the scope of the search and where we're looking.

Once I've met with each of you and have a better sense of what that is and how wide we can cast our net, that will have a huge impact on maybe the number of candidates that do apply.

Uh so it's hard to say.

Some of these are 10 or less, and some of these are 30 or more.

Um a lot of things really go into that.

Thank you.

I just wanted to give that perspective, as you said.

I mean, you know, this is a job where you know, hopefully, people are interested in our city, and then would see hopefully that you know, we're one of the best run cities, you know.

We you know, lists are that, but also the experiences here that you know um they're bringing a family or other individuals.

You know, we talked a little bit about that, you know, what makes the position attractive overall, certainly the working environment, but a lot of times people are bringing an entire family with them too.

Um, but also we have um, you know, I imagine you know, we're a city that has also promoted a grow your own and have internal candidate pools as well.

So we would be balancing you know that piece of we're obviously doing a larger search.

We also know that there will be internal individuals, but how do we kind of uh best position ourselves?

So just wanted to give ourselves sort of a baseline to say, well, if it's 10, you know, like as you just said, it's quantity over quality.

So these 10 are really strong because we've hit these things that you all said you wanted in the candidate profile.

Maybe one of us really want to see 25 people.

So I just wanted to put that out there to balance our expectations in this process.

Yeah, and understand too.

Uh uh I another consideration is I'll be working with your legal team to identify the best balance of that confidentiality issue that we talked about before.

You know, we don't necessarily, it's not in anyone's best interest to um have people compete that are not going to be selected and uh have their own careers potentially damaged by having you know their their names out and their current employer um finding out, and so I'll be working with your team on how we'll manage that process and how many like really viable candidates may be presented to the commission for consideration.

Um so I let me ask uh let me ask a um uh minor question and uh that is I didn't see I'm I'm assuming that you're contemplating in this timeline that there's going to be uh community forum, community engagement.

So, but the only thing you listed here was stakeholder meeting at the very outset.

So if I was guessing where like community uh forums were to go in that process, I I was guessing it'd either be in the candidate screening and evaluation stage or the uh selection process, uh the final selection process.

But I'm assuming that it's fairly standard when you get down to like you know, your three finalists that there's uh a public forum and not simply a city commission conversation.

Uh can you speak to that?

Yes, Mayor.

Um community engagement is very important for public uh positions, and we um always see the value of that.

There are different opportunities that include engagement, and I'm really gonna take my cues from you as my client.

I'm gonna offer you some options about when pros and cons and where to best do that engagement, and then we'll design that process around it.

But I really want to have that conversation with each of you and then uh confer with your staff as well.

Uh anyone else?

Great.

Well, thank you for coming.

Um looking forward to this.

It looks sounds like you're gonna set up meetings with all of us.

You don't live on Fulton Street, so I'm assuming most of this is gonna be by Zoom.

But uh yeah, thank you for thank you for making the trip and for for doing this work for us.

You're um it sounds like we got a process and we're off to the races.

So great.

Thank you all.

Really appreciate this opportunity and look forward to working with all of you.

Thank you.

This brings us to our uh another update on the noise ordinance conversation.

So Mr.

Strom.

Good morning.

Phil Strom, interim city attorney, licensed to practice in Michigan, third ward resident, just saying.

Uh well this is uh on the briefing number two potential ordinance to regulate amplified sound near medical facilities.

Uh I intentionally did not uh do a long verbose PowerPoint on this item.

Uh did come to you previously.

We talked about the history, we talked about the current status of why we're we're addressing this now.

This isn't a staff-led initiative, it really came from a citizen-led effort to get us to pay attention to what was going on specifically down in the Cherry uh neighborhood with amplified sound around the Planned Parenthood Medical Facility.

Uh, you directed us to do some more community outreach at the committee of the whole meeting when we met.

Um, we did that.

We did a virtual listening session.

Uh Dr.

Andrea Riley Muckovick was uh helpful in leading that.

We did a targeted approach to other medical facilities and invited them to learn about why we were talking about this, what the state law was, and what type of options were available.

Uh, the general feedback that we got, first of all, uh it's my understanding that the four or five medical facilities that participated was about the sample size that that we expected.

This isn't a broad uh issue that's being felt by other medical facilities in our city, but they were warm to the idea of regulating amplified sound to protect their patients and protect their uh employees from people making noise or protesting around their facilities.

Uh I would say that was the feedback that I walked away from that virtual town hall with.

We also had uh survey that went out, and uh again, Dr.

Riley Mukovic is likely better to give you analysis into those survey results.

There were, I think, four or five uh results.

I attached the report to this agenda item if you have more interest in that.

But again, um open to regulation, not objecting to the concept, uh certainly interested in protecting patient and client privacy, but not really experiencing this the same way that the medical facility is down on Cherry Street.

We then took that report and that information and the concept to the public safety committee, which is you know is three elected uh officials, and there's citizen representation there.

We heard uh I would say strong advocacy from one of the citizen representatives that felt like this was uh a good move.

There was at least one other citizen on that uh public safety committee that I think was supportive, and at least two of the three commission uh the mayor and one other commissioner suggested that this come back to COW and that they would be open to looking at taking the next step to further regulate amplified sound around medical facilities.

The staff concerns are um one the definition of health care facility is pretty broad in our code uh of ordinances right now, and so this would apply to a lot of facilities, including I think dental offices, physical therapy offices, and other health care treatment facilities that exist across our city in large numbers.

Uh they certainly don't get the type of activity that were uh currently uh is being called to our attention, but um, if we were to adopt the same definition for health care facility, it would have a very broad impact across our city across the wards.

Uh there's always a concern when you're inviting the police to have more contact with individuals around uh protest or free speech activities that that could cause additional tensions and there could be um unintended consequences by having more uh ordinances that invite that sort of contact.

Uh, on the flip side of that, if we clearly define that you can't have amplified sound within a hundred feet, there's that clarity that exists that might uh help us draw those lines.

So um we have a question for you if you scroll up on this, whoever's controlling the screen just a little bit.

Um this the process of changing an ordinance takes some time.

So if the a majority of the committee of the whole would like to see the ordinance changed, uh down on this second page of the memo, there's a sample that we would bring forward for a first reading.

There's a 30-day window that allows for public comment.

There's a final adoption process.

We have not, we have intentionally not started that process today.

We didn't feel like we were ready to get there.

We wanted to hear if there's at least four commissioners that think that's the right next step, then we will uh get that on a future agenda.

Uh I'd invite the city manager or any other staff that have been this has really been a collaborative effort to try to think thoughtfully through this and not do anything that would have uh unintended consequences and make sure that you know all the the risks associated with this site sort of um ordinance revision.

This has really been a collaborative effort to try to think thoughtfully through this and not do anything that would have uh unintended consequences and make sure that you know all the the risks associated with this sort of um ordinance revision.

May I go ahead and thank you.

Um City Attorney for that overview and uh mayor and commissioners for your work, especially public safety committee who discussed this at length.

Uh Mr.

Davis is unable to be here this morning.

But specifically, as we have been talking about ways to uh reduce uh police interaction on non-violent uh types of offenses, and uh you know, focusing on your efforts of uh previous discussion of decriminalization, I think this would be uh something that would invite more police contact, and we know how sensitive uh interactions around people who are exercising their first amendments have been in the past.

And so while the officers would appreciate the clarity in the ordinance, I just wanted to make sure as uh city attorney highlighted both intended and unintended consequences uh when we uh start to um make sure start more enforcement around this area, like any other ordinance.

And I think that was the same uh other concerns in which ordinances we put on the book.

So um not sure if the the chief uh I think he um have anything else to add.

Uh I think he certainly said he appreciated offices' clarity.

Chief, do you have anything else to address?

Good morning.

I will uh say just I've I have had discussions with my Central Service Area officers, and uh as far as the concern uh more interaction with police, I would say that is that is for us, it's a low concern because as of now we are responding on a weekly basis, if if not more, to this location and dealing with a sort of gray area.

So the feedback internally that I've got from my personnel is a a more bright line rule of whether or not this certain behavior is allowed or is not allowed, is easier for the police uh to interact with individuals than dealing with a ordinance which is more gray as far as how loud is a normal conversation at 100 feet.

So uh again, we stand ready to uh we we are willing to to do our job in whatever way the the city commission uh directs us to, and so not taking a uh position either way, but uh just wanted to share that.

Thank you, Chief.

And I think um if I can go first here.

Um I think the question of like uh policing non-violent activities is a very broad conversation because of course lots of traffic stops fall into that category.

Um, you know, the classic crack tail light stop isn't because a crack tail lights an act of violence.

So um the con the question about how we how we do policing and the numbers of people involved in those kinds of uh interactions, I think is is far far higher.

That's a much bigger, this is a very much smaller conversation than that.

Um I would want to reiterate what I so as the stripped down language that you have there, uh city attorney.

Um I think I've said several times that first of all, I would welcome an ordinance which explicitly said uh first offense simply gets explained what the rules of the road are.

So just that so the first time an officer saw an individual, uh officers can ask people to identify themselves.

So if Bob Smith's using a megaphone, uh you can say, okay, Bob, here's the city ordinance, you're not allowed to do it.

Um second offense could escalate into civil infractions, but I also would like something tailored language that would prevent this, explicitly prevent this ever becoming um uh a misdemeanor offense.

And so that's not in this language.

The other the other thing that I would welcome, so separate in the question of whether we do this or not, um, which I think we have to decide first.

Um, but I at least want to point out that I don't think it would be impossible to say uh health care facility other than so in within the ordinance itself, specifically peel peel out the things that um that we don't consider health care facilities.

So dentist offices, PT, um, and if you had a list of things that we could specifically say other than those.

We don't have to change what we define as a health care ordinance generally, but for the purpose of this statute, we could pull some of those things out, and I think that would be productive.

That's that's drafting uh uh conversation, but I least want to point that out before we make our decision about whether there's there's will to move forward on the general idea.

Thank you for that.

Uh open to any consensus around those things.

The way that the code works right now is there's a schedule of things that are civil infractions.

Noise ordinance is that.

So the first offense is a hundred dollar fine civil infraction, I believe.

It graduates if you get multiple offenses within a certain period of time, not just charges, but convictions or or findings of responsibility.

It's only if you have three convictions within a six-month period, does it elevate to that misdemeanor level?

And I think there's only been one case in the last six years that I've been here where that was uh actually the case.

Yeah.

I I always am a big fan of drafting for the result you want, not for your experience thus far.

So I think we have the ability to simply ex uh exempt this from any criminal sanction, then I would be very, very frankly, I wouldn't support this if I thought that there would be criminal sanctions involved.

So I'm very strongly supportive of not having a criminal sanction be an option here.

Colleagues, sorry, should have asked.

Um Commissioner Knight.

A number of thoughts on that particular piece.

Um because no, we do not want the unintended consequences, right?

Um people, but then again, that's that thin line between um, you know, free speech and violating somebody's personal space, right?

I I have issues with people who are under resourced, need help, going to a place where they can receive those services, being shamed and degraded and disrespected.

You catch more flies with or more bees with honey, flies with honey, right?

And so doing that, they're not changing anything.

I like the hundred feet.

I I struggle with the you know, with the fee.

However, you know, I'd I would think that in the policing aspect of it, they have a modicum of um i using discretion, right?

And saying, listen, this is what you've done.

You you can't be here.

That's where you gotta be go there without slapping someone a ticket every time.

Uh I I have to believe that that can happen, right?

Especially as we continue to move towards now more community policing, where we have people that are out in the street that know the neighborhoods, that know somebody's name, that can have a conversation that can defuse a situation.

Um as far as it, you know, the vagueness of the statement health care facilities.

Um, you know, I don't know a dentist's office that has been, you know, uh protested against for putting a filling in.

Uh you know what I mean?

Um, so I don't think they would necessarily care.

You haven't met my cousins.

Probably only your cousins.

Um I don't you know what I mean.

I I don't see the the necessary of picking that piece apart because it's not going to harm them, right?

It's only gonna provide uh uh um a protection for them should that happen in the future, should you know the one black dentist in this city get protested against because she gives people tongue scrapers, right?

So I I I guess I that my only issue would be people getting a hundred dollar ticket for crossing that hundred and being on ninety.

I got an issue right now, just you know, of some feet for some things, right?

And I'm like, mmm, yeah, come on, right?

10 10 10 10 inches, 10 feet, serve step back.

This is your line.

But I do agree that people deserve to have their right to their choices, and they're responsible for the outcomes of those choices.

And shaming people, especially primarily women, because that's who's going, is disrespectful.

And they're not changing anything.

Other thoughts, Commissioner Robbins.

Yeah, thanks, Mayor.

Um, I sit on the public safety committee and um was the the individual um who expressed some concerns about those.

And I I do think I still have those.

I I think even you know, when it came before us at public safety, and and we've tried to be clear that like we want to be, you know, a most respectful of people's first amendment rights and and free speech and things like that.

Um but even at that body, I think the conversation very quickly started broadening, and and there was just constant undertones about what was being said and not necessarily where.

And I think that's my biggest concern is that's um uh I don't know, it almost feels like kind of using uh using a you know a band-aid solution for a very specific type of instance that's occurring, but really um being used to kind of usurp what people are saying in that area, um, if that makes sense.

So I that's my biggest concern is um that it would open us up to you know First Amendment free speech um claims too.

But I I I think you know, sound, um, amplified sound specifically uh has been you know a concern in in various parts of the city overall, not just in this location too.

So what I said then and what I'll say now is I I would prefer for us not to include an ordinance specific to any you know sort of type of organization, but better figure out how we can enforce amplified sound, you know, it whether it's in neighborhoods, whether it's you know, downtown anywhere.

I I think if if we can experiment or look at what other cities are doing to better um enforce what we've got on the books already, that would be my preference.

So um for those concerns, I I wouldn't be supportive of of adding to the ordinance, but would love to see ways that we can figure out how to better enforce what we've got.

Commissioner Sasi.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

Strom for this overview.

I was able to sit in on um public safety last week as two weeks ago, uh last week as well to to review this.

This is something that um was really in my inbox pretty much the year I started and Commissioner uh Kelly, my predecessor, worked on with individuals in this in this neighborhood as well.

So this has been a concern I would say for the last you know five plus years for individuals.

We've had other noise considerations that we worked on for five plus years.

You were a part of that as well, um, with a business over also in the second ward.

And so, you know, I think my um, you know, I'm supportive of this language.

I'm the individual who, you know, I think brought this initially to city manager and to your guys' office, and um, you know, I know mayor, you um those are some of your neighbors in this area as well.

Um I you know, I don't want to criminalize activity, I also want to curb activity.

Um I think the the reality is when somebody goes to me is I think why we looked at these specific ordinances, these bubble ones are related to health care, is because we had this idea that um when you're going into yes, that there are sound issues all around.

Typically the sound like would be moving around.

So like you might start here on the calder, but then you might go all around and you might end up in another part of time you're not sort of stationary, but that individuals who are stationary at a place where individuals would receive care, regardless of whatever the care is, is that that is a um that is not the kind of environment that we want to promote.

And so I'm supportive of it the way it is.

If there's other colleagues who want to ensure more um, you know, any less criminalization, I would certainly support that as well.

Um I can't remember the other thing that you said, Mayor, in terms of um what you know what would take you to support it.

So I might be the only one who is supporting it on on the face, but I'd be open to my colleagues to, you know, to recognize that as well.

Um but I think that this is something that neighbors in this particular part of the city have been dealing with for a number of years.

And so I'm glad we're at this point.

Um thank you for that feedback from Mr.

Davis and the chief for providing that feedback as well.

So you can see that this is a regular occurrence, right?

So the chief said, you know, at least once a week.

Um, and I think having uh a little bit more clarity on this would be you know a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Uh let's see, I think we should hear from everyone since we're sort of polling.

So uh Commissioner Belchek and Commissioner Knight.

Uh I mean, pardon me, Commissioner Kilgar, whether you want to or not.

Um thank you, Mayor.

I am supportive of an ordinance that would help um create clarity for enforcement.

I agree that we should not be criminalizing it.

So any, you know, review or additional language, I am in favor of that.

Um and or even to the point of putting on the agenda that we look at our whole list of civil infractions down and review that in the coming months and year.

Um I think that you know, as long as we're taking a balanced approach and balancing um the First Amendment rights as well as patient privacy and care, quality of life in the neighborhoods, uh, I think this is a reasonable thing to move forward with.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cogar.

Yes, I concur.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think you I think I counted five uh in support of proceeding.

So thank you, Sydney Attorney.

Commissioner Purdue, I'm so sorry.

Um, I think this question started with a very specific scenario in Heritage Hill, um related to folks going to seek care and feeling harassed and neighbors and the neighborhood association seeing that and being concerned about that and will looking for a solution.

Um I really appreciate the engagement done on this with the medical providers to get their their input.

I think that that was something that came from our last conversation at Cal.

I'm curious to hear a bit more, thinking of the initial problem, right?

The initial question.

Um I'm not sure how much this potential this language matches the the initial problem.

Um we haven't, it sounds like in our engagement process talk to the folks that we're trying to protect.

Um we've only talked to the medical providers, but we haven't heard directly or doing some sort of focus group to hear from kind of this population that we're trying to protect to see if this will actually get at the core of their challenges.

Um I appreciate the conversation.

I uh agree there's been a lot of points raised on how we might approach this, um, both from um ensuring that officers have clarity when they're when they go to cause like this, to being um very mindful about unintended consequences.

Um all of that being said, I think right now this feels a bit too uh too it feels a little bit off from the initial problem.

Um, and so without that background, without hearing from that constituency group, um I am not prepared to bring this forward to to vote on or kind of do the full process.

Um, but I do I would like to see us go back and really do some problem solving, design thinking, workshops, you know, a very creative approach to really dig into what is the core problem here and what might be our our more explicit direct role in solving that problem.

I think this is a really thoughtful creative approach to trying to do that.

Um, but right now without those other inputs from that the constituency group that we're that we are have centered in this conversation, or at least the original conversation.

Um I wouldn't be prepared to support it today.

Thank you.

So thank you, City Attorney.

Probably both, but initially in my comments just now I was thinking about potential patients or uh they don't have to be actual patients, you know, there's a lot of uh uh privacy concerns there, but um it could be a represented sample of what a patient group might be and walking through this will be this will be your experience.

Um when this is this is people's current experience when this happens.

Would it how do you experience that?

How might that impact your confidence and feelings of safety and security to get care?

What will help you?

Is it that they're farther away?

Is it that it's lower sound?

Is it that X, Y, and Z.

Um, so I think digging in there, um, I will I will feel more uh confident that we have truly match our solution with the initial problem.

Thanks.

Yeah, thank you.

So thank you for the briefing and so just for clarity, then what what are the next steps?

I intend to uh bring back a proposed ordinance change that uh include has options for either full decriminalization of noise ordinance complaints or keeping the current uh graduated consequence for the noise ordinance.

Uh we'll have a public comment process as part of that noise ordinance change.

I'll also refocus in with our community engagement team to see if there's a way to kind of stir up that conversation and and invite people to be part of that process more directly, as at least four commissioners have indicated they're ready for this to move forward.

Thank you.

Mayor Maya.

Yeah.

Um if we're gonna have a larger conversation about um, and I I think it's related to this about no the challenges of noise uh violations in our city.

I would love to understand a little bit more about current state, how prevalent of a problem is it, where is it happening in the city.

Um is it common to have uh repeat violators or is it typically a one-off?

Um in our 61st district court liaison meeting, uh, we have heard frustration about this topic, and so um from our end from the city's end, staff end, and so I'd be curious to understand a little bit more about the state.

Is it is it a big challenge?

How often does it happen with whom, where?

Um I think that will help put this conversation into a little bit more context.

That would be helpful for us.

Happy to have all of those conversations, either offline with with you individually if if the rest of the commission wants, I mean, that that's a big topic.

If if the rest of the commission wants, I mean that that's a big topic.

City noise is something that I'd say our office has something in our inbox, maybe not weekly, but certainly monthly, whether it's industrial noise in certain places, the we're building an amphitheater as a joint collaborative project downtown, which we've had conversations around noise.

So I I think that um for this particular briefing, I'm inclined to stay focused and drive help the commission drive that forward or see what the political process is.

And if you want to invite me and provide direction about a bigger conversation on noise, happy to do that individually or uh otherwise.

I hear you on wanting not wanting to get too out of scope for this conversation, but I do think knowing a little bit more about how how much of a quote unquote problem or how something like this happens, um, if this was in place in the last year, do will we have a sense of how many people impacted?

I think some context is helpful as opposed to kind of making a a change and an ordinance change with real consequences in terms of civil infractions and fines without some of that.

So I I can understand why you want to keep it scoped, and so maybe it's not a full context.

Um, but I will say that this to your point, this challenge of noise ordinance and violations does come up a lot.

We've talked at community development about wanting to actually review what our nuisance codes are and even our process for how things get reported.

It's a very complaint-based system.

How fair is that?

So I would ask that we all consider a more uh hefty and and wholesome conversation about new new nuisance, and we and we might be able to start with noise because it is really relevant and it is repeated and recurring.

And in the three three years I've been here, we haven't had a holistic conversation about it.

And I think that's something that either we can uh talk about it either a retreat, we can talk about it as committee of the whole at some point.

Uh it's pr certainly possible that that can be a public safety conversation or um so those are those are all good thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Okay, thank you, City Attorney.

And uh that adjourns us.

Oh, I'm sorry, we have closed session.

We always seem to have closed session.

Okay, sorry, missed my note on that.

Okay.

Um kind of a motion that we move into closed session.

Some of support.

And I do not see my note.

What's the reason, city attorney?

Pending litigation.

Okay, thank you for purposely litigation and Madam Clerk.

If you call a roll.

Commissioner Belchek.

Yes.

Commissioner Purdue?

Yes.

Commissioner Asasi?

Yes.

Commissioner Robbins?

Yes.

Commissioner Knight?

Yes.

Commissioner Kilgore?

Yes.

Mayor Le Grand?

Yes.

And that's gonna be in the 601.

We'll be in the law library.

Okay, thank you.

That adjourns us.

Bang.