Oct 07, 2025 Community Development Committee Meeting

HI EVERYONE. RIGHT NOW IT'S 915, WHICH IS THE TRADITIONAL START TIME OF THIS

[00:00:04]

SO THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, I JUST WANT TO COME ONLINE AND SHARE THAT MESSAGE AND WE'LL GIVE IT A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

I THINK COMMISSIONER IS IS ALMOST HERE.

AND THEN IF NOT, WE'LL MAKE A DETERMINATION.

THANK YOU.

AND THE TIME IS NOW 919.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

GOOD MORNING. OUR FIRST ITEM IS A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIREWORKS DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR

[1. Resolution approving a Fireworks Discharge Permit for Image Engineering Special Effects, Inc (IMAGESFX) for an indoor special effects at the Van Andel Arena in connection with the MATT RIFE, Stay Golden Tour on November 9, 2025]

STAY GOLDEN TOUR ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2025.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO SUPPORT? PART. HELLO, MARTIN. I HAVE NO CONCERNS.

OKAY? I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW WHO MATT RIFE IS, BUT I DON'T. HE'S A COMEDIAN WHO GOT ME IN TROUBLE LAST TIME.

YEAH. SORRY, STEVE. GUITAR.

BUT ANYWAYS. ALL RIGHT.

NO CONCERNS. COLLEAGUES.

HEARING THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. RESOLUTION NUMBER TWO IS ONE.

[2. Resolution amending a Project Management Agreement between the City of Grand Rapids and the Grand Rapids Public Museum]

DO HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED.

SUPPORT. MOVED AND SUPPORTED.

GOOD MORNING. COMMISSIONERS. YEAH.

THE CURRENT AGREEMENT WAS APPROVED BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE MUSEUM BACK IN MARCH OF 2022. THIS ITEM JUST EXTENDS THAT AGREEMENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR TERM.

FOR THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO WORK WITH THE MUSEUM ON UPCOMING RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. MCCALL. SO I KNOW WE PUT SOME DOLLARS TOWARD THE ELEVATOR.

THERE'S SOME OTHER RENOVATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING AT THE PUBLIC MUSEUM.

SO A LOT A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION GOING ON THERE.

COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

[3. Resolution approving three-year extensions for existing agreements with a number of firms for Professional and Technical Engineering Services and approving an increase in the amount of such agreements by $15,000,000 for a total combined for all agreements not-to exceed of $30,000,000]

SO MOVED. MR. MCCALL? YEAH.

THE THE CURRENT AGREEMENTS ARE WITH 19 FIRMS. THESE WERE APPROVED BACK IN MARCH OF 2023 FOR A THREE YEAR TERM.

THE INITIAL AUTHORIZATION WAS FOR 15 MILLION.

TO DATE, WE'VE AUTHORIZED $15 MILLION IN SERVICES.

WE'VE EXPENDED ABOUT 11.6 MILLION.

THE WITH OUR UPCOMING WORKLOAD FORECASTING AND PROJECTS, THAT'S RECOMMENDED THAT WE INCREASE THESE FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE YEAR TERM AND INCREASE AN ADDITIONAL 15 MILLION IN EXPENDITURES.

THIS SUPPORTS VARIOUS DEPARTMENT PROJECTS.

SOME LIKE PARK PROJECTS WITH BATHROOM RENOVATIONS TRAFFIC SAFETY SAFETY PROJECTS, RFP 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 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS EACH TIME AND THEN SELECT FROM THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED.

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.

I THINK LAST TIME WE SOLICITED IT WAS 180 SOME FIRMS. AND I THINK MAYBE WE RECEIVED ABOUT 40 PROPOSALS.

DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT WAS? WELL, WE AWARDED IT BACK IN MARCH. OF MARCH 3RD.

SO, YEAH, PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, 3 OR 4 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT.

SO. ALL RIGHT. I WOULD JUST SUGGEST LOOKING AT WAYS WE CAN GET MORE ONBOARDING IN THE MIDDLE. IT'S GREAT TO EXTEND TERMS FOR WHAT WE NEED, BUT IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET MORE PEOPLE.

WE HAVE NEW BUSINESSES STARTING, NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING FIRMS THAT MAYBE WANT TO GET IN. BUT THEY DON'T KNOW HOW.

SO FINDING WAYS TO DO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[4. Resolution awarding a contract with BRiK Plumbing, LLC for Replacement of Private Lead Service Lines at Various Locations in the amount of $647,759.80 with a total project cost not-to-exceed $769,540.00]

[00:05:01]

THE LOW BID WAS APPROXIMATELY 11% UNDER THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE.

BRICK WILL BE UTILIZING 7.55% MICRO LOCAL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION.

THE PROJECT IS LOCALLY FUNDED AND INCLUDES ABOUT 200 PRIVATE LEAD SERVICE LINES ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF TOWN.

TO DATE, THE CITY HAS REPLACED APPROXIMATELY 8200 LEAD SERVICE LINES AND WE HAVE NOT COUNTING THIS CONTRACT, ABOUT 950 LEAD SERVICE LINES ON CONTRACT TO BE COMPLETED. KIND OF IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE OF THE OF THE OVERALL PROJECT THEN COMPLETED OF THAT? YOU SAID 859. WELL, 8200 HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

I THINK THERE'S I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT MAYBE LIKE 17,600 REMAINING.

I BELIEVE IT'S A LITTLE OVER 17,000 LEFT TO DO.

HOW MANY? A LITTLE OVER 17,000.

17. OKAY. AND WE TRY TO.

WE'RE TARGETING 1900 A YEAR, WHICH WE ESTABLISHED THAT A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE AT 19,000.

TRY TO GET THEM DONE IN TEN YEARS.

GOT IT. THANKS FOR THAT REMINDER.

AND YOU MENTIONED THESE ARE LOCALLY FUNDED.

AND I BELIEVE I RECALL THAT WE GOT FEDERAL DOLLARS AT ONE POINT TO HELP US DO THIS.

SO I'LL SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW THAT'S BEING BRAIDED TOGETHER.

SO YEARS AGO WE HAD THE EPA GRANT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS 2021.

WE GOT A LITTLE OVER $5 MILLION.

ALL OF THAT MONEY HAS BEEN EXPENDED.

WE FOCUSED THAT ALL ON DISADVANTAGED OR NEIGHBORHOODS OF FOCUS AREA WHEN WE DID THE PRIVATE SIDE ONLY, WHICH WAS ALSO.

SO WHEN WE SAY PRIVATE SIDE ONLY, THOSE ARE LEFTOVERS FROM WHEN WE DID OUR CSO SEPARATIONS WHERE WE DID WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT AT THAT TIME WHEN THE SEWERS WERE 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 THESE ARE IN AN AREA I BELIEVE IT'S BETWEEN BRIDGE STREET AND I BELIEVE LAKE MICHIGAN DRIVE IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO 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 OPERATING BUDGET.

AND DO YOU ANTICIPATE, HAVE YOU PROJECTED THAT THAT WILL BE THE REALITY MOVING FORWARD FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT? WE JUST ACTUALLY WE JUST 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 GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE CONTINUE TO SEEK DWF DRINKING WATER, REVOLVING FUND DOLLARS AND LOANS FOR A LOT OF THIS WORK AS WELL. WITH THAT YOU KNOW, IN YOU'LL BE SEEING SOMETHING IN THE COMING MONTHS WITH RESPECT TO THE FY 26 STATE DRINKING WATER REVOLVING FUND, WHERE WE GOT ESSENTIALLY ABOUT $2.5 MILLION 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 PORTION AND PRIVATE SIDE.

SO WHEN YOU SEE LIKE THE GEOFF MENTIONED, THE 900 PLUS LEAD SERVICE LINES THAT ARE UNDER CONTRACT RIGHT NOW, THOSE ARE WHAT WE WOULD CALL THE FULL LEAD SERVICE LINES OR PUBLIC SIDES.

SO IT BASICALLY FROM WATER MAIN INTO THE HOUSE.

GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANKS FOR THAT OVERVIEW.

ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, COLLEAGUES? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

[5. Resolution awarding a contract with Kent Companies Inc. for Certain Repairs at the Lake Michigan Filtration Plant in the amount of $1,215,678.23 with total amount not-to-exceed $1,662,799.00]

THIS PROJECT INCLUDES REPAIRS TO THE FACADE AND ASSOCIATED BUILDING ELEMENTS ADDRESSED IN AN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN AT THE LAKE MICHIGAN FILTRATION PLANT.

THESE REPAIRS WERE IDENTIFIED AS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, AND INCLUDE A LOT OF REPAIRS TO THE FACADE.

WE RECEIVED FOUR BIDS FOR THIS PROJECT.

KENT COMPANIES WAS THE LOW BID AT 1,215,678, WHICH WAS ABOUT 32% UNDER THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE. IT IS A LITTLE BIT SPECIALIZED IN NATURE, THE WORK. SO THEY'RE NOT USING ANY MLB CONTRACTORS THE ITEMS TO REQUEST OR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT AWARD TO KENT COMPANIES.

THE TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED OF 1 MILLION.

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 100,000 FOR ALGER RESERVOIR

[6. Resolution approving an increase of $100,000 for Alger Reservoir External Cleaning and Painting for a total not-to-exceed $297,050]

FOR A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED OF OF $297,050.

SO MOVED. OKAY. THIS IS ANOTHER WATER SYSTEM PROJECT.

THIS PROJECT WAS ORIGINALLY AWARDED BACK IN MAY OF 2025 FOR CLEANING AND PAINTING OF THE

[00:10:05]

AFTER THE 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 NETS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED AND SOME WELDS THAT ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR. DIXON ENGINEERING, WHO'S THE CONSULTANT? WATCHING THIS JOB WILL ALSO BE EVALUATING THE INTERIOR OF THE TANK, WHICH WAS NOT 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 FUNDS ONCE, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY FIND.

ON THAT INSPECTION. OKAY.

WHAT'S THE AGE OF THE OF THAT 50S 60S.

IT'S ACTUALLY EARLY 70S.

EARLY 70S. OKAY. CONSTRUCTED THAT PUMP STATION.

SORRY, SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU. 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 ALL RIGHT, 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 GOING TO BE FUN.

ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[7. Resolution approving an increase in the scope of work and authorizing expenditures to the contract with Nagel Construction, Inc. in connection with Rotomilling/Resurfacing of Streets at Various Locations in the amount of $930,000 with total project costs not-to-exceed $6,423,360]

SO MOVED. PART OF THIS CONTRACT WAS ORIGINALLY AWARDED BACK ON APRIL 9TH OF 2024.

THE CONTRACT RESERVED THE RIGHT AT THE CITY'S OPTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS UPON SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

THE CONTRACTOR DID EXPRESS A WILLINGNESS TO TAKE ON ADDITIONAL WORK.

IN 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 NAGLE, THE AMOUNT OF 900,000 WITH KIND OF AN ADDITIONAL 1.2 MILLION ADDED TO THE OVERALL PROJECT FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.

GREAT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

NEXT IS RESOLUTION NUMBER EIGHT APPROVING AN INCREASE TO THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

[8. Resolution approving an increase to the Construction Management Services Agreement with Clark Construction Company for Construction of Fire Department Training Facility at 850 Pannell Street NW in the amount of $11,000,862 with total amount not-to exceed $40,097,754]

PART MOVED AND SUPPORTED.

MR. MCCALL. OKAY. AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, THE NEW FIRE STATION JUST HELD THE RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONY LAST WEEK AND IS NOW AN ACTIVE STATION.

AS OF LAST FRIDAY, I BELIEVE THIS PROJECT KIND OF CONTINUES THE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TREND. 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 THE FIRST PHASE OF BUILDING WAS COMPLETED BY CLARK.

THIS IS KIND OF THE FINAL PHASE OF BUILDING BY CLARK.

WE'RE REQUESTING AN INCREASE OF $11 MILLION TO CLARK'S CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.

WITH TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED A 40,097,754, WHICH WOULD BE THE AMOUNT APPROVED BY THIS BODY TO DATE.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE BURN BUILDING PROJECT THAT WILL BE ON THIS SITE AND DUE TO GRANT FUNDING REQUIREMENTS, THAT HAS TO BE BID SEPARATELY.

SO THAT IS NOT PART OF CLARK'S CONTRACT.

AND THEN THE THE CITY WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING FURNITURE TO THE SITE.

SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THE $46 MILLION NUMBER THAT'S MENTIONED IN THE MEMO.

FACTORS IN THOSE TOTAL TWO ITEMS. GOT IT. WHAT'S THE REMINDER, CHIEF? WHAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF GRANT STATE FEDERAL DOLLARS ON THIS ONE? 1515. SO 15 MILLION FROM STATE AND THEN 1.5 MILLION, WHICH WILL BE THE BURN BUILDING.

OKAY, FROM FEDERAL. ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN DO WE PUT CAPITAL DOLLARS IN THIS ONE, TOO? YES. OKAY. CAPITAL RESERVE FUND.

OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT, WELL, CONGRATS ON THE RIBBON CUTTING.

I DIDN'T GET TO GO, BUT I HEARD IT WAS GOOD.

ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM?

[00:15:04]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PURCHASE

[9. Resolution approving a purchase agreement, accepting a deed, and authorizing payments for Construction of Grand River Edges Trail East from Leonard Street to Ann Street in an amount not to exceed $460,000 (1615 Monroe Avenue NW)]

AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 460,000.

SO MOVED. SUPPORT, MISS BEHRENS.

SO THIS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL.

NORMALLY THIS WOULD BE HANDLED BY THE CITY ENGINEER ALSO BUT IN TRANSITION.

AND THIS ONE TOOK A LOT OF HANDS TO GET IT TO GET IT FORWARD.

SO JUST A THERE ISN'T MUCH TO SEE HERE, LEONARD, TO ANSWER IS A TRAIL CONNECTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO COMPLETE FOR SOME TIME AND HAVE GREENWAY FUNDING DOLLARS AND A NUMBER OF OTHER FUNDING SOURCES TO COMPLETE THAT SECTION OF THE TRAIL. IT'S DIVIDED INTO A NORTH PORTION AND A SOUTH PORTION.

BOTH SHOULD BE GOING OUT TO BID IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

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 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. AND 2026 IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE'S COLLEAGUES.

HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[10. Resolution accepting a sidewalk and utility easement at 943 Godfrey Ave SW in connection with Oxford from Norwich to Godfrey Reconstruction for $5,520.00]

RECONSTRUCTION FOR $5,520.

SO MOVED. SUPPORT. YES.

THIS ITEM IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE OXFORD FROM NORWICH TO GODFREY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. THE EASEMENT IS NECESSARY TO REPLACE A SANITARY SEWER WHICH IS KIND OF OUTSIDE THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY TO THE THE NORTH OF WHERE OXFORD IS.

THE SEWERS ACTUALLY CURRENTLY IN THIS LOCATION, BUT THERE'S JUST NO EASEMENT FOR IT. SO THIS ITEM WILL OFFER $5,520 FOR THE EASEMENT.

OKAY, GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS? COLLEAGUES? JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT IS A PERMANENT EASEMENT.

RIGHT? OR CORRECT? PERMANENT EASEMENT, NOT A GRADING PERMIT.

SO, YEAH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[11. Resolution accepting a sidewalk and utility easement at 2787 Coit Ave NE in connection with 3 Mile Road from Monroe Avenue to Plainfield Avenue Resurfacing and authorizing payment for $1,650.00]

SO MOVED. YES. WITH THIS PROJECT, THE THREE MILE PROJECT FROM MONROE TO PLAINFIELD IS PLANNED FOR RESURFACING NEXT YEAR.

A ROUNDABOUTS PROPOSED AT THREE MILE.

THIS EASEMENT WILL JUST PROVIDE FOR THE SIDEWALK TO GO I GUESS BE RELOCATED A LITTLE FURTHER. TO THE THIS IS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO ALLOW THAT ROUNDABOUT TO GO IN.

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. ITEM CARRIES.

ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT AT 3,336TH STREET SOUTHEAST FOR

[12. Resolution accepting an easement at 3300 36th Street SE for nominal consideration of One Dollar ($1.00)]

SO MOVED. WEDGWOOD CHRISTIAN SERVICES IS DOING SOME CAMPUS IMPROVEMENTS, REQUIRING AN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT TO BE RELOCATED FROM ITS CURRENT EASEMENT TO A NEW EASEMENT. SO THIS IS A NEW EASEMENT THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED.

THUS THE $1 CONSIDERATION.

OKAY. SO THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[13. Resolution scheduling a Public Hearing on an amendment to the Brownfield Plan of the City of Grand Rapids Brownfield Redevelopment Authority related to 125 Ottawa Redevelopment Project]

SO MOVED. SUPPORT. MISS ROMERO.

THANK YOU. YES. THIS IS FOR 125 OTTAWA.

THIS IS PROPOSING TO REDEVELOP THE EXISTING OFFICE SPACE ABOVE THE RETAIL.

JUST A BLOCK OVER A COUPLE BLOCKS OVER HERE ON FLOORS TWO THROUGH FOUR FOR 36 DIFFERENT UNITS, RANGING FROM 1 TO 2 BEDROOMS. EIGHT OF THE 36 WILL BE RESERVED FOR UNDER 660% AMI, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE FUNDING THAT THEY'RE PURSUING WITH THROUGH MR.. WE'VE GOT TOTAL ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT AT 11.4 MILLION.

THE DDA DID DO THEIR PASS THROUGH ON SEPTEMBER 10TH FOR THE REVENUES.

AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IS WE'VE GOT PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SUBCONTRACTOR ASPIRATIONAL GOALS FOR THE INCLUSION PLAN AT 30%.

[00:20:05]

QUESTIONS FOR ON THIS PROJECT.

THANKS FOR HIGHLIGHTING THE ARMY PIECES.

I KNOW I GOT A CHANCE TO HEAR HERE THE OVERVIEW IN BROWNFIELD.

AND JUST CONTINUED YOU KNOW, ADAPTIVE USE OF, OF THESE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. YES.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[14. Resolution scheduling a public hearing on November 18, 2025, on the draft FFY 2026 - 2030 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan]

SUPPORT. MOVED AND SUPPORTED.

MISS HATCH, THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. SO THIS IS OUR 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 OF OUR FORMULA FUNDS THAT COME THROUGH HUD.

SO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAMS. WHEN WE DO OUR 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 WORKING THROUGH COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS AND FOCUS GROUPS.

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 THE HOUSING ASSESSMENT PLANS AND OTHER OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ADDRESS COMMUNITY THE 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 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 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 ITEM. COLLEAGUES I'M CURIOUS.

THANK YOU. I'M CURIOUS.

WE HAD A RECENT PUBLIC HEARING IN YOUR WORLD AS WELL.

WELL THEY ALWAYS SEEM SO SIMILAR.

SO CONNECTED TOGETHER.

YEAH. OKAY. BUT I'M CURIOUS.

THERE WAS SOME INTERESTING FEEDBACK SHARED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT FOLKS WANTING TO KNOW WHAT DOLLARS THEY CAN APPLY FOR, AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT PROCESS OF BEING KIND OF IN THIS POT. DO YOU RECALL? YES. ECOMMENTS JUST CURIOUS. SO, 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.

IT BECOMES VERY IT'S A LOT TO MANAGE FOR ONE.

AND IT'S VERY COMPLEX HOW WE DO IT NOW.

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 MEET SORT OF, I GUESS, STAFFING CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE, THOSE RFP INDIVIDUALLY AND QUITE FRANKLY, MY OPINION IS, IS THAT 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.

I THINK WE'RE MORE EFFECTIVE AND HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR BETTER OUTCOMES WHEN WE DO IT IN ONE PROCESS. WHEN IT COMES TO OKAY, 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.

MORE SO WHAT I HEARD WAS AND THIS IS AGAIN BASED ON THOSE THREE MINUTES.

SO YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD A LONGER CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

BUT IS THERE ANY WAY THAT EVEN WITHIN THIS UPDATED PROCESS THAT FOLKS CAN HAVE A BIT MORE TRANSPARENCY ABOUT EACH OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES,

[00:25:02]

BUT WE CAN WE CAN EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THOSE USES ARE, IS IN OUR PLANS. WE CAN BUT WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB.

OKAY. I WAS GOING TO ADD TO THAT, I THINK, AND I DON'T THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN ALWAYS ONGOING, BUT DIFFERENT SESSIONS THAT YOU HAVE LIKE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WHERE SORT OF PREEMPTING, APPLYING FOR DIFFERENT FUNDS WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME AND REVIEW AND TO SEE IF IT'S A FIT. SO 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 A SORT OF WELL IN ADVANCE SO PEOPLE CAN PREPARE. YEP, YEP. FOR THE APPLICATION.

YEAH. AND I THINK I'LL JUST ADD FROM BEING ON THE COMMITTEE.

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 WHO ARE WATCHING WHO ARE LIKE, COMMISSIONER, I DIDN'T, BUT THERE, THERE IS. AND SO AND WE DO THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, BEFOREHAND, OUR STAFF MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, IF 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 HAPPENED. 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.

AND THAT WAS A GOOD POINT, BECAUSE SOMEONE DID COMMENT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT WANTING MORE TIME FOR THEIR APPLICATIONS.

AND COMMISSIONER IS CORRECT.

SO WE TRACKED THOSE THAT THOSE METRICS IN TERMS OF WHEN.

SO THERE'S LOTS OF OPENINGS 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 START ABOUT THREE DAYS BEFORE IT'S DUE.

SO YEAH, I THINK IT'S JUST I MEAN, HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF DOING A GRANT THE DAY BEFORE WAS DUE? ABSOLUTELY.

NOT FOR THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS. I DON'T HAVE ANY CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS FUNDING. 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 AND THEN DID YOU WANT AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THE DIFFERENT PUBLIC HEARINGS, HOW IT TIES TOGETHER? I'M SORRY.

SURE. YEAH. OKAY. SO THE FIVE YEAR PLAN SETS YOUR SORT OF YOUR ALLOCATION STRATEGY AND NEEDS FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

AND THEN ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, WE DO 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 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHAT WE PLAN TO FUND, HOW MUCH AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THOSE RESOURCES.

SO AND THEN AT THE IN THE FALL, WE ARE THEN HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. SO THAT WAS THE CAPPER.

SO THAT HAPPENS FOR THOSE PROGRAMS THAT FOR THE YEAR THAT ENDS ON JUNE 30TH EACH YEAR.

AND SO IT TIES TO EVERY YEAR OF THAT FIVE YEAR PLAN.

AND I'M GOING TO. YEAH.

AND I'M GOING TO END YOU RIGHT THERE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE TIME. THANK YOU.

BUT IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WE CAN YOU'RE ALWAYS HERE CONNIE.

SO YEAH. THANK YOU. 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 ITEM NUMBER 15 IS A RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING ON

[15. Resolution scheduling a public hearing on October 21, 2025, to consider naming a new park space at 680 Cesar E. Chavez Avenue, SW “Unity Park”]

DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED.

MISS CLAYPOOL. ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING. LAURA CLAYPOOL WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. IN 2024, THE DEPARTMENT BEGAN THE PROCESS OF A FORMAL NAMING SEARCH FOR PLAZA ROOSEVELT, WHICH IS CURRENTLY KNOWN FOR THE SPACE AT 680 CESAR CHAVEZ AVENUE.

AND THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.

THE NAME PLAZA WAS BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION ON APRIL 29TH.

THE DEPARTMENT WAS ASKED TO GO BACK OUT AND DO A SECOND ROUND OF ENGAGEMENT WITH THE TOP TWO NAMES. ENGAGEMENT TOOK PLACE OVER JULY AND AUGUST AND INCLUDED POSTCARD MAILINGS TO 1500 RESIDENTS, EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS, A LARGE BANNER AT THE SITE MULTIPLE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, INCLUSION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEWSLETTER, AND 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 UNANIMOUSLY ON OCTOBER 1ST.

[00:30:02]

I KNOW THAT THIS WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH AND SOME WORK.

AND APPRECIATE THE TAKING THE FEEDBACK AROUND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.

I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THOSE THAT WERE PART OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEE, THOSE THAT ALL VOTED COLLEAGUES.

DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I JUST CONCUR WITH YOUR STATEMENTS. THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

[16. Resolution Confirming Special Assessment Nuisance Roll Number 8800]

NEW SENATE RULE NUMBER EIGHT 8800.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? SO TO SUPPORT MISS JENNIFER.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

SO JULY 29TH, THE CITY COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FOR THE ASSESSOR TO CREATE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLE. 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 ROLE TO OUR CITY WEBSITE.

AND THE CITY COMMISSION SAT AS THE BOARD OF 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.

AND WITH THIS, WE'RE REQUESTING THAT YOU CONFIRM THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NUISANCE ROLE.

AND THE AMOUNT WILL BE 3.592 31 AND $0.98.

IF YOU DO GRANT THOSE APPEALS.

GREAT. THANK YOU FOR REVIEWING THAT AND PACE TO COME DOWN OR TO COME AND TALK TO YOU AT 901 AND JUST SEE WHAT'S GOING ON, RIGHT.

COLLEAGUES, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM AND THE UPDATES? REPEAT THE LAST THE LAST NUMBER YOU SAID.

SO APPEAL NUMBER FIVE OR.

I'M SORRY. APPEAL NUMBER TWO WAS ORIGINALLY $1,138.90.

AND WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU REDUCE THE CHARGE TO $410.

YEAH, I SEE THAT IN ATTACHMENT.

IS THAT THE ONLY ONE THAT THIS ENCLOSURE OR THE ALL ALL THE CHANGES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THIS. SO THERE'S THREE CHANGES THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING.

NUMBER ONE, PEEL NUMBER ONE FOR $13.50, A PEEL NUMBER FIVE FOR $379.

AND NUMBER TWO TO REDUCE THE CHARGES.

OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ITEM CARRIES.

THANK YOU. PAULA. ITEM NUMBER 17.

[17. Discussion of New Request to Rename a Portion of Delaware Street to "Amillier Penn Way"]

BUT LET ME FIRST READ IT.

DISCUSSION OF A NEW REQUEST TO RENAME THE PORTION OF DELAWARE STREET TO AMELIA PENN WAY. AND THIS HAS MISS BEHRENS ON HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO JUST SHARE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, MINDFUL OF THE TIME AS WELL.

SO, COLLEAGUES, YOU KNOW THAT THIS ITEM CAME BEFORE US.

AND WE MOVED IT FORWARD.

THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING WE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS ON UMATILLA, SOME WHO WERE QUESTIONING WHY 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. 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 DEFINITELY SWAYS ME.

A LOT OF IF I'M GOING TO 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? 15 YEARS OLD. AND WE ALSO SAW THIS PLAYING OUT IN OTHER WAYS AS THE THE SHOW THAT FEATURES GRPD HAD AN EPISODE RELATED TO HIS HIS TRAGIC MURDER.

AND I THINK REALLY WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER 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 THAT POLICY SAYS, AS IS SOMEBODY WHO HAS MADE CONTRIBUTIONS DURING THEIR LIFETIME, WHICH IS HARD TO. TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH A WITH SOMEBODY AND REGARDING THEIR CHILD, EVERYBODY'S LIFE IS IMPORTANT.

BUT REALLY WHAT COULD BE A BETTER WAY THAT WE COULD IDENTIFY THOSE THAT ARE VICTIMS 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 ESSENTIALLY DIED.

[00:35:02]

I HAD TALKED TO COREY PENN, WHO IS AMELIA'S FATHER, MANY TIMES, AND I KNOW OTHERS ON COMMISSION HAVE AS WELL TO LET HIM KNOW THAT AND TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE I THINK SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE COMING TO COMMISSION FOR THE FIRST TIME, IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR 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 ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION OF A DIFFERENT STREET.

AND SO DID HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH COLLEAGUES.

YOU KNOW, I THINK ANYTIME 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.

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 GOING TO DO THE SAME THING? AND THEN STAY VERY COMMITTED TO AND I KNOW COMMISSIONER PERDUE, YOU BROUGHT THIS UP. YOU KNOW, JUNE IS GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH.

WE HAD MISSED THAT TIME FRAME WHEN? OVER THE SUMMER. BUT HOW COULD WE RECOGNIZE, PARTICULARLY IN A CITY LED PROCLAMATION THAT WOULD SPEAK TO, YOU KNOW, THIS BEING SPARKED BY AMELIA'S FATHER, COREY IDENTIFYING IN CONJUNCTION WITH DIFFERENT THINGS WE DO, LIKE ARTPRIZE OR OTHER 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, 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 GOING TO BE THERE FOREVER? ABSOLUTELY.

YOU KNOW, MR. PENN TALKED ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE COMING TO HIM AND JUST EXPRESSING THEIR SADNESS OF WHAT THEY WITNESSED ON THAT BLOCK.

AND SO AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAVE 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 ISSUE IN OUR CITY. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF MY SOAPBOX.

MISS BEHRENS, I KNOW YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO TO COREY PENN AS WELL.

CERTAINLY. AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF. I EXPECT HE'LL CONTINUE TO ADVOCATE AS HE HAS. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP THAT I DID SPEAK WITH MR. PENN ABOUT 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. THANK YOU ALL.

AND THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, AS A REMINDER, THE DECISION ABOUT THE STREET RENAMING IS SOLELY THAT OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

SO WHILE IT MIGHT TAKE SOME TIME, IT DOES GO THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING PROCESS.

I THINK WE'RE ALSO HAVING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INVOLVED.

IN THE END, IT IS THE, THE COMMISSION'S DECISION.

SO, CHAIR, YES, IN THE MEMO, THOUGH, IT DOES OUTLINE THAT THE FINAL SENTENCE IS THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET REQUIRED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL, AND THEREFORE CITY STAFF WILL NOT CONTINUE TO FURTHER PROCESS 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, WITH NOT EVERYTHING, ARE WE ALWAYS 100%.

BUT I THINK IN THIS REGARD THERE IS, YOU KNOW, ALL SEVEN OF US AGREE THAT THIS IS A DIFFERENT WAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A BETTER WAY BECAUSE 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 WE DON'T FORGET VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO, ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.