City Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the City of Battle Creek, Michigan and the Battle Creek City Commission meeting. We've been having some difficulties with our access vision hookup. Are we okay tonight? All right. Very good. This is our meeting for September 1st, 2026. It is 7 PM. We thank everyone for being here tonight. We're going to start with a moment of silence for our invocation, and then we'll move into our pledge of allegiance. I'll call upon commissioner Patrick O'Donnell to lead us in the pledge. Would you please stand for a moment of silence? Commissioner Patrick O'Donnell.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much, Commissioner Patrick O'Donnell. Next item on our agenda is roll call. Madam Clerk, when you're ready.

Commissioner Katarski-Smith. Here. Commissioner Lacoste. Here. Commissioner Lance is running about six minutes late. He'll be here. Commissioner Morris. Here. Mayor Behnke.

Here.

Commissioner Reynolds. Present. Commissioner O'Donnell.

Here.

Commissioner Simmons.

Here.

And Vice Mayor Sophia. Here. Thank you.

And just so you know, Commissioner Simmons is participating in this meeting remotely. Not in the United States. Next item on our agenda is Chair noting any added or deleted resolutions.

There were none.

Next item is petitions, communications, and reports.

We did receive two emails from people, and they were sent to all the commissioners.

Thank you very much. Next item on our agenda is our public hearing. Madam Clerk, when you're ready.

This is a public hearing to receive comment on the Brownfield plan for the proposed, the fields at battle Creek development project located within the city of battle Creek at one five one Oh five South Palmer road.

I declare the public hearing open. If you'd like to make public comment on the subject of this public hearing, then please raise your hand and we will acknowledge you to come forward to the podium. where you'll have three minutes to make your comment. Please state your name and address before making the comment. And city attorney, could you correct me if I'm wrong, but if someone wants to speak to this public hearing and another item on the agenda, will they have two opportunities or just one?

Well, this will be public hearing, and then they would have another opportunity to speak during the public comment on the rest of the agenda. And then they would have a third opportunity to speak at the public comment at the end of the meeting.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. And the citizen that I stand corrected, sorry. All right, let's go to this side of the room first, and we've got the first row. Right there, first row right there, you sir. Nope, nope, this. It's actually the second row, and the gentleman right here.

Hey, my name is John Salyers. My family and I own the properties at 14953, 14963, 14975, and 14995 South Homer Road. Our property borders about half of the south boundary of where the fields are supposed to be. I'm here today to express my opposition to the BCU proposal for subsidized apartments. We were invited to the first meeting where BCU was proposing the zoning ordinance change so that they could do their building. There were a pretty good turnout, and the biggest concern was the possibility of subsidized housing. We were told at the meeting not to worry. This development would be upscale. I think they referred to it as a jewel in the crown of BCU properties. And we were assured no subsidized housing would be built. Here we are. That's the issue we were lied to. I did a little bit of homework before I came down here. I found that there was not just one study, but many studies on the effects of subsidized housing on existing neighborhoods. They ranged from all pro to the opposite end. I look at the ones in the middle and they make the most sense to me and they say that subsidized housing put into a low income neighborhood will either leave the neighborhood value as is or increase it. But subsidized housing put into a higher income neighborhood, the values are likely to drop. We spent the last several days canvassing 250 homes in the neighborhoods that are close to where you're going to be. So Cherry Wood down Helmer Road, Jack Aranda, Kensington, Barrington. And what we found was of the people we spoke with, only one person wasn't opposed to this project. I think that people's real estate in general is their largest single asset. They rely on their home values to secure loans to reverse mortgage and sometimes to retire to a lesser expensive place. I think it will be inappropriate for this commission to approve any proposal that would put at risk the value of these people's properties. I ask you not to approve this one.

Thank you very much for your comments. Is there anyone else in the second row? Okay, we'll go to the third row. Jonathan Barnes.

All right, thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Jonathan Barnes, and my family and I live at 214 Jacaranda. I'm here tonight along with many of my neighbors from the Jacaranda, Cherrywood, and Huntington Hills neighborhoods in opposition of Resolution 456. Now, I know many of you may say, hey, they just don't want low-income or subsidized housing near their neighborhood. But that narrative has to end. Let me tell you that this is truly not the case. There are many other variables that have forced our oppositions. None of us disagree with there is a housing shortage, but why there? What benefit does this location have in Battle Creek for those new residents who have easier access to downtown and area businesses? This property is truly in the far west side of Battle Creek. And outside of Myers, what is the benefit? You know, I take my sons to school every morning, and I've experienced the long wait times to turn onto Helmer Road, only to approach the light as parents are coming to turn left to take their kids to the high school. And that line stretches to Columbia Avenue, and I've witnessed multiple accidents. So I ask you to please explain to me how more vehicles entering and exiting at the same location and the increased pedestrian traffic will help this situation. Explain it to me. Sounds like a great thing to put near not only one, but two of our schools. Another issue is crime and safety. The city of Battle Creek doesn't have the greatest track record for keeping developments such as this and the surrounding areas safe. I'd love to see a report from the fire and police departments as it relates to calls to development similar to this. A lot of this will have to do with who is managing that property and what type of screening process you're doing. Please note that none of us are overly excited that Battle Creek Unlimited is a part of any of this. The safety and security of our families is number one, and it never seems to be one of their priorities. I mean, how much longer do we have to have residents walking down the sidewalk of Michigan Avenue and have to walk around a fence? But hey, think of the millions of dollars that we as the city of Battle Creek will get in the future. But how much over the next 30 years will we as a community be taking away from our public transport, our parks, and of course dear to me as our veterans and other public services that our millage and tax dollars are supposed to fund? These are the questions that you as a commission will have to answer for. This is an election year. This is what you will be held accountable for. I personally don't agree that you have done your due diligence.

Thank you for your comments. Please sit down. David?

My name is Dave Walters. I reside at 262 Jacaranda Drive. Mayor Behnke, Vice Mayor Sophia, and commissioners. Through my training and experience, I was a commissioner, I was a vice mayor, and I was a three-term mayor here at the City of Battle Creek. I'm also retired law enforcement from the City of Battle Creek and a landlord. I understand things by also having been on the Planning Commission as well as the BCU Board. I implore you to vote no, or at the very least, consider pausing this. Put some sort of pause on this situation. Table, postpone, whatever you want to call it, after you hear all the comments. In June of last year, there were outreach sessions. BCU indicated no government housing, such as Section 8, low income, or subsidized. Most of us were OK with the actual development. To talk about this and listen, we were tickled. We appeared to have been duped. I have learned that BCU addressed that they answered no to all of those questions. But because none of us used the words or the term income restricted, then they didn't talk about that. The detective background I have, if that was intentional, we call that deception by omission. Taxation. Taxation is helping fund this. If that's not government housing, I don't know what is. BCU has indicated, and I quote in part, that the outreach sessions, which they said were not obligated to do but out of good faith decided to, did make some changes regarding the berms and such around there. They said that the people from Jacaranda and those folks did not want the development. That's not true. I was at that session along with lots of these folks here and others that are not here. We were fairly okay with everything, but we were concerned about the apartments in the front and what the status would be of those. They also said the remaining 80% of the units would be at full market value. How exciting. Then they indicated that, you know, that cost per month for rent is more than the mortgages in Jacaranda. How smug of them. VCU may have lost its moral compass. I have worked with many of you and I know you have a sound moral compass. Please, dig deep, protect us, and not only be elected official like you are, but be city leaders tonight. Put this in reverse, put the brakes on, and I know that we're the third largest city in the entire state as far as land mass. There's other places, other opportunities. Let's build this housing, but just not there. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments, David. Barb, did you want to speak? No? OK. Is anyone else in that row? The third row. Anyone else in the third row? All right. We'll go to the fourth row. All right. Yes, sir.

Joe Harris Battle Creek. First and foremost this development is based upon projections not certainties. Projections are like sand and that they shift at the slightest breeze. This development is valued a little over forty nine million dollars. The development is proposing a twenty nine million dollar tax capture so that the developer can be reimbursed for eligible expenses. What this means is that over 30 years time taxes generated from this development is going to be captured for reimbursement for the developer INSTEAD OF GOING DIRECTLY TO THE CITY AND OTHER COUNTIES, COUNTY ENTITIES INVOLVED. THERE IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE $13.4 MILLION FINANCIAL GAP, WHICH IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TO BE RECOUPED FROM THE 48 INCOME QUALIFIED UNITS. THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS FIGURED OUT FOR 20 YEARS ON INCOME-BASED HOUSING FOR THOSE 48 UNITS, YET THE BROWNFIELD PLAN IS SET FOR 30 YEARS. So after year 21, what legally happens to those 48 units? Does their rent all of a sudden go up to the regular projected rate? If this is the case, can we truly say that these 48 units are part of an affordable housing plan? Some additional questions before any final decision. What kind of safeguards are in place so as to protect the Battle Creek City taxpayer, as well as those other Calhoun County entities that are involved in this 30-year tax capture plan? Is there a project completion guarantee with the developer is very cost increase guarantee and that of costs increase for the project taxpayers don't get stuck with those increase costs. Is there any type of cap in regard to the brownfield funds based upon the fact that this proposal is based upon quote anticipated projections. Is there any type of transparency guarantee for the purpose of the developer to disclose any additional public funding sources such as grants or state funding in addition to this proposal? Is there an insurance guarantee on this development such as fire insurance, property and structure insurance and the like? Are there any verification protections within this agreement so as to independently verify exactly where the tax capture monies are going annually? Understand I am not against bringing housing developments to the city of Battle Creek because we do need additional housing. I am, however, concerned that we are not looking at every single option given to us and that we're not answering some very important questions in regard to this particular development. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Anyone else in that row?

David.

My name is David Moore. I've seen it so far, things have been coming, I'm saying.

David, you're going to have to speak into the microphone.

You ain't sure of what you're doing. We got time to do this. Take the accurate time that we need to take to get this absolutely right. It looks like so far, what I've seen, there's seem to be confusion in it. So take the time that you need to have and time you need to take. This is something that's very important. Let's do this thing right. Thank you, David.

We have anyone in the fifth row? Yes, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Chris. Me and my family live at 244 Blackhawk Street in the Cherrywood subdivision. I know everyone was mentioning the subsidized housing and stuff. My concern is safety. I'm looking at the map here. I remember my wife leaving to go to work, and she pulls on Helmer Road right by the school. Young man was making a left-hand turn, pulled right in front of her because of traffic congestion, totaled our car. Adding this subdivision, what is that going to do? I mean, I'm very nervous about this. I see where the entrance and exit is going to be. Not only that, Cherrywood Drive right now, people fly through there. You're adding a whole other subdivision here. People are going to fly through Cherrywood to go to Westlake School. It's definitely going to happen. What are we going to do about the traffic count then? It can barely deal with it right now. So I know everyone's talking about other things. My big thing is safety. That's why in my job, this is what I do. I think safety. So I'm just wondering what's going to be done about the safety for our kids crossing the road there. All the children playing on Cherrywood Street. I mean, what's everyone going to do about that? This is going to be havoc. That street right there can barely contain it now. You're going to add a whole nother subdivision there or a whole nother apartment complex. I'm just sorry. It's not going to work. But, you know, that's all I had. My big concern was safety.

Thank you very much, Chris. I appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else in that 5th row? Yes, Sir, Dominic County Commissioner Dominico.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and city commissioners. My name is Dominic Woo. I live 181 Woodhaven Drive, Battle Creek. I live right behind the Lakeview High School. I don't want to mention too much about the project. I'm here for Resolution 456. My biggest concern is safety. One of my neighbors already mentioned about it, about the safety. And we, I go to war every day. And I know it's not easy to get out from Cherrywood to Halma Road. And if you want to go to the left, you will be spending at least five minutes. So we already have enough traffic during the school time. And with this unit coming in, I would like to ask all our commissioners, are we going to have a safe area for students? with this coming to our neighborhood. And we do not, I know all of my neighborhood do not, I already talked to a few folks. They came and talked to me. I didn't even have to go out and talk to them. They came and talked to me and they all concerned about the safety and all this traffic that we all face every single day. So my biggest concern is safety and also the I know we all are serving for our community, and please reconsider how you're going to vote tonight. And a housing shortage is needed for Battle Creek for a long time. It's not just like it started a couple years ago. It's been there. So if we would like to have a housing or apartment unit, whatever, we have a plan. please find a suitable place so we all will not have to face with all these safety and all that accidents around my neighborhood. So please be considerate and be responsible how you vote tonight. I encourage everyone to think about it before you vote for this resolution tonight. Thank you so much.

Thank you, County Commissioner Dominic Wu. Is there anyone else in that fifth row? Yes, sir.

My name is Venkata. I live in 212 Black Cherry Lane. I am here to oppose the resolution 456, the resolution approving a brownfield plan proposed. My biggest concern also, as our neighbors said, the safety of the kids. In our neighborhoods, all the kids, they walk by the schools in the morning. Even now, at the dismissal time and the school start time, if you see, there is going to be traffic is worse at that Helmer and our Surreywood neighborhood area. I want that to be managed before you do any action. About the other ones, if you build the residence opposite to the school area, there has to be more congestion happening in part of the traffic and about the Yeah, about the traffic and the cars blowing through our neighborhoods. They can, if you don't give them the right plan, they can cut through our area. That is the only way they can go to the schools in our neighborhood. They can cut through my neighborhood, and I am very concerned about my kids and our area kids' safety. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone on row 5? Anyone else on row 5? Yes, Kathy.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Kathy Antea. I live in Park Ridge Drive in Urbandale area. I may not know all the nuances of this proposal, and I hear that there is great anger amongst the neighbors that are here speaking in regard to this issue. However, I must say that Heavy traffic is kind of a fact of life if you live in a city. I am not dismissing the safety issues and whatnot, but as an example, I've lived in more than a dozen communities over the last 35 years, from the East Coast to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and I can tell you, even on Drummond Island, with a year-round population of 600 people, we had multiple accidents at our only four-way stop sign. Again, I'm not trying to minimize the concerns about safety. I do understand that. And Battle Creek needs housing. I think the city is quite capable of managing as traffic issues come up. For instance, I frequently have to pull out of Ridgemore onto Michigan Avenue, right near where 20th Street ends at the north side, and that can be a challenging turning situation. You learn to live with that. You learn to go around it. You learn to give yourself a few extra minutes. I also know that it used to be a very deadly corner. That's an exaggeration. It used to be an iffy corner at Limit Street and Ridgemore. The city looked at the problem and decided it would be better as a four-way stop sign. So again, the city addressed that particular issue. This may not be popular, but the feeling I really get is not in my backyard, folks, is what's going on. And I know we need housing in Battle Creek, and I know that the city has the opportunity to put in a housing complex in that area, and I'm really sorry that it's going to increase people's traffic around their neighborhood, but we live in a city. There's lots of cars. There's lots of traffic. We have to help our children learn and be safe, but I don't think stopping a development is necessarily the answer to what we need to do. And I also would like to thank David for speaking to the commission about taking a decent amount of time to really think about this issue. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Kathy. Is there anyone else in that fifth row? Otherwise, we're going to go to the sixth row. Sixth row? Yes, ma'am.

Hello, I'm Christine Wentworth. I live on 119 Barrington Circle in the Huntington Hills subdivision. My father lives at 307 Beckett Park, which is the condos in Huntington Hills. I would urge you to vote in opposition to resolution 456, in particular the apartment complex for a number of reasons. One, the density issue. We have lived in that neighborhood for over 25 years and we've enjoyed the single family homes and the neighborhood feel. The density of the apartments will change that feel for that area. Helmer used to be a country road and we have seen that explode with the additional construction that's happened along Helmer. My father did move from the Detroit area where it was very heavy traffic, and he was not able to drive because of the very congested driving conditions there. He can safely go to the Meijer grocery store and continue to do his shopping and go to his doctor's because Helmer is drivable. We are very concerned about the density and the effect on traffic, which needs to be studied further. Also in addition to that is the ongoing long-term maintenance of the apartment complexes. Yes, there's a plan to make them upscale or at least very nice. What is the long-term maintenance of those to ensure over the period of the 20 or 30 years, it's not clear in the paperwork to me how long the tax benefit occurs, but what is the assurances to make sure that they stay for people who are in that above 80% average median income, which I saw in the report. And understanding the significant policy consideration of the tax subsidy. What are the conditions with the developer and the assurances to the taxpayers that it's going to be monitored and used according to the intention. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in that sixth row? Yes, ma'am. And I'm assuming that Access Visions volume is working. Thank you very much, Jeff.

Hi. Thank you for having us here this evening to listen to our comments. My name is Jenny Peavy. I live at 135 Barrington Circle, along with my husband. Many of the concerns I have have already been addressed. The one thing that hasn't been is the fact that Helma Road is only a two-lane road south of there. That, to me, I don't see where you can widen that or increase safety in those areas. I'm concerned about the tax break for the developer. It seems as though I don't understand a lot that's in the document as to what the developer is getting, but it seems like they are getting an awful lot back at the expense of the homeowners already paying great a deal of taxes on our homes right now. It is my understanding that we are looking at putting more apartments down by the Target and near the mall, and those look like wonderful locations to making it a walkable community, and that's something you had all wanted to address. I think that location is good. I am a little concerned with the location of these proposed apartments. Um, let's see. I just ask that you vote no on this project at this location right now. So thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in that sixth row? If not, we're gonna go to the seventh row. Yes, sir.

Hello, my name is Tim Cowles. I live at 206 Apple Blossom Lane. I think this is a terrible idea. I spent about 40 years living in Battle Creek. I've lived in low-income neighborhoods, and I've spent the last 40 years working my way out of them. I don't really care to have them moved in next door to me. I don't think it's fair that I lose my taxable value. I don't want crime and drugs because that's what will follow them. Without being rude if it's a great idea put it in your neighborhood. I don't want it in mine.

Thank you Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in the seventh row or those standing in the back room?

Yes, ma'am Hi, I'm Kara black. I live at 176 Apple Blossom Lane. I just want to say one little thing I about what Kathy said. She mentioned that the hat that heavy traffic happens. But my concern is it's important to note that the kind of traffic that we have right there is a high concentration of brand new or young drivers. We need to consider the safety of these students with the increased traffic volume. That was my biggest concern. Thank you.

Thank you for your brief comments. Anyone else in that seventh row? Yes, sir.

Hi, I'm Carter Black. I am a lifelong resident of 176 Apple Blossom Lane. And I wanted to thank you for taking the time to listen to what we have to say. And I'd like to thank you in advance for actually considering our concerns. I learned about this development yesterday. So I didn't have a whole lot of time to research and figure out the pros and cons of a development such as this. What I did get to learn from the time of learning of this development to falling asleep last night was a lot of cons. So I'd like to reinforce and reiterate everything that's been said today. Obviously intersection safety is a big concern of a lot of people. The government spending could be better used elsewhere. Property value would be negatively impacted. The developer said that there was not going to be government subsidized housing, and then there is. And that housing is only 48 units, which will only be supported for 20 years, which is not a support system. It is the bare minimum. It would increase through traffic in the Cherrywood neighborhood, which has young children playing along that street. And to address the not in my backyard argument, I have had no issue with other developments along this road. It's that spot specifically that is a danger to develop. And that is all I have to say.

Now Carter, before you leave, Did you take a music class at KCC?

Yes, I did.

All right. My daughter and you were in the same music class 20 years ago. All right. Thank you very much. You did a great job. Thank you. Anyone else in the seventh row? All right. We're going to come over here, second row. Third row. All right. It's your turn. Thank you.

I'm Mike Moakley. I live at 226 Jacaranda Drive and I'm going to respectfully disagree with some of the people that say that we need housing. From what I've seen, housing prices in Calhoun County have not appreciated any faster than housing prices in Kalamazoo, Branch, Ingham, Eaton. any other surrounding county. So if the market was out of balance, you would see faster, higher appreciation, which we have not had. So I don't necessarily see that that's an issue. I know that in the Lakeview downtown development. There's moderately priced housing. That's part of that plan. I'm on that board. I know that that's something that they're talking about. So again, I don't see where the demand for the housing is. I mean, this is a really stable market. There's no big projects going in. There's I don't see any factories. As a matter of fact, you'd be better off to spend the money on factories or on employment than you would be on housing. So again, I just don't see that. And I think the tell, really, that this makes no financial sense is that the developer is asking you to subsidize him. if there was a true demand for housing and we really needed it and the developer thought he could make his money by developing and doing the project you wouldn't have to be funding him he could fund himself all he would need would be zoning changes but that's not what's going on here so again You know, think about how you're spending your money, because this probably is not a good way to spend it. And you throw in what they're putting in, Ganton's putting in on Helmer with senior housing, that's going to be a very, very high-density two-lane road in a hurry. So, again... Is that really what you want at Helmer Road? I'd say no. I think there's better use for city funds, and I'm hoping that you'll at least consider it. My impression is that this is a done deal, but I hope you would at least consider what people are saying tonight. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mike. Is there anyone else in that second row? If not, we're already in the third row. All right. Is there anyone else in the third row? Okay. Fourth row. Anyone in the fourth row? Yes, Autumn Smith.

Good evening, Autumn Smith. I'm sitting here tonight because the proposed $22.6 million brownfield plan for the fields of Battle Creek represents a classic example of corporate welfare, and it's a bad deal for our community. When our state framed Article 9, Section 18 of the Michigan Constitution, the lending of credit clause was put into place for a distinct purpose. to stop public tax dollars from being used to back, subsidize, and de-risk private business ventures. The core principle behind that rule remains urgent today. Government should not pick winners and losers in the private market, nor should it force local taxpayers to finance corporate development. Let's look at what the $22.6 million in public tax capture actually buys us in this proposal. Out of 240 planned apartments, 192 are standard market rate units. We are subsidizing a private profit-driven enterprise. Only 48 units are income-restricted, capped at 100% of area median income, and that restriction expires in 20 years. handing out millions in tax captures for 48 median income units at an exorbitant price tag per unit for a claim of, quote, affordability. This isn't an affordable housing solution. It's a corporate welfare disguised as community development. When local government grants massive tax captures, it doesn't eliminate the cost of public services. The residents living in those 240 units will still rely on our roads, public safety, emergency services, and municipal infrastructure, But instead, those taxes supporting Battle Creek's general fund, millions will be siphoned off to reimburse a private project. The burden of funding our community gets shifted directly onto existing homeowners, small business owners, and working families. We are told that we must approve these deals in order to get growth, but legal does not mean mandatory. The City Commission is not obligated to rubber stamp every tax capture request that comes across your desk. Your job is to act as a fiduciary for the people of Battle Creek. If a private developer wants to build market-rate housing in our city, they should bring private capital to the table and assume private risk. If public dollars are used, we must demand direct, lasting public benefits, not blanket checks. I urge this commission to reject the corporate subsidies that shortchange our residents, put taxpayers first, respect the spirit of public fiscal accountability, and vote no on this plan. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We need to be not a clap. I don't want to be a sourpuss, but if we clap for everyone, if we clap for everyone, we'll be here all night, and it's already too hot. Okay, we're going to go back to the fifth row. Is there anyone there? All right, sixth row. Is there anyone in the sixth? Yes, sir.

Hi, my name is Sandy Stankowitz. I live at 193 Jacaranda Drive. I found out about this late last night before I went to bed. And I worked 12 hour shift today. Still made it here to make my voice heard. I don't know a lot about what's going on because I wasn't able to read into it, but I do know that 240 apartments coming in is going to create a lot of traffic. And I already know that Helmer Road is a bear to get in and out of every day. So it's going to create safety issues. It's going to create all sorts of problems. I do agree that housing is essential and we need it, but maybe not right there. Maybe a different location. Because having that entrance right there and 240 more apartment complexes coming in and out right across from where the entrance is to a school. I've seen the line like somebody else mentioned all the way to Columbia Drive multiple times just turning in and out. And I haven't been a resident here. I'm Battle Creek longer than a couple years, but I have. I can say that I moved to this area. Because it was a suburb, it was nice. I don't I don't credit it to being in the city, because it's not a downtown city area. It's the suburbs, so a lot of traffic is not something that you should expect. Thank you.

Thank you for your perseverance and being here tonight. Appreciate it. Yes, John.

Good afternoon. My name is John Hughes. I live at 409 Robertson Ave. I am an employee of Battle Creek Unlimited. First, income restricted means something completely different from what subsidized housing is and what other government housing or public housing is uh... public housing in itself is usually older operated through a public housing program uh... like the city uh... housing commission uh... housing choice vouchers in section eight which is uh... the subsidized housing for low-income housing developments is where the actual renter gets an incentive or a subsidy from the government to pay for their housing. So that Section 8 voucher is given from the government that goes towards their housing. And there's usually requirements on those that have deeply affordable, low, low income, below 60% AMI for those subsidies. Another word that's thrown around with low-income housing and affordable is LIHTC, which is low-income housing tax credits. Again, this is another type of development where it's utilizing a government program to get financing for a project, but there are deeper restrictions on those units, again, mostly below 60% AMI. So TIF, housing TIF, which is Act 381 through the state of Michigan is a statutory program through the state that allows the developer to utilize TIF as a tool. The developer puts their own money into the project and then over the course of the brownfield plan, they get reimbursed those expenses. I think an important thing to know there is The existing value of the property stays and taxes are collected on that. It's the incremental growth above that. So if the property is valued at X now with nothing on it, a development comes and happens, that new value is then different or increased based on the development. So then it's that increase that then gets captured. The developer does pay property taxes. So each year the developer will continue to pay their property taxes and then the authority will capture what is eligible underneath Act 381 based on statutory requirements. So there are parameters in that legislation that They can't, the developer just can't take the dollar and do whatever they want with it. I think another important thing is, you know, locally 100, so the restricted units at the fields of Battle Creek are income restricted to 120% AMI, but the rents are gonna be restricted to 100% AMI. 100% AMI in Battle Creek is 58,600. 120% AMI is 70,320,000. So a few local jobs, Thank you, John, for your comments.

Joe Soborowski.

Good evening, Commission. I'm Joe Soborowski with Battle Creek Unlimited. I just kind of wanted to further articulate what John was getting to there. AMI, I know when we went through this, I'll come back to that, but when we started this exercise over a year ago, we did an outreach with, I think this is important, an outreach in the general area to a multiple neighborhoods and we had a, a plan where we wanted to buffer some potential future industrial development. We had a road that went through. Uh, we took some of the comments that went in, not all of them, but took some of the comments that went into this proactive approach. We eliminated the road due to traffic concerns and flow throughs. Um, we, we narrowed the, um, the multifamily. And at those meetings, some of the same individuals are here. And that's their right to be. I'm glad they're here. They didn't want low income housing. They didn't want subsidized housing. And yes, we did say that's not what we're going for. And at that time, I'm not going to say at the exact time, THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AS JOHN ALLUDED TO, WAS ROLLING OUT SOME NEW TOOLS. I THINK THEY WERE PROBABLY ROLLED OUT IN 23. WE WERE DOING LATE 23. WE WERE DOING OUTREACH IN 25. WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THOSE TOOLS WERE. WELL, ANYWAYS, HERE WE ARE, THE DEVELOPERS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THESE TOOLS BECAUSE THERE IS HOUSING SHORTAGE ACROSS THE STATE, ACROSS EVERY COMMUNITY, AND THEY VERY CAREFULLY LOOKED AT WAYS TO INDUCE HOUSING NOT ONLY ACROSS THE STATE, But communities just like Battle Creek. And when we talk about income restricted and low income and all these things, I just want to articulate AMI is the average median household income for Calhoun County. It is calculated on a yearly basis. That is somebody making $58,600 a year or $28.17 per hour. And 120% AMI is $70,000, $320. That's $33.81 per hour. So what the state looked at is like, hey, we want to create tools, but we don't want to price everybody out. I mean, I'm just going to rattle off a starting salary for a Lakeview school teacher is $48,257. That's 82% of the AMI. Battle Creek Public Schools starting teacher salary is $51,500. That's 88% AMI. Battle Creek starting... battle creek police officers starting salary sixty three thousand that's one oh nine a m i battle creek firefighters sixty five thousand that's a hundred eleven a m i these are the folks were talking about that you need to contribute and grow a community I know there's traffic concerns. Capitol Avenue, if you look at Capitol Avenue and mirror that to Helmer, Capitol Avenue has so many neighborhoods pouring out on it. It's busy. It's sometimes hard to get out. But it works. We live in a city. So I just wanted to really drive home those AMI pieces that John was alluding to. Thank you. Thank you, Joe.

All right, is there anyone in that last row? Okay, is there anyone else left that would like to speak on this side? John.

John Kenefic, 204 South Avenue. Before I speak on this issue, I'm going to go back a couple years and talk about Upholdings LLC. It was a company out of Illinois. They were going to get $23 million from the federal government to build 51 units over by Washington and Van Buren. That was turned down. Now, while we're here talking about what's going on here, I hear about this and that. I mean, we can throw numbers all around all we want. What I'm interested in, when it really comes down to it, is how much tax dollars are actually paying for this thing. person that's building this is paying 10% and the rest is 90%, that works out really good for him. And I don't see those numbers here that tell me exactly how many federal tax dollars are in there, how many state tax dollars are in there, how many county tax dollars are in there, how many city tax dollars are in there. Because I'm going to be a contractor if I can spend, have you pay $9 and I only have to pay one. That really works out good for me. And the gentleman over there is absolutely correct. He said if it was really important to build properties and housing units, we wouldn't have to go through all this. You wouldn't have to go to the state. You wouldn't have to go to anybody else. I come from a city in Belmont, California. Belmont means beautiful hills. If you can find them, they're covered under all houses. Everything is houses. And they didn't ask for approval from anybody from the city commission, the county, the state, or anybody else. Because it was till the financial end to do this. My mom bought a house for $22,000 when she came to the United States. She sold it for $240,000. You think that's going to happen here? You think they're going to sell that well? By the way, 15 years later, it went for a million dollars. But that's California. And guess what? They can't afford to live there. It's difficult to live here. So all we can do is subsidize with tax dollars these operations. Upholdings LLC is going to be on East Michigan Avenue. There's one over on the old Kmart. How much money of tax dollars is that?

Just kind of makes me wonder. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Anyone else want to speak? Yes, ma'am.

Hi, my name's Lori Van Rysbeck. I live at 173 Jack Rander Drive. I've lived there for about 27 years now. We are a very established community. We've been there forever. My parents owned a business in Battle Creek, down in the Roman Cafe for years. We own two veterinary clinics here. We try very hard. to keep our roots in Battle Creek and be productive members of it. My husband and I were talking again today, I was here in June when everything was so abstract, and this was this, and we don't know, could be years, could be 10 years, could be 20, no. And then as soon as anything started, the bulldozers started coming. And I went, oh, here we go. Here we go. It's just going to come. And we feel like we have not heard. We pay our property taxes. We've all been there a long time. We are all productive. We all go to work. Nobody's a trust fund baby. Everybody's in there working their butt off trying to contribute to Battle Creek. And we very much feel like we're not heard anymore. We feel like this is going to, you know, everything leaves. Add to business. Try and subsidize some businesses. Try and build this so it doesn't look like such a crappy place to live. And we don't have to be a laughingstock. We would like to be an upstanding neighborhood where, yes, people can live, but I don't think we need to subsidize everyone because at this juncture, We just said today, if this is the way it's going to be, we're just going to pack up the businesses, move out, get out of the state. So, you know, city at least. So anyway, this is kind of how we talked in our neighborhood. And we do, we all feel like we are not heard. We are not important. There's four big neighborhoods that are well established, been there for years, and we feel like nobody cares. It's just what we can do for Battle Creek Unlimited or everybody else who's in the club over there. And we're kind of sick of subsidies and we're kind of sick of everybody getting something for nothing. because we have been working our butts off for years to try and make this place a better place to bleed. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Final time. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. Go ahead.

My name is Leroy Oliver. I live at 146 Jack Aranda. Nobody had brought up the human side of this. Those are apartments. They're renters. Renters are notorious for not fixing anything. Plus, if you go to a low income and those apartments are for four, there will be 10 living in that apartment. I don't know how you're going to control.

Thank you for your comments. Last time anyone else? Thomas Buechler.

Thank you, Mayor Tom Beechler, 256 Jacaranda Drive. You know, I I think my biggest concern when I learned this development was traffic at the high school. I've got grandkids that go to Lakeview High School. I know what a zoo it is there in the mornings and in the afternoons to pick them up or drop them off. And it is very, very congested. You're adding 240 families right across the street. I think the most compelling argument I heard tonight, regardless of subsidies, regardless of income, is the safety and the traffic. And for those folks that live across Hilmer to the east, when I would have to go pick up my grandson at the middle school, I cut through their neighborhood to get there. And I'm one person living in Jacaranda doing that. I can't imagine out of 240 families trying to go with young kids, more than likely, renters usually have young families, not always, trying to cut through their neighborhood to go to Mingus Creek Elementary. I think that's the most compelling and scary thing for those folks that I've heard tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Thomas. All right, that concludes this public hearing. Are there any comments by the commission on this public hearing? Seeing none, We'll go to... Next item on our agenda is public comment regarding any remaining agenda items. If you'd like to make public comment regarding any remaining agenda item, please raise your hand and we will acknowledge you to come forward to the podium. You all have four minutes to make your comments. Please state your name and address before beginning your comment and indicate which agenda item you are speaking to. Are there any public comments at this time? Yes.

Joe Harris, Battle Creek. I want to speak about Resolution 457, the partial denial of the FOIA request 26-1592. I have looked at this FOIA request in depth, as well as the response for the partial denial from the city attorney, as well as the appeal itself. First, I am not going to argue that Michigan FOIA law requires the city to use the exact words, quote, a reasonable search was conducted because in all reality that is not required by Michigan FOIA law. However, in looking at the request as a whole, there are some questions that need to be addressed. First, this request was very specific. It requested two things, copies of all police reports and copies of all supplemental police reports. The city's partial denial explained that certain information was withheld because of social security numbers, personal information, and privacy concerns. The city then provided one redacted field contact. Now, my experience has been that a field contact constitutes as a police report. If that is indeed the case, then what about the request for the supplemental reports? There is nothing that mentions anything in regard to the requested supplemental reports. The original response from the city does not appear to say that no supplemental reports existed. In looking at the city's response to this appeal, the city now states there are no additional records responsive to the appellate's request. Michigan FOIA, specifically MCL 15.235, Section 5B addresses situations where the reason for denying a request or a portion of a request is that the requested public records do not exist, including the certification required when the basis is there for a denial. There has to be a certification. So my questions are these. On June 25th, when the city issued its original partial denial, had the city already determined that no supplemental police reports existed? And if that's the case, then why wasn't it mentioned in the original denial? I'm just asking for a clear answer to a simple question. If the field contact report was indeed the police report responsive to the request, then what was the city's determination regarding the separate request for the supplemental police reports? These are my concerns with resolution 457. So I would respectfully ask the Commission to reconsider its decision in regard to this partial denial and direct the City Attorney to provide a clear determination addressing the entire FOIA request, which includes the supplemental reports that were requested, which appears to not have any answer until now. I'm asking that the Commission to ensure that this response to the request complies with the requirements as already established by the Michigan legislature. And from what I can tell, it does not appear that anything was stated in regard to the requested supplemental reports. So I can see the reasoning as to why there is an appeal here, because nothing from the city attorney addressed the supplemental reports until today in regard to the partial denial. And if the city attorney's response today is in regard to the partial denial, then I believe what needs to happen is the commission needs to overturn this denial and direct the city attorney to be more detailed and clear in its partial denial so as to include the supplemental report portion, so as to make sure that it's in compliance with Michigan state law. I got 30 seconds, something I couldn't say my first time in Resolution 256. I believe Battle Creek can do better in regard to the housing issues. Instead of depending upon private developers who solely depend upon government and local funding such as tax captures, there are private developers that we can look into who will develop housing based upon their own merits, one of them being Turner Impact Capital. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other public comments at this time? See none will go on to our next item on the gap. Autumn Smith. Is that who you were saying? Yes.

I am speaking on resolution, Autumn Smith, candidate for city commission at large. I am speaking on resolution 457, I want to address the city's continuing failure or refusal to comply with Michigan's Freedom of Information Act. This isn't theoretical for me. I have been before you many, many times over the years, and I have fought the city over public records, and I won a FOIA appeal last May concerning the signal communications that the police were using. The commission reversed the denial. That should have been the end of the matter, but it wasn't. The city still is not fully complied with your decision. That's a serious problem because a government body doesn't get to appeal its way out of accountability simply because it doesn't like the outcome. When the citizens win a FOIA appeal, the government has an obligation to comply, and that's why Resolution 457 matters, because this isn't just about one document, one journalist, or one FOIA request. It's about whether the public actually owns the government records or whether City Hall gets to decide what the public is allowed to know. We've seen another troubling example with the BCPD cold case homicide list FOIA. The city gave an answer that did not accurately represent what was being requested and what records actually existed. The public was told one thing while the underlying records and information actually existed and you guys denied it. That is not transparency, that is information control. And let me remind everyone what FOIA is supposed to do. It isn't supposed to be a game of hide and seek between citizens and their government. Citizens shouldn't have to file a lawsuit and fight their government every time they want to know what their government is doing. They shouldn't have to fight the city attorney's office for records that belong to the public. And they certainly shouldn't have to win an appeal and then fight all over again to get the government to actually honor its own decision. So my message tonight is very simple. Resolution 457 should not be treated as a box to check. It should be treated as a demand for accountability. If the city lost the FOIA appeal, comply with it. If the city denied records improperly, fix it. If officials provided inaccurate information about responsive records, correct the record. And if the current FOIA process allows the government to effectively control information citizens are entitled to receive, then the process needs to change. Because FOIA stands for the Freedom of Information Act, not the freedom of information when the city hall feels like cooperating. I'm running for city commission because I believe government records should belong to the people. Transparency isn't something the government gives citizens as a favor. It is a fundamental part of accountable government. And if elected, I will fight to make sure that the city answers to the citizens and not the other way around. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other public comments at this time? Yes, John.

john kenefic 204 south avenue you just had a public hearing in regards to a brownfield plan for the fields of battle creek so i'm going to be talking about resolution 546 resolution approving a brownfield plan for the proposed fields of battle creek development Isn't this where you're going to be? You've just had a public hearing, and this tells us that you're moving forward on it when you approve this. Is that the plan here? I'm just kind of curious because I've seen the vast number of people speak not in favor of this, and this says on 456 you're going to be moving forward on this?

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Are there any other public comments at this time? Seeing none, we're going to move on.

I move for the introduction of Ordinance 17-2026.

Second.

It's been moved and supported to introduce 17-2026.

This ordinance, if introduced, would amend Section 26 of Chapter 882, Real Estate Taxation, to revise the existing payment in lieu of taxes, or pilot, provisions for the Liberty Commons Apartments development. In 2025, the City Commission approved a pilot agreement to support the project, and the developer subsequently applied to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, or MSHDA, for low-income housing tax credits, LIHTC, funding through the october 1 2025 funding round however the project was not awarded tax credits as adopted the 2025 pilot ordinance required rehabilitation activities to commence by june 30 2027 and be completed by december 31 2028. The proposed amendment would extend these deadlines by one year, establishing new deadlines of June 30, 2028 for commencement of rehabilitation and December 31, 2029 for project completion. This extension will provide the developer with additional time to secure LIHTC funding and support the continued advancement of Liberty Commons Apartments Rehabilitation Project.

I move to approve, or I move to the introduction of Ordinance 17-2026.

Second.

Been moved and supported to approve the introduction of Ordinance 17-2026. Are there any comments by the Commission? Seeing none, would you please vote on the introduction of Ordinance 17-2026? The introduction of the ordinance has been approved.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Support. It's been moved and supported to approve the consent agenda. Is there any questions by the commission? Seeing none, would you please vote on the consent agenda? Consent agenda has been approved. Next item on our agenda is resolution 453. Madam Clerk, when you're ready.

This resolution authorizes the city manager to execute contracts with Analytical Testing and Consulting Services Incorporated, Environmental Testing and Consulting Incorporated, and Materials Testing Consultants Incorporated to provide environmental testing services for residential lead abatement projects funded through state and federal grant programs. The city of Battle Creek issued RFP number 2026-085R on June 15, 2026, seeking qualified firms to perform environmental testing services in support of residential lead abatement activities. Due to the anticipated volume of work and varying project schedules, the evaluation committee determined that establishing a pool of qualified contractors is in the best interest of the city. awarding contracts to multiple vendors will provide greater scheduling flexibility enhance responsive responsiveness to project needs and help ensure that grant funded projects are completed efficiently and within required time frames i move for the approval of resolution number 453 support the movement supported to approve resolution 453 are there any comments questions or concerns by the commission see none would you please vote on it

Oh, sorry.

Sorry. Thank you, Mayor. I just again want to say I'm all for the remediation of this lead that's poisoned us all these years in this area, and the quickly way we can do this is get these multiple contractors. I'm totally for that, and thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other Commission comments, concerns? Seeing none, would you please vote on Resolution 453? Resolution 453 has been approved. Next item on our agenda is resolution 454. Madam Clerk, when you're ready.

This resolution. Yes. This resolution authorizes the city manager to enter into a contract with Advanced Environmental Management Group, LLC, to provide radon testing, mitigation, and clearance services for residential properties participating in the city's HUD-funded lead hazard reduction program. The city of Battle Creek issued RFP number 2026-084R on June 15, 2026, seeking qualified firms to provide radon testing, mitigation, and clearance services in support of the Community Development Department's HUD-funded lead hazard control activities. Proposals were due on July 9, 2026, and the City received six responsive proposals. Following a review and evaluation of the proposals, the evaluation committee determined that Advanced Environmental Management Group, LLC, was the most qualified firm and recommends awarding the contract. The firm demonstrated the experience, technical expertise, and capacity necessary to effectively support the city's residential lead hazard reduction efforts and ensure compliance with applicable program requirements.

I move for the approval of resolution number 454. Support.

Been moved and supported to approve resolution 454. Are there any comments by the commission? Seeing none, would you please vote on resolution 454? Resolution 454 has been approved. Next item on our agenda is resolution 455. Madam Clerk, when you're ready.

This resolution authorizes the city manager to enter into a contract with Company Wrench LTD for the purchase of a portable trommel screen to support the processing of compost, topsoil, mulch, and other materials utilized by the city of Battle Creek. The fleet department identified the need for this equipment to enhance operational efficiency and support ongoing material management activities. Due to the highly specialized nature of trommel screens and the limited number of manufacturers capable of providing equipment that meets the city's requirements for capacity, mobility, transportability and overall footprint staff conducted a comprehensive review of the marketplace and determined that a traditional competitive bid process was not in the city's best interest fleet personnel evaluated available equipment through in-person demonstrations and obtained quotations from vendors offering machines that met the city's operational specifications Based on this evaluation, company wrench LTD was identified as the vendor best suited to meet the city's needs.

I move for the approval of resolution number 455. Support.

I move and support it to approve resolution 455. Are there any comments by the commission? Seeing none, would you please vote on resolution 455? Resolution 455 has been approved. Next item on our agenda is resolution 456. Madam Clerk, when you're ready.

developer glc multi bc llc with support from brownfield brownfield consultant michigan growth advisors has proposed an act 381 brownfield plan for the redevelopment of one parcel totaling approximately 13.12 acres located within the city of battle creek at 15105 south helmer road the proposed development includes the construction of 240 multi-family residential units across multiple buildings including associated amenities such as a clubhouse, pool, and open space. The development will include 48 income-restricted units, 20% of total units at 100% AMI, anticipated to remain income-restricted for a period of 20 years. The total capital investment is estimated to be approximately $48.9 million, with construction anticipated to begin in fall of 2026 and occur over an approximately two-year build-out period. This resolution approves a brownfield plan for the proposed The Fields at Battle Creek.

I move for the approval of Resolution 456. Support.

It's been moved and supported to approve Resolution 456. Are there any comments, concerns, or questions by the Commission? Commissioner is our ski Smith.

Thank you mayor. I have a couple of questions and maybe Amanda can help me with these The tax increase so the way that this works because this was what I was trying to wrap my head around this weekend when I was reading into this Thoroughly is that the the tax increase that they're kind of basing that capture amount on is based on the neighboring property tax values and the increase that this will be because of it being there.

So if I'm understanding your question correct, are you asking what the tax capture will be on the improvement? Is that what you're asking, where they got that number?

So yeah, so the tax that they're capturing when they speak of that, it's coming from the surrounding property taxes?

No. So the tax capture would come from the improvements on that parcel. It would not come from the surrounding parcel.

OK, so that was because I was confused because the way that I read it, it looked like it was saying like the base of property taxes in the neighboring area and then whatever they were increased by the capture of that would go to this.

No, it would go just what is on that parcel is what would be.

OK. And then also, I had asked the question on email, but I wasn't able to get an answer. The recent housing study that we did, I'm just wondering why that information wasn't on this, and we're using a 2024 for the information.

Jill or John?

There was, can you restate the question please?

So we recently had a housing study done and I was just curious to see why the numbers from the 2024 housing study were being shown instead of the recent housing. As far as like the need for housing.

Yeah, so. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're alluding to the study that the city done recently, correct? So the state requires a third party like independent study to be put in the package when it's submitted to them. So the 2024 study that is mentioned in this brownfield plan is the up-to-date most recent third party study that we have locally for housing. It was done by HRNA.

Well, we had also hired, we outsourced that as well, though, right?

Correct, but it would still have been our study, and they needed a third party, not the city, not BCU, not the developer study.

Okay, because I'm just curious to see, I guess, like where we are currently as far as housing needs go to see if that, the benefit outweighs the cost, I guess, kind of thing, you know? So it's like, I would have liked to have, I guess, seen that information.

I would defer to ACM Gillette if she is...

Yeah, I think what's important to understand is the analysis of a housing study versus a housing strategy. So more recently we've done a housing strategy, but even as a municipal organization, we have not independently hired anyone to do a housing study in quite a number of years. So the most recent study that would have been done would have been conducted in the 2024. Okay, okay.

I guess I was under the understanding that that was like a housing study to tell us exactly what our needs were in Battle Creek.

Yeah, so the study would have quantified numbers and ratios based on population. The strategy would speak more specifically to the types of housing needs that are needed in the community. And then what do we need to do as a community to make modifications to, you know, either zoning or land use master plan in order to implement the strategy. Okay.

That's kind of interesting though, because it looks like that to me, the, uh, strategy that we have in place from that, um, study does not necessarily match up with this. Um, I was looking through that earlier today and I realized that the, basically where this is located and the type of housing that it is, is not part of that strategy. And I, I, yeah, so I am kind of concerned with that. Um,

What was the focus area for the housing strategy?

It was like a very community based. So we had a lot of different meetings set up where people from the community could come kind of give their input on the housing needs of Battle Creek.

Was it specific to downtown or neighboring?

No, it was all over Battle Creek.

Okay.

And we haven't actually got the results back from that. So it's kind of made it hard to agree to move forward with certain plans when I feel like we are maybe not completed with that study yet. So the community and so far, this just doesn't fall in line with them. And then, you know, I guess so for me, for my opinion on this matter, I agree with a lot of comments that were made tonight. A lot of it's based on assumptions. I don't see the data that shows the huge current housing need, especially for this kind of housing. I do agree with the fact that we have a lot of other places in Battle Creek that, again, the community specifically said that we would like to have housing brought to. And I would say that in this room we've had a lot of no's for this. And so for me, I was voted in for the people, and I will agree with the people on this. So thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you, Commissioner. Are there any other Commission comments at this time? Commissioner Lacoste?

I just wanted to reiterate what Joe had said about the AMI. We got a lot of emails and a lot of calls, including from Commissioner Dominic Rue, referencing the low-income part, and this is not a low-income housing situation. This is the AMI. As they had stated, I believe you guys had a number of 59,000. The statistics that I have for 100% AMI, which is the average median income, which means that half of the people in the area have incomes below, half of them have incomes above. So that would be $60,700 for one person. For four people, it would be around $80,000. So that's definitely not low income. I think the majority of the comments that I received in the emails and I think that we received as a commission were about that specific thing. And many of you guys even said tonight that if it wasn't for that low income, you'd be willing to go forward with it, but you felt kind of duped. So I just wanted to reassure everybody that is not the case. It's not a low-income housing situation.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other Commission comments? Commissioner Patrick O'Donnell.

Thank you, Mayor. It's a builder that wants to come into our community that wants to build, and he's using the tools that he can use to make it, on his end, profitable. We all want to be profitable in the end. And a lot of people are like, well, he's taking taxes away without increasing it. it's from what I understand it's just the tax on this property that's being redone but also that money that's being captured it doesn't go into his pocket it's actually building the streets and putting up the sewer that's needed for that area to make it that area livable that we as a city would have paid for anyways out of our pockets to clean up the area on there and so I don't see where it's increasing the property taxes on everybody else in the area right now. Is that correct in that assumption that it's still being paid?

Correct. Yes. Yes. The tax capture comes from the taxes that are paid on an annual basis for this specific site from this development.

And this is the maximum state law that allows a builder to apply for these type of grants. And that's what we're talking about tonight is approving the grant for him to build there because the zoning is already there. It's ready to be built. The zoning changes, correct?

Correct. The zoning is there. The conditional rezoning addressed the whole land use situation, which was approved through the Planning Commission and the City Commission. It's not a grant. It's the... tax capture that gets reimbursed for the eligible activities that are set by the state.

Yes, and I know what those are. It's curbs and gutters, sewer, sidewalks, fillings, things like that that actually go into the property that will be into the community use in the area.

And it is capped by what the Brownfield plan is, so there's a lot of discussion around assumptions. If Cost increased down the road, you can't capture more than what the Brownfield Point establishes. That's a statutory requirement. And then I think one more thing to add on to that also is once the local approvals are in place, it still goes to the state for a statutory review and approval at the state level as well.

And I know we need housing. I've talked with people that are actually from out of state that drive, and I'm talking from Angola, Indiana, talking from Union State down in Coldwater, that come here to Battle Creek to work at high-end jobs that are paying $100,000, $150,000 a year. And what they've realized lately is that that drive is costing them more than where they live, and they want to live here. And the housing market that we have a problem with is that a lot of it's property taxes that everybody's talking about. And I'm going to say this, that Hedley Amendment has saved a lot of people here a lot more headache and property tax because it's capped it. I've got friends that live in other states where they've capped and had to pay full value of their houses. So the housing in the Lakeview area there, it used to be when it was selling, when it was first sold, $120,000, $180,000. Now you're looking at $400,000 to $500,000 homes. And it's hard because if somebody wants to move in there, when they buy it, they got to pay that new property tax. That's why stuff doesn't move. I understand that. And that's why I understand the need for this type of property. And nobody can sell because they can't afford The people wanting to come in, they can't afford to live there. And we need to work at the state level. Someone needs to help release this. But all four of the property, moving built, and like I said, it's zoned. So if we don't get this plan, someone else is going to come in with another plan, and it could be Section 8 or something like that. So the plan's looking good, but what I really ask, and this is, we're voting on the, allowing them to have a tax break on this, but what I really want is the safety of the area. We heard a lot of that tonight. Is there any way we can slow this down, get an AI study of our traffic in the area of what it's going to improve? Is it going to improve traffic? Is it going to hurt traffic? Is there any way we can put that off, or is this something that we have to decide tonight? And I don't want to put it off too much longer because I know we need the construction started. I'm in the construction business. I understand part of that. So I'm all for making sure that we have safety for our people. We've had so many other meetings about stop signs and other stuff like that that we've helped out in new neighborhoods with traffic. This is just one thing. I'm asking a question. Are we allowed to postpone this to get some type of study, and how quickly could we get something like that?

So I don't think that there's anything that would require the commission to act this evening. What I can tell you is, when I was talking to the DPW director, that the average daily travel along Helma Road is about 12,000 cars a day. And when you're looking at a 240-unit apartment complex, it's probably four to six trips per day that would be additional there. So you're talking a max of about 1,400 additional trips a day. The DPW director feels that that would be, Helma Road could sufficiently handle that additional traffic, that there wouldn't be an issue there. I would tell you that getting an appropriate study done, if that is what this commission wants to do, it would not be a quick study. It would push this quite a ways down the road.

I would just ask my other commissioners if they feel that need to have some type of study done. But I don't want to hold up the, what we're voting on is the funding for this. And so that's where the stickiness gets in here. We're talking about the funding about having this done, but

i'm all for the safety part and that's all that's all i'm going to leave with is the safety part thank you thank you very much commissioner vice mayor thank you mayor so i understand that um a study is not going to tell us anything we already know what traffic volumes are where traffic is coming and going from and until those units are there and people are traveling the study isn't going to show where they're going or what they're doing.

Correct. Right.

I mean, we wouldn't know definitively until things are built. Correct. But we can assume that there's, you said, 1,400? Yeah, between 1,000 and 1,400. Yeah, four to six trips per day, so 1,000 to 1,400. And is that just the people coming and going from the unit? From the units. So that's not, like, the delivery vans? It's not. That's not DoorDash? That's not. Okay, so... think we can add probably a substantial on top of that so if we say an extra 2,000 trips a day if we find out that like there needs to be another stoplight put in somewhere or things need to be rerouted I mean it I'm assuming that the plans will be flexible enough that. We can. Yes, they could require these things to happen. Yes, OK, all right.

If this can I?

No, you have to answer a question that I have. Is there are there any other Commissioner?

I just have one more question for clarification. I guess the tax that's captured includes like the tax that would typically go to like fire police in the school district as well, correct?

So, partially, yes, but there are exclusions in there. It's not an entire 100% tax capture. And there's still other taxes, like income taxes and those sorts of things, that come from residents living there that aren't captured.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Any other Commission comments? Commissioner Milikas. Yes. Um, I just, we'll get to you next, Chris. Thank you.

I apologize, Simmons. I just wanted to explain that the amount that's going to be captured is only the incremental property tax that will be gathered from this property. So right now, as it stands right now, the taxes that are on that property still are going to go where they normally go. It's this incremental tax that is going to be captured from the property being there and developed that will be captured and reinvested. Also, did you have anything that you can, any insight as far as traffic lights or anything else like that that we could use?

I when it comes to layout for the site, it was addressed as far as where the drives are to accommodate for that. Ultimately, this will still go to the city for site plan approval, so this is not. They're going to break ground tomorrow. It still has to get site plan approval from the city based on the code requirements and all of that.

Gotcha, thank you very much.

Thank you Commissioner. I'm going to go Commissioner Simmons and Commissioner Reynolds.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So you've got like three questions here that I'll just kind of give you all at once and let you respond to them. And then I do have a comment on the traffic and safety aspect of it. So and I think this first question is partially already been answered by the question that Commissioner O'Donnell had about the current zoning. And so it's my understanding that current zoning allows for this. And so absent a brownfield plan, this development could proceed, is my understanding, could proceed anyway with current zoning with little to no input as far as from the city's perspective. So there's opportunity for us, from my understanding, to have some input on how this is done. And then the other question is I've heard a lot about, and I've been very concerned about this as well, about subsidized housing and public housing, I actually reached out to the Housing Commission representatives to find out if they had dedicated any vouchers, Section 8 type vouchers or LIHTC. There's no LIHTC involved in this. So if you could please just confirm my understanding from my communication with the public housing There are no public subsidy or Section 8 or other vouchers involved. And then my last question is I've heard a lot about tax subsidies. I understand. I think it's been well explained as far as the capture of incremental. Was there, and I couldn't find anything in any paperwork about any federal or state like MEDC or any other local subsidy over and above that incremental coming from the city?

So to answer the first question, no, there's nothing dedicated from the Housing Commission for vouchers for that property. And I will have to defer the question concerning the capital stack outside of this Brownfield request back to VCU.

Isaac Hall, Great Lakes Capital, 7410 Aspect Drive, Granger, Indiana. Regarding the capital stack and the rest of the project, we are seeking some state dollars for the remaining gap that we need to get this project done. The TIF itself does fill a significant portion of the gap, but there still is a portion that we need to fill in order to make the project financially viable and generate a return that our investors demand.

Is there a third question?

I think there were only two.

And the third question was about this zoning. Could absent the Brownfield plan, could it still proceed?

You were correct in your assertion there, Commissioner Simmons. It could proceed.

Commissioner Reynolds. Thank you, Commissioner Simmons.

He had to talk about safety. We had that question already. He had something else. Commissioner Simmons, you had one other thing about safety.

It was about the traffic and the safety. Whether this development happens or not, I've been saying for a long time that we need to do something. I'm so thankful now that my kids can drive themselves to school and I don't have to do the drop-off line at Lakeview anymore. They're right. The state of Michigan needs to be involved in this. The state of Michigan has done a terrible job with Homer Road. The last time they went through there and chip-sealed it was a disaster. And all of their traffic lights, thanks to Dominique Hu for getting the left turn light finally at Helmer and Columbia there. So whether or not this happens, we need to be more engaged on traffic and safety in that area. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Is there anything else from the Commission? Seeing none, would you please vote on Resolution 456? Mr. Mayor, you did say we could speak again right at the beginning. At the end of the meeting you can speak. You can speak about anything at the end of me. Resolution 456 has been approved. Next item on our agenda is resolution 457. Madam Clerk.

This resolution seeks the affirmation of the partial grant, partial denial of Freedom of Information Act FOIA request number 26-1592.

Move for the approval of resolution number 457. Support.

It's been moved and supported to approve resolution 457. Are there any comments by the commission? Commissioner Lacoste.

I just have questions. Were there any supplemental reports that weren't given? I know that that's what they were requesting, the supplemental reports. Are there anything else that they have not received?

No. All records requested that were identified and located were provided. The partial grant, partial denial is because some of the information on those documents was redacted for the reasons that were stated. Freedom of Information Act does not require that essentially that each part of the request be specifically uh be specifically responded to in terms of a denial or a grant. Uh the grant or denial is for the FOIA request as a whole so since documents uh responsive documents were located and provided that's the reason for the grant and since they contain information that had to be redacted, that's the reason for the denial. But there are no further documents that are responsive to the request that was submitted there.

Okay, thank you.

Any other Commission comments? Seeing none, would you please vote on Resolution 457?

Resolution 457 has been approved.

Next item on our agenda is general public comment. This is limited to three minutes per individual. If you'd like to make general public comment regarding matters over which the city commission has control, please raise your hand and wait for us to acknowledge you to come forward to the podium. You'll have three minutes to make your comment. Please state your name and address prior to beginning your comment. Yes, ma'am.

I'm Laura Carbrick. My address is 213 East Jamison Avenue. Well, good evening. I'm here today to express my concerns about automatic license plate readers, LPR or more commonly known as flat cameras. As you may be aware, Battle Creek Police Department has been testing this technology since 2024, and that contract is coming up for renewal. I would respectfully ask that you do not renew the contract if you haven't already. Flock Safety has promised that their ALPR systems can help reduce crime, improve traffic management, increase public safety, and can save Battle Creek City money through reduced crime rates. In fact, there's no independent research proving that ALPRs can reduce crime. Flock Safety claims that 10% of reported crime in the US is solved using Flock technology. However, this study was conducted by two Flock employees. Essentially, this is a tagline, a sales pitch, and it's misleading at best. My next concern with ALPR use is the AI technology that Flock uses to sort through this data. So ALPR collects... License plates make some models of cars, they record the comings and goings of vehicles and they help law enforcement predict where drivers will be. They also sometimes produce photographs that assist with identifying drivers and passengers. Flock technology often misreads license plates. They confuse similar characters like zero and O and lowercase L and one, et cetera. Facial recognition software is not always accurate either. Flock has been known to confuse vehicles from other states, and this has led to a number of dangerous police encounters throughout the country. So it cannot be, well let me see here. There is growing concern as well about who gets access to this data, what happens when leaks and hacks occur. And the truth is that we do not own this software. The company does. We lease it. And that means that someone outside of our community will always have a hand in it. That company will always look for ways to expand and grow. And we don't own it. We don't have control over it. The upsides of this technology do not outweigh the current risks for me. The slow and often inept responses to these problems are just not enough. So I'm asking that we do not renew this contract at this time. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comments. Yes, Autumn.

Good evening, Autumn Smith. I'm here tonight to talk about something that she just talked about that should concern every single person sitting in this room, whether you support the police or whether you distrust them, flock cameras. Let me make my position absolutely clear. I believe Battle Creek should ban flock cameras, not renew them, not expand them, not move them around, ban them and terminate the contract because our constitutional rights are not for sale. You cannot put a price tag on the Fourth Amendment. You cannot tell citizens, don't worry, we're only tracking innocent people for their own safety. That's not how constitutional rights work. The Fourth Amendment does not say you have the right to be secure in your persons, houses, papers, and effects unless the government buys a really expensive surveillance system. it doesn't say unless you're driving through battle creek and it certainly doesn't say unless the police promises they'll use the information responsibly rights are not dependent upon government promises and that's exactly why i don't believe battle creek should have a system capable of documenting where innocent people travel when they travel potentially creating a historical picture of their movement because here's the problem with government surveillance the technology doesn't care whether you're a criminal it's It collects information first, then the government decides what to do with it. And once that information exists, someone has to control it. So my first choice is simple. Get rid of flock, cancel the contract, remove the cameras, stop collecting the data, and protect the constitutional rights of the people who actually paid the bills and elected you in this city. But let's say this commission refuses to do that. Then I have a second demand. Severe restrictions, independent safeguards, and a written policy governing every single use. And I don't mean a policy that says officers should use good judgment. I mean real accountability. If an officer wants to access flock data, there should be a documented legal basis for that search. And I would advocate for requiring a judge authorized warrant with a real sign, wet ink, not rubber stamp, not informal request, not a phone call, not an officer simply deciding that the search would be useful. Wet ink, judicial authorized warrant. Every time. No warrant, no access. And we need more than that. There should be strict limits on what constitutes a legitimate reason for the search, how far back officers can search, how long information can be retained, who can access it, whether it can be shared with outside agents, whether it can be used for purposes, completely unrelated to the original investigation. What happens when an officer violates that policy? Because here's where I draw the line. If you give government extraordinary surveillance power, that extraordinary accountability, eventually somebody will abuse it. And when that happens, telling the victim, well, we have a policy, isn't accountability. The public should receive regular transparency reports and showing how often the system was accessed and why it was accessed and how many searches it produced because government should never be allowed to hide the government surveillance of people from the people. And that's part of why I'm running. My oath isn't to the surveillance vendor, it's to the citizens. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We're going to go to Jonathan, then David, and then Thomas.

Once again, commissioners, thank you. I was hoping to be here under better circumstances. I was coming tonight to say thank you to each and every one of you on behalf of the Calhoun County Red, White, and Blue Foundation. We did bring the wall that heals to Harper Creek. We came right through Battle Creek with 359 motorcycles. We had almost 10,000 people that they believe went through the exhibit. What an incredible thing, and we thank you again for your support. On a second note, I know I got cut off and, you know, I was saying the due diligence. I want to say thank you to you and thank you to you for even thinking about possibly postponing this. As a member of multiple boards, I'm elected to represent the people. Now, I counted 31 people tonight that stood up in front of you and said, please, no, not at this time. It was a 7-2 vote. Now, I know all of you don't represent me and my ward, but there are a lot of at-large commissioners that are running. One of them is here and has spoken. You represent all of Battle Creek. We did not. This reminds me of 2022 when we were ignored. Jacaranda was ignored. This is ridiculous, guys. You wonder why people post on Facebook on everything else that this commission is corrupt. You had us here saying to you, please. There is a spot right across Helmer Road in Columbia. It used to be Pizza Square. It's got a big for sale sign. Why doesn't Battle Creek Unlimited look at that? Why are we looking right next to a neighborhood when we don't know where the water is going to go? Anything else? Our security of our families. This is ridiculous what you just did. You could have said, let's take a step back and let's look at things. But you were too busy saying rubber stamp, rubber stamp. It's got to stop Battle Creek.

Thank you for your comments. David, you're next. And then Tom.

I've been here a good many years. Long 20 years I experienced. When a bill comes up, it comes up about a week or two weeks before it's got to be passed. I don't know why. We can't say we ain't got time. We've got to get it passed now. If we can have a proposal two weeks before, earlier, and two weeks later, We don't go through this stuff enough. We had a lot of comments here tonight. You guys had a lot of different comments.

And we guys weren't really sure what you really wanted to do.

We should allow more time, like I said earlier. And we don't. We always got to push and hurry up and get things passed through so we can hurry up and get it passed. I disagree with that a little bit. I think some of the issues Should be given a lot more time. Thank you.

Thank you. Thomas?

Thank you. Once again, Tom Buechler, 256 Jackaranta Drive. And I can say this, I know, directly to Joe and the developer back here and the VCU staff, but I wanted to acknowledge the comments and concerns that were made by the commissioners. regarding the traffic and the safety that was discussed tonight. And I truly do feel sorry for those folks that live on the east side of Helmer Road. I don't know the name of the subdivision because I do believe that they will have an increased traffic going from those apartments to the middle school or grade school, I'm sorry. And I have driven through there and seen all the children that play in the streets and have their basketball hoops next to the curbs. I know it's not a playground, but they do it. And it's a nice, quiet neighborhood. So, you know, I would just challenge those folks to really get, and I know there's been a lot of thought and time put into your design and development. I know how that works. It takes years. Just try to get creative on how we could maybe address the traffic coming out of the apartments, going to the high school, creating that congestion there. I do think that 1,400 trips added to Helmer Road is very conservative. I know the numbers are based on four to six trips a day. I think Amazon is in our subdivision alone 40 or 50 times a day. So I think that's very conservative. And you say that Helmer Road will handle the traffic. Sure, it'll handle it. But what risks are being created by handling it and what delays? So if we could just work with the Planning Commission, site plan approval, design, just go back and take a look at it, see if we can get creative on how we handle that traffic, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. Let's see. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon, my name is Charlene Van Leeuwen, 430 Presidential Drive. First of all, I'd like to thank the police department for showing up at my house at 3 o'clock in the morning this week when some gentleman decided to run through my yard and almost hit my maple tree in my front yard. He left by the time police got there, but the police shut up and they were surveilling the area. Second, I would like to invite the public. If you have been through the police academy, we are having our meeting this September 16th at six o'clock in the police station. If you've been through the academy, we invite you. Third, I was here a couple months ago regarding my property taxes. I'm still fighting those, but I can't do anything until March. However, a gentleman from the finance department stopped over here, talked to me, got all my information, took my name and number, and said he would get back to me. He had to do some research. That was how many months ago? Two months ago. I've left him three messages. I'm still waiting for a return phone call. So my request to the city, to the employees, if you're a Battle Creek employee and a Battle Creek citizen calls you and leaves a message, my request is you respond. You call them back. You may not be able to help them. You may not have the answer. You may not be able to fix it. However, have the courtesy just to follow up. I people today do not follow up. It's in all businesses cities, but I'm asking for the city of Battle Creek to instill a policy. If someone calls you, you call him back and have that decency to do it. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other public comments at this time? Yes.

Catherine Lavalley, 154 East Prudence Lane. I want to say thank you to the commissioners tonight. I know it's been a hard and warm evening, but I wanted to, and I wish I had more of an audience behind me, but I would recommend attending a BCU Unlimited meeting. I did attend the one meeting that this discussion of the fields proposal was coming in front of them. I learned a lot that evening. meeting treated very respectfully i got to answer as many questions i have a few more tonight but i just think it boils down to showing up at a public meeting that you're all invited to and there is a city commissioner that sits on bcu Unlimited. The city manager sits on BC Unlimited. And I just wish I could have had that set. And I probably should have been up during the hearing. But those meetings are important to the health of the city of Battle Creek. When I was a school board member, I didn't understand what TIFA was. In fact, I could get pretty irritated about TIFA. But TIFA probably has been changing. One thing that I learned about this proposal, I always thought that Brownfield was on dilapidated property. Something's wrong with that property. Well, the state of Michigan has changed their classification. Brownfield doesn't mean that it's ugly property any longer. And I guess last thing I just want to know about in this development, and you don't have to answer me tonight at all, but the beautiful farmhouse that sits on a little rise there just before you get to Jacaranda Drive. Will that house still remain in this development that's going to take place over the 13.1 acres? It's a lovely historic building. Just kind of wondering about that farmhouse. Will it get to stay? Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments, Joe.

Joe Harris, Battle Creek. Before I begin, with all due respect to the gentleman behind me, there are actually two commissioner of large candidates in this building. I'm the other one. So the deal is this. I'm going to say the same thing to you guys I said to you about the water readiness fees. You did not have to do this tonight. You could have stepped back Thank you, Commissioner Katarski-Smith, Commissioner Morris for realizing that. You didn't have to. There are so many questions that people in this audit, do you see how many people left? Those questions are gonna be unanswered. So many questions that they had that aren't answered. I'll go over some of those questions again. Is there a project completion guarantee? Cost increase guarantees? Is there any kind of gap in regard to this brownfield fund? transparency guarantee? Is there an insurance guarantee? Verification protections? We don't know those answers. The public doesn't know. We don't know. And I think that's where the frustration is lying. I really do. At least what could have happened tonight is you could have tabled this and then gone back and looked at these questions, if not mine, others, to get some answers. Maybe you already know, but if you know, then share them with us because we don't know. You know, I was a retail investigative person for 26 years. I worked with a private investigative firm for Three years. I've done over 5,000 investigative reports. My job was to ask the questions, ask the questions, ask the questions, ask the questions, until I got the answer. Two reasons why I'm running this, to serve Battle Creek people and to ask those questions with the list. I think Battle Creek can do better in regard to their housing. We don't always have to depend upon companies that utilize the quote unquote tools, other people's money, so as to develop. There's companies out there that use their own private equity, some of them in the Midwest. Have we looked at any of those? I don't know as if we have. I think you have a lot of disappointed people tonight, not necessarily because of the vote, but because their questions weren't answered, and I don't think they were truly listened to. I think we should have taken a step back at least. So thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your comments, and if we could just try to leave the microphone alone. Well, I just want to make it clear. Let's leave the microphone alone. Yes, sir.

How long, that 72 Robinson Drive? I just want to back up what Jonathan Barnes said. The statement here says a public hearing to receive public comments. You got 31 public comments against it, and yet you gave them the finger. Screw you. We were lining our pockets. That's the corruption that the view of the public gets. You don't give a damn what the public says. Some of you I know, I can't believe you did that to them. I'm ashamed of it. All the comments against it, yet our government employees said, let's do this, that's good. Thanks, guys.

Thank you for your comments. Are there any other public comments? Former Commissioner John, would you please come forward.

Episode two. My name is John Harper. I live at 400 Orchard Avenue. In 1979, key business, civic, and philanthropic leaders in Battle Creek came together to create the Community Leadership Academy as a way to ensure a continuation of strong community leadership in Battle Creek well into the future. The first class of the academy was in early 1980, and I was one of the 25 selected to be part of that class. It was my introduction to the ins and outs of leadership effectiveness in Battle Creek. Two years later, when I was a mid-level executive at Kellogg Company, that company announced they would build its new corporate headquarters outside of Michigan, unless the city and township of Battle Creek merged. It was the hope of the Kellogg chief executive at the time, Bill LaMothe, that a stronger and more vibrant city would result from a merger. I was a member of the strategy team inside Kellogg that was assisting businessmen and former Mayor Press Kuhl to galvanize support for the merger. The effort to bring about the merger was successful, and in the 1980s and 90s, Battle Creek flourished because of it. The merger, though, doubled the size of the city commission to 14 members. I was selected by the commission to chair a charter review committee, the purpose of which was to make recommendations for the size of the commission and other matters. The committee ultimately recommended a total of nine commissioners, five ward, and four at large. A few years later, from 1991 to 94, I was the project executive for the 10,000 by 2000 Economic Development Forum. The 25-member board I worked with had the chief executives of Kellogg Company and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, as well as the superintendents of all the county's school districts, the city managers of the county's three cities, and the president of Kellogg Community College. The forum was a major effort to increase employment in the county by 10,000 jobs by the year 2000. My job was to facilitate coordination and cooperation among a variety of entities across the county in the areas of education, job training, and economic development. In my role, I got to know and work with more than 100 leaders across Calhoun County. I give you this history so you will know I have seen community leadership firsthand and up close. In later episodes, I will be calling on you as a commission to identify the leadership roles city government should play in protecting and nurturing an invaluable community asset. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments, John. Are there any other public comments at this time? Are there any? Yes, John.

John Kenefic, 204 South Avenue. I have three subjects. First, the gentleman behind me that used to be back there in the suit, John Barnes, made a comment that about 30 some odd people were against this. You just told them to heck with you. I would have wagered against him because I know exactly how you guys operate. That's number one. Let's talk about flock cameras or what happened prior to flock cameras. Binky and Commissioner Simmons, did you forget that you went up to Lansing a long time ago and were looking at the cameras that were used up there? And we were assured that you couldn't control those cameras, yet a little while later you told us that a police officer in his cruiser could manipulate that camera and go somewhere else. Somewhere along the line, the government had taken a position. If it's in the public right of way, heck, we can put a camera in there and go wherever we want. So now we've got flock cameras, just another extension of violating our rights. Finally, last but not least, A number of years ago, there was a resolution that had to do with the block grant dollars and where the money was going. There was a man in the audience, but he didn't stand up here and explain anything. When it was over with and you passed where the money was gonna go, he was kind of upset because he wanted a chunk of that money. Well, he got his wish. Last, let's say this correctly, August 18th, last commission meeting, He got his $490,000. Four, new level sports at ministries. I guess I have to ask a question in this moment. Do all the other religious groups get a piece of the pie of the block grant dollars? Because I'm really curious about that. I mean, he applied. Shouldn't they get one? And I was thinking about what he was going to do with this 490. I know he's going to repair the building and stuff like that. But I think he's going to talk to the parents of the kids that are at that after school sports and say, You know you need to elect all the commissioners that are gonna vote money and put money in my pocket, so remember that. He's not gonna put it that way, but it's gonna go in that direction. 20 months ago, Joe Biden left the White House. At that point, every taxpaying citizen owed back to the federal government $2,250,000. 20 months have gone by. You now owe every taxpaying citizen owes back to the federal government $2,500,000. A quarter of a million bigger than what it was 20 months ago. Where did that block grant dollars come from? It's just an auditing amount. There's no money in the treasury. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Any other public comments at this time? Any other public comments? We'll go to commission comments. Any commission comments? Commissioner Lacoste and then Commissioner Kazarsky-Smith.

I just wanted to mention in the consent agenda, I forgot to bring it up, that we have the bid for the sidewalks. I know there's a lot of people that have contacted me personally about sidewalk repair, so that will be getting done soon, thankfully, since we've approved that.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Kazarsky-Smith.

I just want to thank everybody for hanging out in the heat with us tonight to have your voices heard. I appreciate everybody showing up.

Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Patrick, go down.

Thank you, Mayor. Again, tonight, 250 years of this country got to be on display this evening. We got to hear from people. We did listen. And that's what's great about this. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. It's the battlefield out there that goes on. But this, again, we're allowed to come up here and voice our opinions tonight. And I really do think that's great that we have this opportunity to do that. And we still continue that opportunity. I'm gonna go back to like why me personally. 1988 16 years old over there in that same neighborhood. Sure would drive. I'm driving. I'm young. Got my driver's license. ball goes out in the middle of the road. I stopped because I know that there's probably another kid coming out there. Sure enough, he was. Could have got hit. Fast forward many years later, every time I drove by that house in that neighborhood, the dad would wave at me out of respect for making sure that I was paying attention to what's on the road. I don't know what we're teaching young drivers nowadays if they're that bad or alert but i've always been alert driving safety has been one of the things that i do really want to make sure that we have a safe area over there that was no joke i would love to have some type of ai study done to see that why i voted for this i think was the best deal we could get right now that's how i was trying to say earlier it's already zoned we were worried about what type of housing is going in there this is a great proposal it really is it's going to bring $40 million of construction work to our area and bring housing and put people up in our areas that are going to be doing the work and local jobs so we can probably free up some housing and sell some properties in the area to get people to move into Battle Creek. There's a lot of pluses to this. But that was it. Say we didn't do this tonight and somebody came in, just like they said, they could come in and do whatever they want. They didn't need approval and come in and do a different type of housing that was even lower level than what we're looking at here. That is why I voted for that. It was the opportunity that we have in front of us right now. And the thing is that I look at, we talked about the fire stations and how we didn't do a very good job in previous commissions about getting the fire stations up to date, but now we're doing that. This commission's doing, we're looking forward to the future. It's going to take two to three years before this project even gets finished, before somebody moves in. And I don't want someone to tell me two to three years later, my gosh, Patrick, why didn't you vote on that? Now look what we got over there now. It's not what we were hoping for. It's even worse. So that's my decision on why I voted for that. Thank you for the evening.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other Commission comments? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much for attending tonight.