Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, the mics are on. Time is 4:01. Everyone's here. I will call to order the Wednesday, December 17th, 2025 City of Battle Creek Planning Commission meeting. Can we get roll call for attendance? Commissioner Hughes here. Commissioner O'Donnell here. Commissioner Godfrey here. Commissioner Gray here. Commissioner Morris here. Commissioner Dennison here. Commissioner Motton is absent. Commissioner White here. And Mayor Binky

here. Thank you. All right. On to approval of minutes. This being the September 24th, 2025 meeting. Are there any comments or questions regarding the minutes? Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make the motion that the minutes be approved as presented. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Same sign. Minutes are approved. Any correspondence? No correspondence. Any additions or deletions? No additions. No deletions.

Perfect. All right. We'll now proceed to the public hearings and deliberations. Uh we do have two on the agenda today. As a reminder to all with public hearings, we'll hear from staff, then hear from the applicant, and then open the floor for public comment. We ask that when coming forward, you state your name and address. Once comments are completed, we'll close the public hearing. If you want to comment on something not specific to the public hearing, you will be provided time to do so later in the agenda, and we will take comments at that time. Uh reminder to commissioners, the role of this body today is hold public hearings. on the request review any proposed changes put forth the recommendation to the city commission. Any change recommended by the planning commission must be approved by the city commission. With that uh we can move to our first uh item. This being consideration of resoning request number PRZ25-00006. This is a petition from the city of Battle Creek to reszone five parcels as listed in the agenda located south of Beckley Road along M66 from the current classification of B2 regional commercial district to MFR high density multiple family residential district staff report. So, these parcels, um, if you take a look at, uh, page 9, 10, and 11 of your agenda packet, um, on those pages, you'll you'll see an aerial photo. You'll also see the current zoning map with stars that highlight the subject properties, and then you'll also see a snippet of the land use plan map that's included in the master plan. Um uh staff was uh contacted by one of the property owners on SixMile Road um regarding his interest in potentially building a new single family home on one of the vacant parcels on uh on this

stretch. Um when we took a look at it um we initially obviously noticed that it was zone B2 uh regional commercial district which does not permit single family or any residential uses within it. Uh we took a look at the aerial map to see what the other uses around it were. And immediately we could tell obviously that this is a single family. This stretch is generally used for single family purposes. Um if you take a look at your aerial, you can see it's directly to the south of the stake of uh Walmart and the steak and shake that front onto Beckley. Um it's on a portion, those two are on a portion of six mile road that clearly is intended as the extra turn lane. It's intended for heavier commercial volumes of commercial traffic. As you go further south, you'll get to these parcels where it it slims down to two lanes and it's intended for residential traffic. Um so when we took a look at the aerial map, looked at the current uses, um it it looked clear that uh when the reszoning when the rewrite of the zoning ordinance was done in 2020, that this area was taken from its previous A zoning to now the B2 district. What that did unfortunately with the single family uses there was made them legal non-conforming at that point because that use is not permitted in the B2. So the reasonzoning the proposed resoning today would take these uh four parcels to the east of M66 and reszone them to MFR highdensity multiple family. Now, highdensity multiple family, while it does allow for multiple family developments, also allows for two family and single family developments. So, it would relieve these properties of their legal non-conforming status right now. And it would also allow for a single family home to be constructed on the vacant parcel that one of these owners property owners also owns. Um if you look at both the land

use plan and the current zoning map, you'll see that there is multiple family zoning immediately to the south. Um so it it forms a continuous a contiguous zoning district with the current multiple family zoning. Uh while we were looking at this, we looked directly across the street and noticed that the Brookstone apartment complex is also zoned B2 um regional commercial district. Again, B2 not permitting residential uses right now. that is also a legal non-conforming parcel. Um, if you take a look at the snippet from the land use plan, um, it's a little bit hard to read lot lines on that, but I outlined it in yellow, you can clearly see that the intent in 2020 was to have this zoned for multiple unit residential. Um, it looks like it was just probably an oversight during the during the resoning or during the mapping process. Um, so similar to the properties across the street, we're recommending resoning of that to multiple family residential as well, again to relieve that of its non-conforming status. Um, that is uh the the substance of what's in front of you today. If you have any questions, I can answer those. Yeah. Are there any technical or clarifying questions from any commissioner on this for staff? All right. Seeing none, we'll move to public comment. Uh, any public comment for this resoning request number PRZ25- Z006? Please state your name and address. Uh, this is a time to share support, concerns, or suggestions.

Absolutely. Sorry, John Ballard. Um, six mile road right there. Can you bring the other screen up? The other one. This one. Okay, the next one. Let me show you here. Anyway, where these see where that blue is right there? That red is Yeah. I own that piece right there. Okay.

When it was changed, go back here. when it was changed four years ago from um agriculture to this, we were never notified of that that it was changed. We have livestock there and crops and we went from agriculture to this and we were never notified about that and I want to know why.

Okay. There any uh that would have been during the master plan update, correct? um that would have been during the overall rewrite of the zoning ordinance and the and the redo of the zoning map. So, uh, and I'd have to look at the zoning in the Michigan zoning enabling act, but I believe when there's I believe it's either 11 or 12 parcels that are contiguous uh proposed for a reszone, there's no requirement in there for individual notification to be sent. So, basically the entire city, the entire map was redone of the entire uh the entire zoning map of the entire city. So the notice is met by publication in a newspaper general circulation in those circumstances. So so that was likely what what what happened at that time with with the uh new recommended zoning classification being MFR. Is there any conflict with the existing use that was mentioned?

Um we'd have to take a look at what the MFR permits. Um, obviously an existing use right now that's that's in existence is is considered uh a legal non-conformity. So there would be no um uh there'd be no enforcement or no no any attempt to end that use as long as the the property owner uses it for that purpose. So So the way it's right now is illegal. Correct. The way it's set up. Yep. So if it's illegal then it can go back to way it was. If I'm sorry, what was that in? you can turn it back the way it was. Agriculture

uh that this this resoning is not proposing to return it to the agricultural zoning district. It's it's proposing to align it with the zoning to the south to allow for single family residences again to get rid of those legal nonconformities. But if there's an agricultural use already established on your property, it's considered a legal nonconformity again. So, uh, while you would not necessarily be able to establish a new agricultural use now on the property because it's existing, the existing gets to continue. Does that make sense? Yeah. Say that one more time. So, so your existing agricultural use gets to continue. So,

because it was existing at the time, right? Does my does my taxes change compared to what they were to what this is right now or it's going to? Uh, not based on a zoning. So zoning classifications don't impact your taxable value of your of your property. It's simply the use of the property that determines the taxable value of it. So the zoning district doesn't determine that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Can I ask a quick question? So one of the parcels that we are talking about zoning MFR used to be egg. That's what the gentleman said his current property is now. So when it gets reszoned MFR even though the current so just say he wanted to add more livestock technically speaking he couldn't do that unless it falls in alignment with the MFR zoning. I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Um, we would have to look maybe at the specifics of what was being proposed. I I don't know if that would be considered an expansion of a non-conformity or simply just a continuation of raising of livestock on the property. It may have more to do with square footage or if a portion of a new property was purchased and attempted to. So, we we would just have to look at that. Um um Unfortunately, as far as the agricultural uses go, um like uh like what I had said earlier, um it was all this entire area was zoned agg prior to 2020. However, the master plan uh classified these uh the parcels to the south of this as MFR. Um and that's how they're zoned today. So if we attempted to reszone this to agricultural, it could definitely be viewed as a spot zone given the fact that there's no other agricultural zoning anywhere in this area anymore. And it certainly wouldn't create any kind of a contiguous continuation of of agricultural zoning. So that'd be the concern with with attempting to zone it in that fashion right now.

Got it.

Okay. Thank you. Can you just quickly go back to the land use and state what the land use plan says? So, the current land use plan has the properties to the east of M66 classified as regional commercial. I I don't necessarily know why that was why those were classified in that way. um given the the existing uses on the properties and given the fact that really obviously there's no individual access there to M66 and SixMile Road again as you continue south on it clearly is not intended for heavy commercial traffic. It's an area that's been historically used for single family and agricultural type purposes. Um, as a result, I I think just again in in speaking with one of the property owners, obviously the existing uses there don't um necessarily align with what the land use plan laid out. Um, I don't know exactly why that was at that point. Um but this is an attempt to uh bring these properties either into full con conformance with the zoning ordinance. So not burdening them with any kind of non-conforming status and allowing them then on again on a vacant parcel to be able to construct a single family residence. So, um, and then additionally, the one the the parcel to the west of M66 is, um, was intended to be zoned multiple family. And again, it it may have just been some sort of a mapping error at the time that the zoning ordinance was redone. Mike,

did you have another question, sir? Yes. So, if mine's the bottom one that I'm the last guy in it, I don't know what it would affect if I just stayed agriculture like it is. I guess if it's illegal, that's where I am right now. So, it's agriculture right now. And I would like to keep mine that way in case I ever do want to add a different type of livestock or something or a different crop or something. He said we could visit that later that if that came up, but if it goes through, it'll never happen. So, you're saying they'll never change that back. Your your understanding is your property is zon currently.

Yes. Because the way it was changed not way they have it right now is il illegal. At least that's what he said because it wasn't zoned properly. And on top of that, they never let us know they were even changing it. So So what is what is zoned now? So it's so it's not it's not an illegal use. It's not a new use that would be permitted. I was just using your word you said a second ago.

Oh yeah. So, I if I I apologize if I what I what I intended to say was that it's it's a legal nonconformity, meaning it's it's non-conforming. It's not a a use that we would be able to approve brand new today, but because it existed at the time that the reasonzoning was done, it's considered a legal nonconformity, meaning it still has its legal status. It's not. So, there's there's no issue with you and your existing use under the zoning. So if I want to change it to something, if we want to put different livestock there than what we have right now, how does how do I know that's going to happen on your end?

So will Marcel, is there any way you can provide input on the legal nonconforming aspect in this regard?

Yes, the the existing use may continue on a legal non-conforming parcel. Um it appears the existing use is agriculture. That may continue whether it's one kind of an agriculture or not another there may be issues with that separate from the zoning itself. But if you wanted to switch the parcel to I don't know a uh transportation center say that would be a a problem that would be a change of use. you're talking uh or as I understand the request um nuances within that use of agriculture are generally not going to be a problem. But if there's something specific that uh the property owner would have a concern with, he would want to talk to Mr. Sullivan and make sure he doesn't run a foul of that.

Yeah. Is is there a way for the city to provide something in writing that actually outlines all of this? So, especially given the change and I I hear you saying you we you weren't notified. I hear you also saying that when we do a master just all the engagement we've done around the master plan and the zoning and all of that, but is there something that at least, you know, provides a little bit more detail about kind of, you know, what is allowable, not allowable, um that can be provided in writing?

We we can do we can look into that. Um um I can work with um uh I can work with my supervisor and and work with the city attorney's office to make sure then that we cover that we cover any of the concerns that that the property owner may have right now about about their current use. So yeah, and I'm not talking about, you know, going into a lot of detail, but more so laying out just essentially what we're talking about today, what the zoning was, the, you know, what legal non-conforming means. I mean, actually explaining it in writing so that um you know, property owners know exactly what they're responsible for, what they can and cannot do, especially with the the more recent changes.

Yep. Yep. We can do that. Did Did you want us to is the intent of that basically for us just to issue a letter to each of these five property owners? That would that would be my recommendation unless you know um there are other thoughts. But I I think it'd be helpful to actually be clear especially now that we're talking about making a yet another kind of zoning change and um folks may not you know understand how that may or may not affect them. So but I I do think having something in writing might be helpful at this point. Okay. M I'm sorry. Oh wait.

And with the reasonzoning of it, how does that benefit me? And why do you why do you is that why do you want to change that reszoning and just that little parcel that I own right there? There's 24 acres, I believe.

Well, the the the purpose of of the reszoning today was as far as the residential uses go is to get those into a into a conforming status with the ordinance now and to create a contiguous zoning district. So it's so it's all zoned the same as the MFR zoning to the south. So so that we're not leaving gaps and so we're not uh we're not creating potential spot zonings that that could be problematic in the future. um regardless of whether it's zone your your part your specific property whether it's zoned B2 or MFR at this point really doesn't impact the use of the property at all right now.

Okay. Yeah. I was just wondering because there's just south of me is 7 acres that nobody lives on at all and you're not reszoning that and that's in the city limits. So I just wanted to know why you want to change my property.

So that one's already So that property to the south is already zoned MFR. So, so we're not proposing any change there. We're we're trying to bring these parcels that have residential uses on them into alignment with that zoning to the south. So, we're creating one contiguous zoning district that allows residential uses. So, we're we're actually trying to correct uh or create more of a buffer from that B2 which is out more on B drive on the east side of 66 from the residential neighbor neighbors that are more to the south. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. If I may, the all the city ordinances are available online. Yep. Thank you, sir.

1270 discussing nonconformities. Um, anyone can go look at that. It's available on the city website and it provides discussion and analysis of what a legal conforming, what's not, or what is. Yeah. what's conforming, what's legal conforming, and what it would take to change it and how one petitions uh to the zoning board to um seek a change. But we also one of the goals of zoning as an overall principle is to eliminate nonconformities or to bring legal nonconformity legal non-conforming parcels into conformity. And again, that's an underlying request right here.

Yes, sir.

Hi there. Uh Jason Pierce, 1267 Capitol Avenue. Um I'm the son of uh Steve Pierce at 125356 Mile, which is uh the property just to the north of uh Mr. Ballard, and my father owns that. And uh I don't know, 12601, which is the vacant parcel uh that Mr. Sullivan was talking about um kind of speaking for my dad. He has Parkinson's and uh his voice has problems. So um we had approached the city about building a home on that vacant parcel. So we appreciate you guys bringing this up in such a timely fashion. Um, we just really wanted it to to see it go to something where we could do the same type of use as what's there and so that somebody like John could keep doing what he's doing. And from my understanding, that's exactly what you guys are saying is that he can keep doing that and that we would be able to now put a home on that vacant parcel that is there. Um, and I will be inheriting my parents entire estate. So, uh, and the plan, it's been the plan since I was 8 years old, uh, was to build a property next to my parents on that 20 acres. And I'm finally in a position as an adult where I can do that. Uh, we've got the money and resources to do it. So, it's kind of a a dream that came true. We started clearing the land, and then all of a sudden, whoops. Um, so we're very heavily in in favor of uh bringing this back so that residential use can be there. um because my son will eventually take over their home um once they have passed. So um I want to thank you guys for bringing this up and let you all know that uh those two parcels were very much in favor of bringing it back to the MFR. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions? Do we know do does the city of Battle Creek utility infrastructure go up or down six mile at all? Uh I would I would need to take a look at the utility map to confirm that. Can I speak to that? Yeah.

Um I I I actually heavily researched that when I found out we couldn't build and we too did not get a notice and I understand why. It was just a general notice on the paper. Um, city water, city sewer, and storm sewer all stop at six mile. Just branches come to facilitate Sam's, Steak and Shake, Walmart, uh, Lowe's, Sables. Um, for an infrastructure to go in there, you would have to expand the road. You'd have to pull city sewer, water, storm sewer up there. You'd have to put a stoplight. Uh, we did some research on it. you're looking in somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million to get that infrastructure in there. Before anybody touches the land, before anybody makes an offer on our land, any improvements to our land, uh somebody somewhere is shelling out $2 to $3 million to get that infrastructure in there. So, um and and you know, we're there all the time. My parents live there. John lives there. There's just no traffic down there. Nobody's going to go down there. Uh especially for regional commercial. If it was regular commercial, a dentist office or something, that's even a stretch. But, you know, you're talk regional commercial, you're talking about Best Buy, Walmart, all that stuff wants to be out in the heavy traffic. That's what Beckley is for. And there's a ton of there's a ton of vacancy out there, you guys. Let's push them as a city commission. Let's please push these people to to vacant buildings. Let's not build new. Let's not take up new undisturbed land for commercial when we have so much availability in this in this city. Let's use the infrastructure we already have and bring businesses to that. So to answer that question, there's no infrastructure going up that road. Uh there's gas, there's electric, there's not really phone. Uh AT&T just cut my parents landline off, so there's there's just gas and electric. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you to everyone who provided input. We certainly appreciate it. Uh at this time, I'll open the floor for discussion among planning commission members. Uh there any thoughts, questions? I will call out in our packet the staff recommendations are on page 15. Um when it comes to it for a motion, please have a specific motion to this agenda item including your intention and any mention of any conditions. Uh, and remember it's best practice to make the motion in the affirmative for the record. Excuse me.

Not not since I've moved on. I apologize. There's a house to the north of the bank as well. Thank you, commissioners. Um move for the approval of resulting request PRZ25-00006 um based on the findings of the staff recommendation.

It's been moved support and supported. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from commissioners? I have a I have a question. So, um, we just discussed the city reaching out and notifying. Does that need to be part of the motion or is that something the city will do as kind of a follow-up to this? I want to just make sure. Uh, I don't think it's necessarily a condition for what we're we're looking at today, but we can certainly ensure that the city follows up. Yeah. Especially the ordinance that you just referenced and making sure folks know. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh, vote. Commissioner Godfrey. Yes. Commissioner Dennison, yes. Mayor Binkkey, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes.

Commissioner O'Donnell, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Motion passed.

Thank you all for your comments. Any further questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to the planning department. All right, moving on to the next public hearing. This is on the capital improvements program for fiscal years 2027 through 2032 staff report. So this is the uh annual public hearing that the planning commission hosts on the proposed um upcoming capital improvement program. Uh at the conclusion of the hearing today, the planning commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the city.

Barb Daring, uh budget officer in the finance department and Chad Fry, our um IT director. Big thank you goes out to Travis Sullivan uh in the planning department for ensuring that all the projects included uh in the document fit within the master plan and to Katie Norton in our print shop for putting all the books together. Uh the capital improvement program is a multi-year plan identifying capital projects proposed to be funded during the planning period. A capital project is undertaken to acquire or build a non-recurring long-lived expensive asset. This planning document represents a long-term blue blueprint for capital needs prioritizing those needs with ability to pay. Uh the approval of this document does not equal project approval or inclusion in the fiscal year budget. uh limited resources continue to challenge the city to make difficult funding decisions involving the allocation of those resources between operational and capital uh costs. The CIP process provides a structure for developing and prioritizing the capital needs of the city um and enables policymakers to see the complete picture of the city's capital needs. uh it is in capital needs. Uh it is in this spirit that this document has been developed. Whether an individual project is funded or not becomes a budgetary decision each year during the annual budget process. The CIP process provides an opportunity to to study and evaluate the capital needs of the city, especially as they relate to the master plan of the city. Uh the preparation of this document is in compliance with the Michigan Municipal Planning Commission Act public act 33 of 2008 as amended and it's a tool and resource used throughout the fiscal year. uh bond rating agencies put a high value uh on the planning process and the document itself and regularly request them a copy during their annual surveillance. Uh this document formalizes and consolidates all of the capital improvement pro projects

throughout all city departments and component units and provides a comprehensive summary of the capital needs of the city for the next six years. Details of projects for inclusion in the CIP come from the departments and and component units themselves. uh as the needs and priorities of the community change, so too does the funding and prioritization of the capital assets. Uh the priority based budgeting scoring mechanism is used to score and evaluate all capital projects included in this plan. Uh for the last eight years, uh that we have used the priority based budgeting model to prioritize projects included in the CIP. Only new project projects have been scored against the the PBB results. Uh with the adoption of the results by the city commission in 2021, each new project is scored by the submitting department as well as by a seven member cross functional review team. A consensus score is what you see in this document for all 225 projects. As an example of the priority based budgeting scoring, you can see on page 30 of the document, the surface treatment program project with a community results score of one. That number one indicates the highest available score. Uh the range um uh is shown on page eight of the document along with the score definitions and the scoring range is one to four. The surface treatment program project score of one means very relevant to achieving community results. A rubric was used by departments in our peerreview team which measure measured scores by result and calculated a final value that is shown on each of the projects in the CIP. Uh the aforementioned uh surface treatment program project also shows a department priority one of nine. This means engineering the department that submitted the project rates this particular project first out of nine total projects that they submitted. Uh the summary document on page pages 19

through 25 show all 225 projects with a total for the six-year period of 390.1 million uh of which 189 million are reflected as funded and 201.1 million are not. Uh page 25 shows the total for each of the six years of the plan. Uh please know that projects shown as funded in this document are not automatically included in the department's annual budget. There's a separate budget process that culminates in the annual adopt a budget by the city commission in June. Uh this document is a guide and a summary of needs across the organization and not a budget document. And at this point, I'd be happy to try and answer any questions.

Yeah. Are there any questions from commissioners?

Yes. Can you repeat what you said about things that say funded that are not necessarily funded? Can you please repeat that? So, so, so the 225 projects listed in the document total about 390.1 million of which 189 million are reflected as funded or having a a funding source and 201.1 million are not do not have a funding source, an available funding source. So, let me let me um probably give a an example. So, I'm on page 20 on p page 28 and 29. I'm looking at the um the ones around the airport where it says yes that they are funded.

Yes. And it has a line item for the BC TIFFA. Yes. So, the BC TIFFA though still has to vote whether they will actually fund these. So, these are not necessarily funded or they are. That's what I'm just want to make. So, so we're indicating that a funding source is available, not that the TIFFA board has taken action to fund that specific project, if that makes sense. Okay. So, so yeah, the anything that's coming from the TIFFA is going to have to go back through the TIFFA board as part of the budget process. Okay. Got it.

Any further questions? Any comments? Yes, sir.

I would like to direct attention on page 29 to a project titled housing. The city of Battle Creek has brought several experts and held uh workshops uh this past fall and early winter about housing and the need for housing. I guess I'm asking that this go forward to the city commission with a recommendation of the planning council that this actually get underway. Housing is a necessity in our community as it is in almost every community in America these days. We have people living on the streets. There are many as our our guests have spoken at these sessions. There are many ways with small houses to accommodate them. This is brownfield uh redevelopment and I just think that we need to move it off the table and get it underway as we approach housing within the city of Battle Creek. Thank you.

Absolutely. Any further comments? Just just to add to that one, I think the challenge, this is why I was asking about what's funded or not because I don't know for the brownfields for example, there are line items for what I think the city would like to do, but not necessarily cash to do that. Um, and I don't know, you know, what might be available from the brownfields, but I I don't think it's 4.5 million over the next x x number of years. And I share that since I'm the chair of our brownfields redevelopment authority as well. So, uh, that's why I was asking for clarification about how real some of these things are. And it's one thing to have a funding source identified. It's another thing, I think, for us to think through what does it actually take to move housing forward, for example, or any one of these projects and programs.

Yeah.

Good deal. All right. Any further comments? Okay, I will go to public comment. Is there any public comment? Seeing no public uh commissioners, any additional comments, questions, seeing none, I uh I had a long list of notes. It's all good. You know, I I think this is this is a good uh CIP. I think, you know, framing it and understanding kind of what the city's focus is. Uh there's there's discipline in it and that's encouraging to me. Um prioritizing the right areas, enabling the right tools that we have. Uh it all kind of lines planning, infrastructure, economic development all together. So this is exciting.

Yes. Do we need to vote on the meeting dates? Okay. Oh, the meeting minutes. The meeting dates and deadlines. Oh, yes. on your new business. Yeah, we got to we have to vote on this in this too. Okay. Yep. Uh seeing or hearing no additional comments or questions, uh we can proceed to the vote. Uh Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that the uh planning commission recommend to the city commission the uh the um capital improvement plan for the next six years for the city of Battle Creek. It's been moved. Second, supported. All right.

Was that second, Morris? It was. Yes. Commissioner Morris, I have a clarifying question on the motion. Yes. So, we are moving to accept the CIP or accept this for I want to make sure I'm clear on what we're moving for the city commission for them to ex. So, we're just recommending that we're okay with what's in we're Well, so we're actually holding the public hearing for it to get public comment and then we are our motion is or our goal is to approve to send it to the city commission. Okay. For their consideration and final approval. Okay.

Is that you still look a little unclear? Well, I'm I'm I'm sorry. I'm stuck on the things that are funded and the way that things are written in here and so yeah no that's but I'm and that's I'm struggling with that a little bit like approving something that isn't real feels a little awkward that's I'm stuck on right now

I think if I if I could include kind of my opinion or or my view of this the capital improvements program kind of sets the tone and outlines the tools the projects uh some things are you know anticipated to be funded but some things like the brownfield for instance, uh funding comes available, there's a mechanism to fund that so we can utilize that as a tool. So it's it's putting those in there and and scoring them differently allows us to be positioned to act on them at a later time. Okay. Does that help?

I'll be fine. And there is so there is um uh there is a lot of coordination that goes into this too in in discussion amongst leaders and as Aaron had mentioned you know there's a lot of work that goes into it. So it's it it's very focused I feel so there's yeah I don't disagree with any of the projects or programs. I'm I'm stuck on whether or not by voting on this, it backs some entities into a corner by saying just because it's in this plan, you should now approve it. And so that's what because I serve on some of the entities in here. I I my other hat said, "Well,

if we agree to this CIP with the dollar amounts this way in many ways with a funding source identified and then you've got the, you know, organization or entity who has a whole different plan. Yeah. Then that's what I'm I'm just wrestling with the what feels like a little bit of a disconnect. So the so the recommendations for those projects is for the brownfield in particular those come right from BCU as the manager of the brownfield authority.

So the you know staff is not just pulling these projects out of thin air and including them in the report and yeah the thing I got to stress is it's not a budget document. I mean, we go through a whole separate budget process that, you know, culminates in approval. Like, so this document doesn't guarantee that that specific project gets included in in the budget in that particular year. So, you're not approving that this project is going to happen. Yep. And maybe and maybe what might be helpful is like more detail on the memorandum or trans. I think maybe that's what I'm missing. I feel like this, like what you said, Erin, when you were talking about funding, not like I feel like that needs to be in here somewhere. Yeah. Okay.

That maybe that that's what I'm struggling with. I mean, I can work with Joe on the back end, but I I think I'm struggling more with the, you know, you may have worked with Joe and I'm sitting here thinking we've got multiple boards and committees that have no visibility to this whatsoever. And I serve on three of them and have never like most of these projects have never even seen them. So, that's that's what I'm wrestling with. I can deal with that offline. And I think in the meantime what I'm I just wonder to be clear what this is and what this isn't. It might be an extra like I said whatever you read off about funded not funded what the goal of this is. It's not a budgeting document that may not be clear on the upfront part as it goes to the city commission and to the broader public. So Sure. Thank you. Any further comments or questions?

All right. It's been moved and supported. Let's vote. Commissioner Hughes. Yes. Commissioner Odano. Yes. Commissioner White. Yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Mayor Binkkey, yes. Commissioner Godfrey, yes. Commissioner Dennis, yes. Motion approved. Thank you all. That concludes the public hearings. Any old business? No old business.

New business. We do have the 2026 meeting dates and deadlines. So this is uh your uh typical set of uh meeting dates and deadlines. Um planning commission continues to be set for the fourth Wednesday of each month with the exception of November and December cuz I'm guessing nobody wants to meet the day before Thanksgiving or on Christmas Eve. So we've moved those back a week. Um uh just one small thing to note. We have moved the petition deadlines back about two days um versus what we would typically do given the fact that uh the shopper has moved its deadline for publication. So that gives us a couple of extra days of buffer so that when we receive an application we have ample time to make sure we get a publication together and over. So, um, other than that, there's nothing else on there to note that is any different than what your normal schedule looks like.

Awesome. Any questions, comments? We do have to approve this. Is there a motion to approve? So, moved. Support. It's been moved and supported. Any questions, comments? Let's vote. I guess I could. Mayor Binky, yes. Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner Gray, yes. Commissioner Hughes, yes. Commissioner O'Donnell, yes. Commissioner Godfrey, Commissioner Godfrey, yes. And Commissioner Dennison, yes.

All right. Meeting dates have been approved. Any public comment? Seeing no public. Thank you again, Aaron. Uh, any comments by staff and commissioners? I just want to say I just want to thank everyone for their service on the past year on the planning commission, especially the latter part of the year. Seems like we had a lot of meetings and we had some really good turnout. So, yeah, we appreciate it and I'm sure the people of Battle Creek appreciate it. Thank you, Patrick. Did I hear you?

Yes. I was going to say similar to Mayor um great work on public coming out and showing what government can do. the last couple meetings we've had um some issues and especially even today with just allowing people to come forward and allow to express themselves and understand what we do as a planning commission. And then uh I hope everyone has a merry Christmas and a happy new year. Thank you. Yes, I am blinded by the light right now. Shining.

This is crazy. But I did just want to wish everybody a happy holidays. It's a pleasure to work with all of you. I would like to give a very special thank you to Commissioner Godfrey. I was made aware today that this is his last meeting. Um, and I do believe it's been 23 years. So, thank you very much, sir.

It's nearly as long as I've been alive, so I am very encouraged by that. Thank you all. Uh that concludes today's meeting.