Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lancing City Council regular council meeting of uh March 17, 2026. Could we have the the meeting will come to order. Could we have the roll call, please? Council member Whan here. Council member Meadows. Council member Singh here. Mayor Pro Tim Griggsby here. Mayor Alman

here. Uh I will move approval of the agenda with one amendment to correct an error, item 5.2 two should read consideration of ordinance 1565 to amend chapter 26 division 2 section 26-52 of the code of the city of East Lancing. So that is my motion. Uh moved by Alman, second by Meadows. Any discussion of that issue? Okay. All in favor say I. I.

I. motion. Uh I motion carries. Agenda is approved. Uh is there a motion concerning minutes of previous meetings? I move approval of the special the minutes of the special meeting from March 10th, the regular council meeting from March 3rd and the city council discussion only March 10th meeting minutes

moved by Singh, second by Griggsby. Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, the motion is on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Those three sets of minutes are approved. Communications. All written communications received by the council are linked to the agenda packet and a periodic reminder that emails to council@cidityvancing.com is a great way to reach us. We get those emails in real time. Uh but then they're compiled and added to the agenda late on the day of the business meeting. So that's how that works. uh communications from the audience. Uh I have a number of slips. I have uh one slip for one of our public hearings concerning um parking on Cali. I will plan to call that slip during that public hearing. But if you would like to speak during public comment instead, please make your way to the podium during public comment. Okay. Cody Dietrich. Good evening, mayor and council members. Cody Dietrich with Train Development Partners. Uh applicant of 5:30 Albert on agenda item 5.6 tonight. Um I'll keep it brief. I know we have a lot of people up here. Um, I just wanted to stress, you know, we've really worked to bring this project to this point and working with the community and all the different stakeholders throughout the business side, the neighborhood, and additionally staff and and you as well. And we're just looking to really push this forward. You know, some of the community benefits want to hit in again is we're able to replace almost onetoone the parking in the uh from the service parking on the site to what's going to be in the public parking garage. That'll be for public parking use only. Uh we're going to enhance the public realm uh

with public art that will be probably 10 times what the minimum requirement is. We're going to have a public coffee shop or community coffee shop inside the building as well. And then just um just the overall benefit of uh increasing housing supply to help against the housing shortage here in East Lancing. You know, we're seeing people get priced out anywhere from around the downtown area to a mile out to a mile and a half outside by people not being able to afford their rent and needing places to go because there's not enough supply in the market. So, um, if acceptable, we'll be available for the, uh, business agenda item if need be, but we look forward to continue working with you guys to to bring the project to life. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Parker Fischer. Hello. Uh my name is Parker Fischer. I serve as the chair of the East Lancing Housing Commission. Um and for those of you who are unfamiliar uh with housing commission, we are charged with advising the city and council on matters pertaining to housing within the city, including neighborhood preservation, programs for housing production and conservation, review of rental housing licenses, and amendments to the housing code. Um, I would also like to speak to agenda item 5.6, which is the consideration of a proposed special use for the 530 Albert Avenue project. Um, I would just like to voice my general support of this development. Uh, and reiterate some of my public comments from the December 17th planning commission meeting on this topic. Uh, so as the city council considers the specifics of this development, I thought it would be helpful to share some community insights from what we are seeing at housing commission. So my first issue is neighborhood preservation. So over the past 3 years, housing commission continues to see an increase in new rental license applications, most often for single family homes in neighborhoods across the city. This is due in part to the increasing demand for rental housing in the city. Property owners have high economic incentives to retrofit single family homes into rental housing to capture the unmet market demand. We have heard from countless neighbors in housing commission meetings regarding their concerns over new rental properties in their neighborhoods. They cite concerns over noise, traffic, and preserving the character of their neighborhoods. Without new rental housing to alleviate the demand, we will continue to see pressure on family homes and neighborhoods and see those homes flipped into rental properties. The second issue I want to touch on is housing affordability. Housing Commission has heard from neighbors regarding the increasing cost

of rent in the city. East Lancing is becoming unaffordable. Prices have grown roughly twice as much as average in as the average income in Michigan. These patterns reflect strong underlying demand for housing in the city. I do want to cite a study on the East Lancing housing market done by Professor Daniel Shog. Uh he is a professor of economics at the Case Western uh Reserve University. Um, this study was included in the original packet for the Howard development. Um, but I think it's relevant here. They site housing costs in East Lancing have increased rapidly over the past decade. Home prices have nearly doubled between 2015 and 2025, and rents grew 13% between February 2024 and September of 2025, far exceeding inflation and the national rent growth. These trends reflect strong demand and limited new construction. So that's an economic study, but what does this look like in practice? One case that comes to mind is what happened to our neighbors at Hillrest Village, the historic rental community on Grand River, west of the Chesterfield Hills neighborhood. Hillrest Village was East Lancing's first apartment community originally built in 1936. Today, it is home to a mix of students, young professionals, the elderly, and families with young children. In late 2023, the property changed hands to a large management company. Rents in Hillrest Village began to increase sharply. It didn't it did not take long for residents to flood into housing commission voicing their concerns over increased rents. One person reported a jump of $135, another a $200 increase. There's also a really good East Lancing info article that kind of details more on this story as well. These rent spikes have forced several long-term residents to reconsider their living situations. Some have moved outside of the city as a result. Again, we know that when housing demand outpaces supply, it puts upward pressure

on rental prices for all existing housing units. With these facts in mind, the proposed development can address the issue. By increasing the supply of rental housing downtown, we can ensure the demand for rental housing is redirected out of the city's neighborhoods, ensuring they are preserved for existing residents while ensuring affordability for everyone. As the planning process plays out, I urge city council to keep these issues of neighborhood preservation and housing affordability in mind when making your decision. Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Smitty Smith and Ken Jones. Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Ken Jones. I'm the chair of the East Lancing Summer Solstice Jazz Board, and this is my partner on the board, Smitty Smith. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the East Lancing Summer Solstice Jazz Festival. The 2026 festival will take place on June 26th and 27th of this year and marks a very special milestone, our 30th anniversary, 30 years of music, community, and collaboration is something truly worth celebrating. From its beginning, the festival has represented a strong town and gown partnership between Michigan State University and the city of East Lancing. That collaboration is the foundation of our success and is a great example how the university and the city can work together to create something that benefits everyone.

We're tag teaming tonight. Um, I'd just like to say first of all, the the comments we're making are in your packet tonight in case you want to look at them later. Uh, on behalf of the advisory board, we want to recognize three individuals that we work closely with. Justin Derwen, parks and recck director, no longer interim, good move. Colleen Armadage, community events specialist, and our artistic director, MSU professor of jazz, guitar, Randy Napoleon. It's a pleasure working with each of them. Their leadership, professionalism, and dedication make the whole festival possible. Professor Napoleon's artistic vision um ensure that our music remains vibrant, innovative, and worthy of a 30-year legacy. Each year, the festival draws more than 10,000 people to downtown East Lancing over two days. Did you know that number? 10,000 people at a time when the students are gone and downtown is often very slow. It brings significant energy and economic benefit to our downtown businesses, restaurants, retailers, local establishments see meaningful increases in traffic and the entire downtown benefits from the positive atmosphere the festival creates. Now, here's Ken with the ask. We're working this out. First, as we celebrate the 30th anniversaryversary, we respectfully ask the city council to take two actions. First, to make a formal declaration recognizing and promoting the festival's 30th anniversary. Second, to approve a social district for the two evenings of the 2026 festival. This would enhance the visitor experience and further support our downtown businesses while maintaining a safe, well-managed environment for the city and the festival have consistently provided. We are proud of what this festival has

become, a signature cultural event for East Lancing and a symbol of cooperation between the university, the city, and the community. Thank you for your continued partnership and support. We look forward to collaborating this mile milestone year with all of you and with the thousands of people that will gather in East Lancing on June 26th and 27th. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Patrick Bey.

Good evening, mayor, council members. Um, I'm here representing the Bailey Community Association or the BCA. I'm going to read a letter that we've drafted. The BCA is authoring this letter to respectfully request that the East Lancing City Council reject the special use permit request, including any height exemption for the proposed 13-story rental apartment building at 530 Albert Avenue at the corner of Albert and Bailey. The BCA in its role supports and advocates for all who live in the Bailey neighborhood home, who call the Bailey neighborhood home. Located next to the MSU campus in downtown East Lancing, our neighborhood brings together people from many backgrounds and life stages, contributing to a welcoming and connected community. After reviewing the proposal and the issues raised at the council's re recent meeting, including parking, trafficking, traffic, and uncertainty around how the development would meet the city's diverse housing requirements, we oppose granting this special use permit and height exemption. In our view, approving it would increase student concentration and overcrowding downtown, and it would set an undesirable precedent for future construction in East Lancing. We respectfully ask council to reject the request for these following reasons. It does not diversify East Lancing's housing stock. In fact, it creates a monoculture of student housing. It'll function exclusively as student oriented housing, and this level of density will add additional strain to the police department and other city services. We're concerned about ambiguity in the developer's plan to meet the city's diverse housing requirement, including discussion of the city agreeing to a payment in lie of taxes for affordable units. Parking and traffic impacts remain a major concern for us, including

whether the proposed car allotment is sufficient. Granting a height exemption for a 13-story building at this location would set a precedent for future development that's inconsistent with our neighborhood's character and the long-term livability of downtown. For these reasons, allowing this special use permit does not, in our view, provide a significant public benefit or a clear benefit to the surrounding area. We respectfully request that the city council deny the special use permit request and any associated height exemption for the proposed 530 Albert Avenue development. Sincerely, the BCA.

Thank you.

Uh Doug Cron Good evening. I'm going to speak in regard to the five 5.6 uh project for for the u privately owned land that will be sometime developed. It's privately owned and uh it will privately owned land that close to campus will change time. I change use over time. I'm representing Albert Place Condominiums, Stonehouse Village, which is five buildings along along the uh Grand River side of of uh Grand River in the 600 block, 551 and 5 through 55 East Grand River, which are all right near that property. My concerns are the project is out of scale. It's 13 stories. Uh I don't think any of the other buildings downtown are that high. I built uh where Hopcat is right now and I know we had to fight to get eight stories at that time and that was 15 years ago, 14 years ago, something like that. the alley I am concerned about and the reason for that there's solid buildings down that uh down the Grand River side and if you uh build a building whether it's got arches in it or whatever and let's it's wide open and you can see underneath the parking which I'll get to that in a second and you can see through

to Albert Street you you're creating a tunnel that violations can happen in bad things can happen in because you've got you could have concrete walls on both sides. I don't care how much art you put in it. I don't care how much uh lighting you put in it. It's a it would be a tube. It'll be a tunnel. Think you need to think about that. The proposed parking being retained is a blessing. I rent to a lot of businesses there and they need that parking. I built I I I knew that that was owned by a private entity. the other the 35% that is owned by the city. I was involved in in obtaining that long story that I don't need to get into at this point in time. Uh one was a fraternity house and one was a trapezoid parking lot. There needs to be an issue uh solved that we I don't know about if it's just me, but whenever I go by the hub, four or five o'clock at night or in the middle of the afternoon, you've got UPS trucks, you've got uh FedEx trucks, you've got people dropping off on Grand River at the hub. This is a two-lane. Albert is a two-lane street. Bailey is a two-lane street. There has to be some kind of ability to work that. So there's a drop off lane or somewhere where deliveries can be made, whether they be packages or or people dropping people off. Site logistics will be extremely tight on this. Extremely tight. There's no place to put the the equipment that you're going to need, the storage of the materials when it comes in. You've got the the two parcels that the city owns and those are 35 parking spaces roughly which that is not enough to build a building like this. If we start closing off streets which I have done I had to do I had a

the uh the 565 building or Stonehouse 6 where Plotty is and Mocha is and recently open Eiffel Waffle. I had to I had to work in a certain time frame. We had some uh skin problems on the ex exterior of that building. I had to do it during during uh July and August. I had to have it open by August 1st and I so closing streets off for a period of a year to two years is not an option. I am not up to speed on the on the uh 25% diverse housing. I have been told multiple things on it. That needs to be looked at. That's a concern. I've heard a lot of people talk about it. All I'm saying is that needs to be looked at parking. I don't know where the developer uh where where where the developer is getting 20 to 30% uh parking for the the people that live reside in the res.

I've rented here for over over 50 years. there will be more than 20 to 30% people unless they're are finding a different group of people to rent to for students than I am. I've had I've been to the meetings with Cody who just spoke and those meetings were were um worthwhile. He did listen to a lot of what I said which was nothing much more than what I did here tonight. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Your time is expired. I have if you want that's that's fine. Thank you. Um

thank you. Next speaker is Carver. All right. So, since the last one I was at went until like 1:00 a.m., I recorded mine in advance. And since I already did that, I'mma play it. Hi, Carver here. I'm still clamboyantly bisexual. I'm still a homeless alcoholic. I still volunteer with punks with lunch and the rent is too dude damn high. And I pre-recorded my speech because I'm already tired. I'm expecting another late night. I'm probably much angrier than this recording sounds if I'm still awake. And I mostly just want to hang out with my tiny dog right now. She's great. Despite being fuzzy and scraggly, she's still way cuter than any of you. And she's also never needed to be discouraged from criminalizing homelessness. Not once. How will you be enforcing these ordinances? By immediately fining or jailing poor people? Or by wasting taxpayer dollars to take people to court for having the audacity to exist while poor and/or black? Because let's face it, house black people will also be targeted. Further, how will you extract money from people who have none? I've heard it claim civil infractions aren't jailable offenses, but unpaid fines can still result in jail time in Michigan. And again, if you don't have 11,000 a year to house someone, you cannot afford almost 50,000 to jail them. All you need to do to not waste countless tax dollars is nothing. There is recent legal precedent by US District Judge Dale S. Fischer in the city of Los Angeles. This federal judge stated that sweeping homeless people off the street denies them constitutionally mandatory due process under the 14th amendment and confiscating, destroying, or throwing away their possessions is an unconstitutional seizure under the Fourth Amendment. You've spent months only changing the language on these ordinances, trying to make make them sound nice. But at no point have you considered the full impact. You are legislators and leaders. Why am I, as a person who is just trying to survive,

beholding a ridiculously arbitrary laws when you are unwilling to follow basic human decency and possibly the Constitution as you write ordinances for me to follow. The last time I was here, Eric said he was concerned about the language of the ordinances. The language, not the effects. Using softer language does not equal compassionate results. If a police officer were to come and assault me, a homeless person was just mining my own hammock, do you think it would change the impact on my life if he drew a smiley face on his nightstick first? When the public collectively says a group can't exist here, that means the group cannot exist anywhere. And if there is nowhere for us to exist, but you claim you don't want us to die, what compromise is there? Am I supposed to just die on weekends and alternating holidays? When I'm living outside, I sleep. I make artwork. I go canoeing. I take up odd jobs. I help people out on the street. I mind my own business and I volunteer my time. I enjoy a few beers in my hammock under a tarp while listening to the rain. And I try to pet every dog I see. Whether the uppidity white business owners who ask you to write these ordinances realize it or not, homeless people are active members of communities we live in. We are part of networks unseen by much of society, but we are valuable and contributing civilians. We are an important part of the economy. Yes, even if you do not understand our situations and lives, we are still valuable. Your unhoused neighbors are still part of your community. We certainly don't need you to use an ordinance to talk to us and give us a civil infraction or misdemeanor charge when we are merely existing in public places where it is free for people to exist. If shelters were an option for us, we'd already be there. These ordinances still clearly target specific demographics. If this isn't to target poor people, tell me which rich people are sleeping in a tent in your city. If the problem is violence, aren't there already laws about that? or are you also planning to ignore the First Amendment and weaponize these against protesters as well? Michigan is short of nearly 200,000 housing units for low-income renters and a cost burden of rent averaging 75% of a low-income tenants salary. So, where are people supposed to

go? East Lancing has been failing at the affordable housing process. We aren't normal. Garfield can't ship us all to Abu Dhabi. Targeting people who are housing insecure will never solve the housing crisis. Predatory landlords and profit-seeking developers should be the focus of your scope. 140 million people in the US live in poverty, including 40% here in Michigan. All on the brink of homelessness, if not homeless already. The system of policing and and incarcerating the unhoused is directly connected to punishing people for being poor during a time where housing and food are expensive and wages are stagnant, and a third of the country cannot pay the rent. The system is failing the majority of us, and it will continue to do so as long as we criminalize poverty. The solution isn't to make our lives harder when they are already unfathomably difficult. The solution is to abolish poverty, to build up the most vulnerable members of the community. Your energy and the community's tax dollars are better spent fixing up housing units, reducing rent cost, creating public housing developments, and making East Lancing more affordable. To do so will immensely improve the economy, livability, and reputation of East Lancing overall. No matter what language you use, no matter how much you want to ignorantly claim that you aren't targeting vulnerable people with these ordinances, they still aren't the solution. Vote no on the loitering and camping bands and start focusing on helping impoverished people.

Thank you for your comments, Ted Bena.

Good evening. I'm Ted Bena, excuse me, resident of the city of East Lancing and president of the White Hills Neighborhood Association. I'm here to speak on um agenda item 5.7, the Overlay District. And I wanted to uh read to you a comment that I received this afternoon from a resident of our neighborhood who had been involved for many years or in past years on creating helping to develop the overlay districts and u is a retired lawyer. This she states there is a saying in the law that hard cases make bad law. Setting public policy that negatively affects an entire community at the behest of an interested individual is the worst kind of governance we have. As I understand the ordinance, it's an opt out provision that appears to be narrowly focused on one specific property. I'm trying to understand where's the hardship. In my neighborhood, we have rental properties, duplexes sitting side by side of family residents. These duplexes are primarily at the entrances of the subdivision. They've been there for a very long time. There is no market impact on people selling their residences in this neighborhood. There have been homes sold right next door to duplexes rentals and they have sold for beyond market rate. So we I'm here to ask you what's the the purpose of this? If this is for just an individual then I think this is a big this is a

mistake and it's not good governance. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Darren. Hello. Two decades ago, I was a homeless Veagabond and now volunteer for multiple organizations that focus on food and housing insecurities. I'm here to speak out about the camping and loitering bans. You keep changing the language, but not the intent and goal of making it unlawful to be in poverty in East Lancing. Even just limiting these bans to parking structures and event locations creates misguided solutions for problems that simply do not exist and acutely targets vulnerable people, college students and communities of the global majority. Further, it assumes a one-sizefits-all approach, directing people to shelters that may not be appropriate for them. You are not including necessary people when having these discussions. agencies that work with housing insecure and unhoused individuals should have been the first people you consulted, not an afterthought. You should have housing insecure and unhoused individuals here in East Lancing providing input about how these ordinances could affect them and what their concerns are. These voices will go further in discussing what is actually needed and listening to business owners disconnected from housing injustice. When doing outreach and distros, we often ask people what more they might need from us. We bring food, hygiene, first aid supplies, harm reduction, and some survival gear. We help them connect with resources services and may sit with them at urgent care or ER visits. They often bring up the need to do their laundry to be able to take showers. They need more blankets and tents, gas and propane, rides for errands. They enjoy books and games. They want to feel valued and loved to not feel like they are a social pariah. And these voices guide the work that we do. And we do not force nor coersse any form of care. Almost every single homeless person we engage with would jump on a chance to be properly housed. Many of them are already on housing list. already, but with being pushed around by the police, it is challenging

to maintain contact with them. And those that do not go to shelters often have solid reasons why they cannot stay there. Housing weight lists can sometimes be months or years long. And we are in a housing crisis. Basic living expenses are out of reach for many. Simply put, you cannot in good faith create legislation like this without the input and involvement of experts on the topic of homelessness. And those experts are coming here and telling you that what you are doing makes their jobs more difficult for them. It makes it more difficult to resolve homelessness, poverty, and give vulnerable people resources. You cannot in good faith create this type of legislation without sitting down with the residents of East Lancing experiencing housing insecurity and asking them what they need from you in order to keep or obtain housing. When discussing connecting people with assistance from services, you need to know how it actually looks for a client. There is an assumption that there is a safety net to catch you and the struggle is an individual failure. In reality, the system is highly bureaucratic and comes with massive barriers and does not meet people where they are. The so-called safety net has massive holes that people fall through every day. Case workers who should only have maybe 20 cases are often carrying at least 50 and sometimes as many as 150 cases, meaning they might only be able to offer each client one, two, three hours of attention per month. This makes it nearly impossible to take care of their entire case load. Clients require an address, a phone, email, and a ve vehicle. Even just becoming a client at Community Mental Health here requires intake over the phone. When being assessed for SSI or SSDI, Social Security sends appointment information over the mail. And appointments might be local, but they might be an gaylord. Not being able to receive mail or commute to the appointment is not considered an excuse and will result in an automatic denial. Michigan Rehabilitation Services, Michigan Works, or Disability Network often fail to follow up and they still require a phone, email, and an address. A client has to keep reaching out or is dropped from services that

they might not even be adequately receiving. Filing housing and employment discrimination cases with the MDCR can take months of waiting and requires a phone and internet access with cases being dropped because some people can't get an attorney. It is common to show up somewhere asking for help to simply be handed a brochure or pamphlet for another organization. It's a never- ending loop of being passed around to be someone else's problem. Falling through the cracks is a feature of a system like this. Getting back on your feet takes time. If your concern is in public safety, safe, long-term housing is the basis for stability. By having a stable shelter and food, people are unlikely to engage in criminal behavior and substance use. By having a place to go after released from jail, people are less likely to return to crime. Stable housing creates a routine that helps mentally disabled people regain control over their lives. There is no amount of sweeping homeless people and no amount of funding the police force that reduces crime or

civism remaining.

Mental health issues and addiction quite like stability. Policing people is far more expensive to taxpayers and ensuring that they have a stable place to stay and food is more valuable. If you are truly determined to remove homeless people from public spaces in East Lancing, the resolution is right in front of your face. It's simple. You make good affordable to live here and you house people. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ronald Wright. Hello, my name is Ronald Wright. Um, this is the first time I've actually addressed the East Lancing Council. I have addressed the Lancing Council and the CA uh county council in the past. So, I'm going to start off by just introducing myself and telling you guys a little bit about who I am. My name is Ronald Wright. About two years ago, I ran into a very, very bad spot. And I found myself with uh for uh eviction on my apartment and a repossession on my car simultaneously. I ended up spiraling down and I ended up well homeless. I lived in a tent in the woods. Um, and this was a really big eye opener cuz I never thought I'd ever be in a tent in the woods. I never wanted to be in a tent in the woods. Um, while I was there, one thing I noticed real quick is, well, I was getting chased down by the police like I was a criminal just for existing. I went through four different campsites in three months. I wasn't able to stabilize even close enough to even begin to start re trying to rebuild what I had lost. Um, this went on. Finally, I found myself in Dietrich Park where I was able to get

just a little bit of stability thanks to a lawsuit. Um, while I was in Dietrich Park, I ran into several people like Darren, the one that you just had up here speaking, who is on the board of directors for the company in which I am now employed. Because at the end of that case, the judge ordered the city to put all of us in a hotel. Well, once I got to this hotel, I really, really, really quickly was able to acquire a job because I had the ability I had lacked for almost two years previous, and that's I could shower, I could shave, I had a bed I could sleep in. With these abilities, I was able to get a job. I now have a job. I make a livable wage. I make good money doing what I do. The problem is is now apparently I'm doing too good to where I've been kicked out of the hotel back into this back into the woods. Um, and that not even being that I I ran into several people when I was out in the woods that made a big change in my life. But what I'm trying to get at is housing first is the best viable option for this problem. Criminalizing people for just being poor is not going to solve anything. Cuz when I was in the woods, I didn't have $5 to buy a pack of cigarettes, let alone $100 to give for just existing. Um, now I got in I got the hotel. I had the ability. I have the job. I can see an end in the uh in my uh journey now because I have something I didn't have when I first went into the woods. I have ability. I have income. I can I can get myself out and I can try to help other

people get out. The problem is is it needs to start with housing first because once you stabilize somebody and they can just relax and go to sleep at night, not in fear that the police are going to be there in the morning telling them they have to leave and they have to pack up everything they own and find someplace else to go just to when they get there be told the exact same thing and then here and then there. And it just creates so much chaos in somebody's life that they can never stabilize. They can never get a job. They can never better themselves. I've been in the woods for 2 years. I can't tell you anybody that was, "Woohoo! Yes, I want to live in the woods." None of us want that. It's just a situation that we got put in and because we're being chased around because we're criminals for just existing. Nobody can better their situation. But if we can get these people into, you know, subsidized housing to where they can get stable, they can get a little bit of sleep, they can, you know, get a good shower and have some stability, then you can start working on, you know, employment, you can start working on, you know, um, psycho, you know, psychological therapy and all that kind of stuff to be able to address these all these other problems. But none of these problems are going to be able to be fixed as long as they're running around running from the cops because they're criminals. Because they exist. I didn't want to go into the woods. Nobody in the woods wanted to go into the woods. Nobody wanted to live. Thank you.

Nobody wants to live in a tent in a park. We just need that little step forward to be able to build off from instead of being chased around all the time. Thank you. Thank you, Denita Brandt. This is really a game of pingpong that you play during comments, isn't it? I appreciate the comments of the previous speakers, but I'm here to make good on the offer I made here during the March 4th public comment to deliver community input on the proposed 13story apartment building. You now have that input. I see in the written communications online. You don't have all of it, though. I sent an email with an attached four-page memo that I spent a lot of time on and I didn't see it in that packet tonight. So, I will make sure that you guys get a copy of this because I in this memo I cite chapter and verse from the East Lancing codes of code of ordinances uh and have questions and comments. It's very specific and that indeed is the nature of the uh voices uh opposed to the project. It's not that the community is anti-development. It's not that the community is anti- studentent. We live in East Lancing. We're not anti- studentent. But there are issues with this proposal. And I think you'll see as you read through the letters of opposition, uh, a lot of those, um, letters are very specific. Some are emotional, one or two are profane, but I'm sure you're used to that. Uh so with the um

my my count by the way at 6:15 as I was trying to get through the uh 700 pages that were just uploaded I counted 28 uh communications from Bailey residents. Thank you so much to my my fellow residents in the Bailey neighbor. I really really appreciate it. Uh they had very short notice. Uh, a few of us were out Saturday and Sunday putting door tags on people's doors. First time I've ever done that. And my little brochure here does not say squash the development. It just says uh that you're poised to grant an exemption for this. This will impact our neighborhood. Uh, please make your voice heard by emailing council. We weren't saying squash it or or support it. So, with the rest of my time, I'd like to share questions and concerns I have after reading through the 154 uh agenda package that was up on the site last night that I thought was for this meeting, but now that's gone. But I learned a lot about this project. From the traffic input pack study, page 699, concerning parking, there was a recommendation of 318 total parking spaces. The city and developer have talked about an arrangement to rent 215 spaces in city garages, but where will the other 103 cars go? Further, the report describes the option to purchase a parking pass in the commuter lot for the university, which has regular bus access for convenience. This is not a convenient option. The university commuter lot is 1.7 miles from the peanut barrel, the proxy for this apartment complex. A bus will get residents from their cars in the farm lane commuter lot to the Shaw Lane bus terminal from which it's a 20minute walk

or catch another bus for a 19-minute ride to the apartments. To present this as a convenient option reads like advocacy for the development plan and gives off more than a whiff of bias and ca casts doubts on other parts of the document. Potential for crashes. In describing the potential for crashes, data are given for the period 2020 to 20 24th and it is noted that none of the study intersections appear at the top 10 accident location. That statement is irrelevant. What is relevant is introducing 318 cars in an already congested area and the likelihood that the number of crashes at the study intersections will make it onto the top 10 list thanks to this additional development. The reports figure four shows the location of crashes during the study period and it does not inspire confidence. It's a it's a lot more scary in color where all the dots are red and represent crashes all around the proposed area.

Okay, so let me just cut to the chase. Yet despite these anomalies, the authors of the traffic impact study astonishingly conclude that the pro proposed development will have negligible impact to the surrounding roadway network and no additional improvements are required. This just does not seem to be reasonable. Uh but you don't have to take my uh opinion for it. We should have data to Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your comments. Your time is expired. Uh Nadia Sers,

thank you. You know, it's um it's pretty ironic that you want the black dollar in East Lancing, but you really don't want the black face. And you know, God is going to judge each and every one of you at the end of the day. Um I've tried to speak to members of this council, but I feel my words fall on deaf ears. So, I'm going to speak to the taxpayers if he's lancing instead because this is about more than a single case, a single incident, or even a single person. This is about them, their money, their city, and the services that they rely on every single day. When government fails to act responsibly, when law enforcement operates outside the law, and when leadership refuses to correct wrongdoing, the consequences don't stay confined to a courtroom. They come back to the public to you taxpayers in the form of costly lawsuits, settlements, judgments that can reach into the millions. You guys elect these council members to listen. They're failing on listening. They don't listen. They very rarely hear us. They see us, but they don't hear us. Where does that money come from? When lawsuits happen, it comes from your tax dollars. Every dollar spent defending misconduct. Every dollar paid out because accountability was ignored is a dollar that does not go to your roads, your schools, your emergency services, your parks, housing the homeless, or your community programs. It's a dollar taken away from the things you both need and have every right to expect from this council. This is not just a legal issue. It's a financial issue. It's a community issue. As

taxpayers, you guys should demand better because you deserve a city council that protects not only your right but also your investment in this community. As taxpayers, you deserve leadership that understands that accountability is not a threat. It's a responsibility because ignoring problems does not make them disappear. It just makes them more expensive. Preventable lawsuits are exactly that, preventable. When those entrusted to uphold the law fail to even follow it, something deeper than a single injustice is broken, the very foundation of trust between a community and its institution is what is broken. We are told that justice is blind, that it does not favor power over truth, black over white, or authority over accountability. But what happens when those sworn to protect and serve abandon that oath? What happens when law enforcement acts outside the law? What happens when the chief of police and a city manager turns a blind eye and what a city council refuses to act in the face of clear harm to our children in East Lancing. This is not a theoretical question. It's a lived reality for black and brown people who looks like me who've been falsely accused, falsely arrested, constantly denied due process and left without recourse. These are not a minor errors. These are violations of fundamental rights. Rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to every person not granted at the convenience of those in power. Accountability is not optional in democracy. It is the cornerstone. Without it, authority becomes unchecked. And unchecked authority invites abuse. That's why you need your oversight commission. And that's why they need

power. Unchecked authority only invites abuse. When leaders are not held responsible, like Jen Brown, silence becomes complicity. When officials ignore wrongdoing like the council continued to do, you send a message that justice is selective and that some voices don't even matter. But you're wrong. People do matter. The homeless matter. African-Americans matter. Minorities matter. The poor matter. Every voice in this community matters. When citizens are pushed to the point where their only remaining option is to seek justice through the courts,

that is not a failure of the individual. It is a failure of your system. Lawsuits should not be the first path to accountability. They should be the last resort when all avenues have been exhausted. And yet here we are. This is a call not just for accountability, but for integrity, for transparency, for leadership that does not hide from difficult truth, but confronts them. A system that allows injustice, especially when it is disproportionately harms black and brown people, is a racist system. We're We are nation built by humans. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Mayor. Black people are humans.

Thank you for your comments, John Penorn. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. My name is John Penorn. I'm a civil engineer with Stantech representing Cody and Terrain Development Partners and item 5.6 on the agenda. Um, I just wanted to share a few more details from that traffic study. Um, just to give you a quick uh synopsis of where we've been. uh counts were performed in January waiting for students to get back on campus to provide a realistic data set to build the study around. Uh that traffic impact study was submitted to the city on February 18th. Um we received comments back this past week after the first council meeting. Um and the comments received largely acknowledge there's a few stylistic differences that they want us to to make updates and and accommodate. So, we'll do that. Uh, the review letter actually states that um the results presented in the study are not likely to change based on the comments. So, in the spirit of that, I'm sharing some of those preliminary results with you tonight. Um, two main concepts to hit in case you haven't read a traffic study recently, you might have. Um, number one is level of service. Level of service is basically a grade, a letter grade given to each movement or turn at an intersection. Um and it's established based on the delay experienced by a given vehicle at that intersection. So the more delay, the worse level of service letter grade assigned. Um and it runs from A through F. So A is free flow, B is good, C is acceptable, D is tolerable, E and F are poor and very poor. The second is the concept of a peak hour. The peak hour essentially looks at the most robust background traffic um over the 24 hours. There's actually two peak hours included in the study. So you have a a morning peak hour and an afternoon or evening peak hour.

Um and so one way to interpret that data set is that we're providing you know the most robust um you know most conservative study of the intersections. It's also true to say that the other 22 hours out of an average day experience less traffic than what's in the report. So with that um four intersections were studied as part of the study. You have Grand River at um Division and Bailey and then Albert at Division and Bailey. The in the existing scenario um all movements or turns meaning left through uh left, right, and through um operate with an A, B or C level of service. And then in the proposed condition where we've taken out the existing um trips generated by the development or by the uh existing site added in the trips generated by the development and applied a background growth factor to show basically more strain on the system over time. Um all of those movements at each of those intersections still retain their A B or C level of service for the peak hour analysis. Um so the primary bullet point to share is that uh the study concludes that the infrastructure in place is adequate for the infrastru for the uh traffic load today and also adequate for the traffic load uh at the full buildout of this development in the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you uh Brad. Good evening. This is my first time here. I used to be homeless. I spent three and a half years I spent a year in Homeless Angels out on the old Lancing Road and I spent close to two and a half years in the city rescue mission. To me,

life is what everybody's looking for. You can't put a life on jeopardy because it's wrong. Life is something that is very unique to each and one each and every one of us. I wish I could work. I'm on SSI. Not enough credits to get disability, but I am disabled. I was one of the lucky ones. But times some people aren't lucky to have what I have because everybody has a story and you need to listen to that story to understand them. Once you understand them, they're like me, my friend Sean, my friend Ron, everybody throughout the United States. Even you city council has a story. Nobody knows it. But if you listen to the stories of the homeless, then you would understand because without the voice of like me or my friends, it's almost like we're living back in Germany again. with Hollandrad with all the Jews being destroyed because somebody hated them.

Hate is a strong word. You can't hate someone because they're homeless. And to me, when that happens, people have to stand and say, "Look, you don't know their story. You've never walked in their shoes." I'd like to suggest something. If you do, you do. If you don't, you don't. If you see somebody who's wrapped up in a blanket, walk up to them, talk to them. They're just like you and me. They may have problems, but if you're kind to them, they will be kind to you. Don't put them in jail because they don't have a roof over their head. because Hitler destroyed Jews because they were Jews. That is wrong. I am German and I don't like Hitler cuz he gave me a bad name. I'm a good person. And if you sit down with someone and actually talk to them, then you'll understand their story. You may have a similar story, you may not, but it's all in the shoes that they have walked over the years. I just turned 59. My story can go for ages, but I'm not going to talk about it because it hurts. I've lost family

members. I've lost houses. I've lost apartments. I've lost vehicles. People don't care. When people don't care, then that puts everybody else uneasy because they don't know if they're going to walk down the street and have an officer walk 30 seconds remaining and throw cuffs on them because they're homeless. Find out what their story is and then go from there. That's all I'm saying. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Molly Spooner. Thank you. Um, I'll be quick and and appreciate all the comments. Um, 5.6, I don't see how 13 stories is appropriate. Way too big. 5.7 amending the overlays. It's taking a democratic process and making it undemocratic. Thank you.

Thank you, Sean Brock. Hello, I'm Sean Brock. I am a member and a leader in the Rendame Highless Union. Um, I have looked over the wording on the three proposed changes um to ordinance 1566 and of the three, the third option is the least objective. But that being said, this is still completely unnecessary. You have you have things on the book that can take care of these things. This is none of these rewardings is taking away from the cruelty and the unnecessariness behind them. There is absolutely no need to go beyond what is already on the books. If you want if you're in a public space and you have something going on, there's already laws in place to handle such situations. This is nothing but cruelty against homeless people. Now, I'd like to get into a little bit of my story. I have been at different points homeless uh different stages throughout the last 20 years due to different circumstances. The last time I was homeless, I was working over 40 hours a week, taking as much overtime as I could get. And I was homeless because of the problems that

we're facing with rent increasing exponentially for no good reason other than greed. That's all this comes down to is greed. We are people. Everyone in here is a person that deserves to have a roof over their head, a place to take a shower, a bed to lay in, and just to get themselves together. Do you know how hard it is to be ill while you're homeless? Do you? I can tell you it's not fun. You try to find a place to use the restroom when you really need to. It's not fun. Do you know what it's like to be out and about freezing and having to walk around all night just because that's the only way to keep from freezing to death? I've slept under bridges. I've walked all night to keep from freezing to death. I've wondered where my next meal is coming from. It's not a fun thing. And it was things like this. Like I said, while I was working full-time, taking as much overtime as I could and still not being able to afford housing. Luckily, I am in housing now. And I just want you to realize that housing people is the least expensive way to go about things. Housing first works. It takes more to it reduces trips to the ER because if when you're homeless, you're not going you're not going to go see a doctor because you have no way to make an appointment. You're only going in when it comes to the time where you need to go to the ER because you're going to die if you don't. You have got to meet people where they are.

You need to realize that this is a problem that is not caused by homeless people. This problem is not that people are homeless. It's not that they made this decision. Nobody makes the decision to become homeless. And I'm sick and tired of some of the rhetoric that goes around about, you know, oh, all homeless people are this or that. No, everybody has their own story. Everybody has a different reason why they run into tough situations. Every single one of you, something goes wrong, you could end up out on the streets. We don't know what it's going to be. I had no idea what was going to happen until it did. As a matter of fact, I was in the span of less than a week, I went from thinking that my life was turning out pretty good. I was working

30 seconds remaining. I was getting overtime. Things were looking up. Two days later, I have a roommate on the floor dead and I end up homeless because of this because I could not afford to cover all of the rent. Just keep that in mind that this is unnecessarily unnecessary and cruel. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Matias Steiner. Hi, my name is Matias Steiner, uh, 1426 Harvard. I came to speak on 5.7, the amendment regarding the overlay district. um what's already been said, hard cases makes bad laws and uh don't undo a democratic process. That about covers it and in light of the gravity of the other comments being made, I don't feel like uh being eloquent on it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Daniel Bowman. Good evening, council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Daniel Bowman. I'm an architect and a practicing professor of construction management at Michigan State University. Um the the developers already laid out the many benefits that the project brings, including increased tax revenue and more housing. Yet you will still be and have been confronted with those calling for right sizing while lacking a basic understanding of economic development, real estate principles, construction finance, new construction is expensive, zoning and urbanism. And as with so but as with so many proposals for developments, it seems the driving factor and I mean that pun fully intended is whether or not somebody's going to be inconvenienced by having to walk a few blocks after parking. um that are being deprived of the immediate and perpetual visual access to the wild goose in if the door hanger I found in my house this past weekend is any indication. However, as you are all aware, this in the B3 city center commercial um district, accessory on premise, parking facilities are prohibited with some limited exceptions in order to encourage the use of the city parking system. And parking was provided in this particular case, as I understand it, at the behest of the merchants on Grand River, which seems to me to be a reasonable exception to the standing rule. I'm going to diverge for just a second and um talk about a sort of a 10,000 foot view because if nothing else, I think this project highlights yet another example of the self-inflicted nature of our parking problem which really could be solved with a literal I mean and I mean do a literal overnight overnight solution and not that the solution could be made in a matter of a day but the

return to on street overnight potentially long-term parking carries numerous benefits. including potentially calming traffic and potential additional revenue for the city in the in the form of annual parking tags. We hear repeated concerns about flooding and the overt taxing that storm water brings to our storm water system. On street parking reduces the need for to add more pvious more excuse me more imperous surfaces that would simply duplicate that which is already in place and paid for. that is our streets. Naturally, I'm going to bring this back now. Naturally, I have concerns about this project, not the least of which its overall height, but I was initially skeptical of the city center Newman Loft's development. In fact, I still believe that it should have been cited on the corner of MAC or Abbott. I know Mr. Mayor and Council Member Meadows, we had discussions about that at the time. And um I think I've come around now to realize that while despite the fact that I don't love the architecture and I don't love the sighting um that I don't think anybody can deny that the activity that has been brought to the street that that the way that the that building has activated the street cannot be denied. It's got good urbanism. It's got solid massing. It holds the street line well. And you'll find if you walk by it that it's very cleverly masked so as to disguise its overall height. Think back about what that site looked like about 8 years ago and what it's become today. It's no longer just an illdefined space. Go back and take a look at Google Street View 10 years ago. It was a surface parking lot in the middle of our downtown development authority area. Now it's an actual place. And with this proposal, the city has the opportunity to do the same thing at this location, but I would submit at a much kinder scale. I'm a resident of the Bailey neighborhood. I

live four blocks from the proposed development. I walk to my office on campus. I walk to my studio on Abbott. I walked here tonight. I can do all those things because as a resident of the Bailey neighborhood, I'm privileged enough to have access to all of the downtown adjacent amenities that I would like to see extended to other people. So, I will encourage you. I hope you have the wisdom to see this particular project through. I welcome the impact that it will bring. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other uh people in the audience who would like to address the council during public comment? If so, please approach the podium and uh state your name and address for the record. There's a box over there with Could we get the slips, please? There's too much stuff. There's too much stuff.

Thank you. Uh, William Lawrence. Hey there, William Lawrence, resident of Lancing, grew up in East Lancing. Um, I think I was the last in, first up here on top of the pile. Uh I'll say that um I've commented previously extensively on the camping and loitering ordinances and I know you've been having a lot of uh good meetings with local advocates and I strongly strongly encourage you to listen to the wisdom of what you've heard here in comments and in your other meetings. Do the right thing um by humanity, common decency, and the homeless and unhoused people who you've heard here in this room. and do not criminalize homelessness. Please instead step forward into efforts to collaborate on a regional basis with other governments, with state government, with federal officials, and with local advocates to provide a better ecosystem of support so that we can actually house everybody in our community. It's not going to be easy. It's going to be a long road. Um, but uh I encourage you to continue to walk along that road rather than criminalizing homelessness, which is not going to help anything and is only going to be a mark on this city. Um, I know that we have the other item on the agenda tonight about the housing uh on Bailey Street and I want to u encourage you to allow this housing to be built um on Bailey Street in the parking lot because we're talking here about two housing issues. We have an absolute under supply of housing and

which is part of what contributes to the homelessness issue. You have an opportunity to be part of the solution by allowing this development to move forward. When I was growing up and playing soccer out at the Chandler Road complex when it was just started, I saw the Chandler Crossings development go up there at what used to be a beautiful marshland. And I was six years old and I saw the whole thing go up as I was playing soccer. And I thought to myself, you know what? It really would make sense if they built up in downtown East Lancing rather than out at Chandler Road. That was what my six-year-old self said. And then um a few years went by and we started talking about the Ann Street development and then the other developments downtown which have changed the shape and the look of our city. And I said, "Oh, I don't know. East Lancing is changing a little bit. It's not quite how it used to be. I don't get to run around in the parking lot behind Poncheros anymore. And uh that is uh disappointing to me. Then I remembered my younger self who said, "You know what? We should build up in East Lancing rather than out on Chandler Road because we've got to be building the housing somewhere. And it makes sense to be building for density, to be building a more walkable community to strengthen businesses downtown by allowing for more foot traffic and all the other benefits of the urbanism that we heard from the last speaker." And so change is hard. It's uncomfortable. And uh I know that uh there is always challenge that comes along with that. But I feel strongly that East Lancing is better today than it was 10 years ago for the developments that have been built around Albert and Mac. And I'm confident that it'll be better in another 10 years for more density and more development uh at Albert and Bailey. So, I encourage you to let that move forward and please again do the right thing. Do not criminalize homelessness. It's going to be a long road here, but I think that

this has been an educational experience. I hope and I hope that we can see East Lancing collaborate with other local municipalities to be part of the solution to this housing crisis. Thank you.

Thank you, Cara McKenzie. Hi, my name is Cara McKenzie and I've lived, worked, and gone to school in East Lancing since 2020. First, I want to start by commending the council for amending the radical, cruel, and unnecessary parking lot ordinance discussed at the last council meeting. But secondly, and more importantly, I'm here to join the voices of our community in reminding the council that any form of this ordinance is unneeded and unethical. The housing crisis is vast and affects all of us, and it will never be solved by criminalizing our homeless neighbors. Regardless of the time and resources wasted by sweeping innocent people just trying to survive, it's cruel. Loitering, vagrancy, public nuisance, and harassment are already illegal. Any further criminalization of existing in public would be a stain on your public records and an extreme disappointment. I urge you to take seriously your responsibility to represent and protect your neighbors, all of them, whether or not they are housed. I hope you'll refuse to fall for anti-homeless, antihuman legislation and rhetoric. And I hope you'll continue to pursue housing first options that provide stability, not criminalization that will make a bad situation worse for so many of our neighbors. We the people want dignity, compassion, and equality for homeless people in our community. And I'll hope I hope you will keep that in mind in

consideration in your work. Thank you.

Thank you, Max Huckleberry. Hello. Uh it's uh my opinion that the edited version of the ordinance 1566 uh preferred by the council will still harm East Lancing's unhoused residents. It states that no one can obstruct or interfere with public spaces or events with some exceptions for emergencies and unhoused individuals. The violator on the pervert version will first be given a warning, then a misdemeanor if they don't comply. If the offender is homeless, um they will be given three options by the police. Meeting with a social worker immediately if one is available, meeting with a social worker or city official to aid in placing or relocation to an area not violating 1566. The first and second options could be helpful for signing up for housing assistance, but what I wonder is where exactly are they supposed to wait while their applications process? They'll most likely return to their residence that is in violation. The third option is relocation to an area not in violation, but I'm not really clear on what those areas are supposed to be. A public space is defined in the ordinance as streets, alleys, sidewalks, parks, parking lots, parking structures, public buildings, restrooms, plazas, businesses, or anywhere open to the public view? What

spaces exist in East Lancing that don't fit that definition? The only thing that comes to mind is a private residence, which they obviously can't afford. So, let's say an unhoused person does meet a social worker when a cop finds them and they do sign up for assistance and they do relocate when there's nowhere that isn't in violation to relocate to when they're found again. Do they go to jail for like doing exactly what they were supposed to do? That doesn't make sense to me. But um yeah, getting a misdemeanor, it could be on their record for years. If this ordinance is passed in its current state, it could make so many homeless people's lives worse. So, please consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Paul Martin.

Paul Martin. El Bay.

Elb uh as you said, I'm Al Bay. Uh, I own the Wild Goose in U which is uh Jason Al. Move your mic up.

Oh, sure. Is that better? Yeah. Uh, my name's Al Bay. I own the Wild Goose in which is uh adjacent to the um uh proposed development at 530 Albert Avenue. Um, first of all, I wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate that the opportunity provided for input and open discussion concerning this development. Um, uh, and um, I also appreciate the developers willingness to include parking for the uh, 500 block business district in the design. Um but I as mentioned earlier I I sent you a letter um identifying a number of my concerns. One is that I think that the uh building is woefully inadequate as far as parking for the residents there. you have 11 stories of uh persons um that won't have uh parking on premises and I foresee um some real traffic problems with people wanting to drop off groceries and pick things up and there's no place uh for them to uh be able to do that. Uh we have a problem currently without a 13-story building there. Um, and I just foresee uh some real traffic problems. Um, the 500 block of Albert Avenue lies within the central business district and uh because of that I I believe that the ground level space should remain open and accessible to the public and include commercial uses and public parking. I try to think of um uh when you think of this development, I try to think of one example except for a small coffee shop

that might be open a couple hours a day. Um this is this is the last available developable uh piece of property in our downtown East Lancing. And I can't think of a single example of how this will positively impact or get uh create an opportunity for a visitor or a member of our community to want to come down town. I don't see how it will help improve it uh at all. So, um, and I think that if we're putting something in, developing something that's going to be almost a block of our downtown, we should be able to think of at least one example of how that's going to improve the likelihood of someone wanting to come down there. It just doesn't exist. Um, I believe the development is currently configured will work against the continued fostering of a vibrant downtown for residents, visitors, and shoppers. I'm concerned that the uh project will adversely impact traffic in our downtown and work against providing diverse housing opportunities in our downtown. On balance, I believe the project will reduce the likely the likelihood of people wanting to visit East Lancing. Um, and for those reasons, uh, uh, and and I, as I said, I I gave you a, um, a letter indicating all of the other things that I'm concerned about as far as, uh, how it might create some real problems as far as, uh, traffic in the downtown. Uh, thanks for your time.

Thank you, Kyle Rishard.

Good evening. This is uh my first time here at East Lancing City Council. Um, but I'm here tonight first and foremost as your neighbor. Uh, I live next door. I live down the street in Lancing. Um, but I've been in the neighborhood basically my entire life. I went to elementary school in Waverly, went to middle and high school in Eaten Rapids. Um, and I'm here tonight because uh I'm concerned about the uh ordinances to criminalize homelessness uh in East Lancing because I think that uh as your neighbor, you know, I would advise you that uh that not only is this going to be bad for you, it's going to be bad for the neighborhood. Um, and tonight I think thinking about these ordinances in particular, I'm reminded of the words of a former Lancing resident, uh, Malcolm X, who said that, uh, when I asked about progress, he said that if you stick a knife in my back 9 in and pull it out six, that there's no progress there. If you pull the knife all the way out, that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound. And so as you consider this ordinance tonight, I'd ask you to consider, does this ordinance heal the wound or is this ordinance a twist of the knife? I think the fact that y'all still have the chief of police that y'all have is a disgrace. I think that uh y'all should have fired her a long time ago. It's a stain on everybody up here that she still is cutting a paycheck from this city. Um I I really don't understand uh the justification for that. I'm not sure if it's a maybe it's locked up in bureaucracy and you're saying, "Oh, it's it's the mayor." And the mayor is saying, "Oh, it's the council and we're playing a little song and dance." But the reality is is that this this chief of police has said some pretty heinous things that uh I work as a school teacher. If I said that kind of stuff, I'd be I'd be out of the building tomorrow. And so, the fact that this chief of police is allowed to do that and that the the head the the the highest uh individual in your police

department is not held accountable, no one is. So, thank you. Thank you. Last name Worcester. Last name Worster. W O S T E R. Jim Secore. Jim Secore, please. Yes. To what do I owe this honor? I believe you're on the list to speak.

I'm I'm sorry. I did not place myself in the list.

Oh, well, that's very interesting. I'm not sure this has happened before. I appreciate you. Uh, if you would like to speak, the podium is yours. Uh, last name Worcester. Okay, we'll come back to them. Dana Watson. Um, hello. Hello. I'm a resident of East Lancing. Um, MSU alumni. I've served my city. I've served my county. And I'm an activist. I am black and I am somebody. I also serve on our tenant resource center which serves the mid Michigan area as well as a board member in my uh day job on the Ingram continuum of care which is a group that works with unhoused um individuals. But um as a black person that chooses uh to be here, it also comes with a burden of being overpoliced. I honor the council members past and present who historically listen, respond, and work to dismantle structures of privilege that allow this profiling to thrive. A big thanks to the commissioners and community members who show up to tell the decision makers that we can do better and that they believe that we can do better. I read a quote uh in 2000 from Lancing State Journal on Chuck. It said Chuck had been working on complaints against police officers as part of the East Lancing HRC, but him him and fellow volunteers found that many seemed to go nowhere.

working on complaints against police officers. Many seem to go nowhere. We are not sure in this moment if you still stand with us, Chuck. So, we are at a crossroads. We cannot move forward with members like Eric Alman and Steve Whan as they use their seats to gaslight the community. Whan denying that racial discrimination exists in our police department isn't just an opinion anymore. As our elected officials, this ignorance infringes on our legal protections. I am asking this council to stop permitting members to advocate for unchecked and aggressive policing. Again, if you were not elected to facilitate the vi you were not elected to facilitate the violation of my civil rights and allowing this to continue is your consent to the lawsuits that follow and follow and follow. Currently, the city is using demographics to mix up as a crime data and misuse it as a pretext for the loitering ordinance that turns out to further legalize racially biased policing. When you cite group composition to justify increased surveillance and additional ordinances, you aren't providing public safety. You are intentionally subjecting certain communities that look like me to disproportionate stops, searches, and force. Please stop testing the waters in case we have another Grand Rapid situation coming here to our town. Reign in the officers who view our college town as a combat zone. take

responsibility and get rid of the white nationalist sentiments. To add advanced peace data in an agenda item for loitering exhibits an explicit bias with permission to then bother young black males. Please vote no on both the loitering and camping ordinances. This isn't the way. Rightsize your police. Train the good ones. Dismiss the others. We know they'll find a job anyway because of the record hiding. And tell them to turn on their body cams when they're communicating with us out and about giving warnings, misdemeanors, using force, etc. Thank you. I yield my time.

Thank you. Uh, last name Sedarian. Hello, my name is Anuja Sedarin and I'm a former East Lancing resident, current Lancing resident, and I'm here in opposition of ordinances 1565 and 1566. So, first off, I'd like to re- remind us of East Lancing's racist history, like I spoke about two meetings ago and reiterate that the existence of East Lancing, again, comes from Lance, the result of white flight from Lancing. And again, our homeless neighbors are often the most marginalized folks in our community who are disproportionately black or brown, queer, trans, those with disabilities, poor, etc. They've historically, as has been said, been overpoliced, which has and also had um violence committed against them disproportionately. Not much has changed, it seems, and you don't seem to make want to make progress or distance yourself from that past in the present now. And this is put in proof with ordinances 1565 and 1566. So, I want to discuss um the discussion only meeting that happened on March 10th with alternatives um to 1566. Uh you want to reward homelessness, the severity of police involvement and punitive measures and narrow the scope of those measures. So, this might seem like the right path. However, the answer still remains crystal clear to this. All you have to do is nothing. All you have to do is not listen to businesses and business owners that are out of touch with the reality and lived reality of those who are homeless. You need to represent all your constituents, so many who have spoken already, and not just those with money and power and

influence. Doing nothing is the easy option. It literally means not wasting tax um tax dollars. It means not getting in possible lawsuits and it means keeping yourself literally that's all you have to do. So you're definitely hurting already from a lawsuit. Doing nothing is morally correct. And it's also the easy and the financially responsible decision to even make. So, I also want to address that narrowing the scope of fines um in at public city sanctioned events in 1566, it doesn't solve anything and it's redundant legally. If people are disrupting disrupting things, police can already do that deal with that like very much legally. As for 1565, criminalizing folks in parking lots is going to is going to lead going to lead to lead to just very broad and it's not going to make any sense and it's going to make the lives of those working in the city parking department unnecessarily harder and again disproportionately affect poor black and brown folks who are just existing in sheltered spaces. And once again, there are multiple uh housing policy experts in this room. It sounds like you have been starting to talk to them. So, keep doing that while you just put these ordinances and drop them. Criminalizing homelessness and apathy are both more expensive than housing people. But again, we have to face those facts that we have been failing our neighbors and we have been letting letting them die. So, keep talking to these experts, having these con uh conversations and don't stop. It is a very continuous process. Even with a narrower, more narrow and less uh severe scope of 1566, there still are punitive measures that make no sense because poor people, aka anyone who's homeless, uh don't have money. So, we know that in Michigan, these fines

can add up and become a misdemeanor. So, this is just a longer path and more indirect path to criminalizing homelessness. So, just with more steps and we're back at step one. East Lancing also needs to actually invest in housing solutions. The onus of the homeless crisis, homelessness crisis unfortunately normally does again fall into lancing. So when folks are displaced inevitably from any form of criminalization, they end up in Lancing and resources in Lancing are spreading thin. there are no like shelters that are inclusive or safe for folks and everything is just a whole mess. Um otherwise they're just stuck in a vicious cycle that would lead to more fines and them breaking this so-called safe ordinance. So in conclusion, it's still not too late to, as Kyle said, pull that knife out and start healing that wound. All you have to do is drop these ordinances, stop wasting the public's time and their taxpayer money and resources, and do better.

Seconds remaining. Get yourself back on the Get yourself distance from your racist historical past and do better. It's never too late. Just drop the ordinances and yeah, I yield my time.

Thank you, Ross Fischer. My name is Ross Fischer. Uh I am the co-chair of Lancing Rent to Damn High and I'm here tonight to voice my opposition to the ordinances that are criminalizing homelessness. Um these are not uh solutions as a number of speakers uh have highlighted. Uh we know that there's already existing laws on the books and we don't need to be creating new laws um that uh criminalize um our homeless community. When I was looking at the agenda packet for tonight, I I saw a letter that referenced a uh some signage from the city of Roseville. It said say no to panhandling and and that's included in the agenda packet like that's supposed to be part of a a solution uh to this problem. These are not actual solutions. what our actual solutions are giving people housing um housing first and you as a city council um can advocate for those uh at the local level. You can advocate for those policies at the state level and the federal level. And uh I want you to do that because that's what we need and we need you to be focusing on the real solutions to these issues and not and not pursue criminalization. So, please um take the time and do the hard work that is necessary and we can actually seriously address these issues and make sure that um everyone uh has housing. So, thank you.

Thank you. Could I ask the audience members by the window there to please respect the rest of the members in the room and refrain from talking? Thank you. Uh Jeffrey Hank Uh, good evening, council. I'm here primarily to speak about item 5.7 and to engage in this democratic process with you here tonight. Um, I do want to clarify that someone sent a communication to council saying that me or an associate of mine would be comment on item 5.6. Uh, that is not the case. I was not engaged to do that and I think that was an innocent misunderstanding on someone else's part just in case anyone happened to note that. Um but the two agenda items do have an interesting juxiposition for me as not the only person but I know several people including one of my new neighbors who is here tonight um and whose uh wife submitted public comment to you uh that there are multiple people in my neighborhood in my situation that engaged in the democratic process and asked some of our council members actually I think all of our council members were invited to talk about this at one point um to listen to their constituent concerns and that's how good government works and how it should work. Um, so I'm one of the people in support of uh ordinance 5 uh agenda item 5.7 because in the 300 block of division, I'm one of the only non- rental properties on the block surrounded by rentals. Uh most people when they look at the map say it's obvious that my property and you heard from Jacqueline uh Genevy who wrote you a letter tonight. I hope you you got it. I think she spent it about 4:30. Uh uh in response to Mr. Mr. Wayan, I believe last meeting you asked, has anyone heard from my other neighbor? You heard from my prior neighbor who sold their house and had issues selling their house because the lack of a rental license and the character of our particular circumstances. Not the city as a whole, but our particular circumstances. Mr. Ashen Henderson, I know, submitted a communication to you. I hope you got that. Well, my new neighbors are also in support of this because anybody who

looks at it would say it's very rational and reasonable that there's a narrowly tailored solution that allows council to address a constituent uh concern. Um, and I thought a lot about what was said at the last meeting and Mr. Alman, Mayor Altman, you mentioned uh concern about exceptions. I've been thinking a lot about that because I'm hearing tonight about the project down the street from me, one block, that's looking for an exception on building height. An exception could be a dirty word, but it doesn't have to be because actually most laws probably should have exceptions. The First Amendment to the United States has at least 8 to 10 recognize exceptions. You can't engage in certain types of speech. The Fourth Amendment has a dozen or two dozen exceptions. I think Ben Franklin, Benjamin Franklin said something like a law that's so strict that's inflexible creates injustice. So exception doesn't have to be a dirty word if it's done with the right intention in the right circumstances. Everything's an individual case. And I've heard a lot about affordable housing here tonight. And that's what I want to provide. And I'm not asking for a tax handout. And I'm really not asking for an exception. I'm asking, as my neighbors are, to be able to just do what everybody else around us is doing, even in a more limited fashion. Because if I would only be able to get a twoerson rental license, that's two less people that are living in my home. and everyone uh who's uh including my neighbor who wrote this letter tonight who's looked at it and said, "Wow, you're the only family on a block. How do you deal with your kids living in this particular circumstances?" And I would invite the people that might be opposed to this to come come hang out with me on on St. Patrick's Day or a football game day or a warm Friday night and see what it's like and see if you would move your family into this circumstances. I said last time, I wouldn't do that today. I love being there. I love East Lancing. I don't want to sell my house. this is my home. Um, but it's not it's just not an ideal place to raise children. And I think that's it's pretty clear because nobody else

lives there that would do that. So, um, I speak again here tonight to say that there's an opportunity for me to provide affordable housing at dramatically lower rates than what a development down the street is doing. I'm not asking for a hand out. I'm not asking for tax incentives. I'm asking for a hand up. The other thing that's been going through my mind is this system as a whole as I'm hearing everybody talk about all these issues. And to me, the American dream can really boil down to what is the opportunity for the normal person such as myself, the average guy, the little guy, to have an opportunity for upward mobility. Does upward mobility exist or is that hope extinguished? I think for a lot of people in society it can be extinguished pretty easily and roadblocks can be thrown up and there maybe not a lot that the city government can do to create upward mobility for people but at times you can and and so when I think

I'm bringing that up because I think not just for this situation but any situation you should ask yourself are you contributing to that for the for the average person in this community um not just for people with wealth or money or power or privilege or position so uh I again appreciate the opportunity to participate in this democratic process this and I hope you vote tonight to move um agenda uh 5.7 forward. A lot of my neighbors I spoke to after last meeting that had concerns are less concerned after they understood the scope of what this would actually do. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Susan Canro. I guess I need to bring this down to my level. Um, good evening. Uh, I'm Susan Canro. I am, uh, and I greet you all, Mr. Mayor and council members. I know some of you from many years. Um, I am currently the executive director of Advent House Ministries. I've been there for 32 years and I'm not dead yet, so I'm still going, but I've been in human services for 40 years in this area. Um, I want to say having heard my uh fellow Lancing residents, I'm a Lancing resident, um, and folks who've been out there homeless with whom I have worked for these 32 years. Um, what you heard is about humanity and you've heard about a call to tolerance. uh we certainly need to suspend judgment of each other for reasons that are two-dimensional one-dimensional vision what we can't really tell about another human being but I will tell you this and I come to you with a solution because I have done my work for all these years from a vocation I'm not making money doing this that's not why I'm doing it that vocation is to work with people and to see people work together. We are working right now in Lancing around homelessness on the basis of

coexistence and I tell you that it works and it is an alternative to those resolutions or ordinances that you might put in place. They are not going to work. What works is coexistence. Our agency and other agencies in the area have served as bridges to allow that coexistence to occur. If you would find a way to allow agencies to provide staff who do frontline work to be here to work with folks while they work toward homeless out of homelessness but toward housing because it's not an easy goal. It will work. And I will tell you that the businesses in Lancing are happy with what we're doing. It's not perfect, but it works. And it's a solution. It is a much better solution for everyone's well-being and selfconcept than criminalizing and setting an oppositional environment up for people. So, I encourage you to consider that how that can be done. We were part of that here. We are no longer doing it. We don't have to be the one that does it, but it can be done and it works and it's a lot less expensive than putting people in jail and finding them when they can't pay those fines and it only ruins their reputation and their possibilities for the future. So, let's make the future better by looking at other options about cooperation and coexistence. And I tell you that not as a concept but as a practice and it is working and it can work here. Thank you.

Thank you Kath Edel.

Good evening. I just want to remind you all um we're on about hour I don't know 12 134 of public comment on these issues regarding ordinances 1565 and 1566 that were brought to you by the police chief which to me shows how out of touch she is with the people in this community and I hope you keep that in mind uh for all other issues. I'm running out of ways to say this, that the police and criminal injustice system are not the solution to social issues like poverty, mental health, homelessness, disabilities, and even solving more serious issues like retaliatory gun violence. There is a document included with the agenda item from Advanced Peace, which confirms several things. first that the ordinance is in fact the or the lording ordinance is in fact being proposed to keep black kids from hanging out downtown because they are all seen as gang affiliates. The second point is that if advanced feast is in fact addressing these issues, why do we need an ordinance that increases encounters with police which we know decre uh decreases officer safety as well as the safety of the youth involved? The last point I feel needs to be made is that unless Advanced Peace is funded independently of the city, there is a motivation to stroke white fear to assure future grants. Whether or not this is happening, it must be considered when evaluating the data. I want to say that I appreciate that these issues have been getting more attention and that they weren't pushed through as originally proposed indicates that this council has shown some willingness to listen and maybe do the work necessary to understand police are not the solution. And yet these are only two of so many other issues that need to be addressed. I spent a lot of time thinking about bringing up this ne next issue because when you talk about the criminal justice system and you bring in specifics, oftentimes you put an

individual up for retaliation. Many of us have experienced this being on police oversight. I have uh had my children followed, tailed, arrested. Um uh I've had online stalkers from the police department. Um, so and I think there's others in this room who have probably experienced similar things, but I spent time this week with a young man who's facing felony charges for having, excuse me, contraband in his car that he didn't know about and was placed there by someone else. The East Lancing Police Department searched his car because they observed some toy guns in his car. The search revealed an illegal item, a legal item that with intent can be considered an illegal item and the contraband. The owner of the contraband has already come forward and on record saying it's his and that his friend had no knowledge. Yet, in the police department and the prosecutors zeal to show they are fighting crime, this young man either has to plead guilty and say he intentionally planned to use the legal item as a weapon, which he didn't, or risk facing two felony charges for both items if he went to trial. Where I ask is the justice, where's the concern for the mental health impact of pleading to a crime he didn't commit? Having seen that played out over and over and over where young black men and women are just games to this city and this county prosecutors, I ask you, what are you doing to change this? The city prosecutor works for you. At what point do you demand fairness, compassion, and equity when you hire and evaluate your prosecutor? Just because the prosecutor can force people to make these types of choices does not make it right. Others take plea deals because they can't risk a public trial where they might lose their job or kids and they can't sit in

jail awaiting trial for face losing the same. This arose out of a young black man being profiled by ELPD whose chief has put a target on the backs of minorities. And now this young college student is forced to lie in a plea deal to avoid the possibility of a racial jury, a racist jury holding the same belief that he's a criminal by virtue of this color of his skin. The officers who arrested him and the police chief and the prosecutor are feeling justified in forcing him to make this move make this to move on with his life. The ordinances 1565 1566 need to be voted down entirely. You have 30 seconds.

No fines, civil infractions, no police involvement, loitering, sleeping, insisting in public are not crimes and to do not need a police solution. But all of this is only the tip of the iceberg when we are totally talking about reforming the police state and addressing the criminalization of blackness and brownness in our community. If you won't start with the police department, start with the prosecutor's office where winning is valued over justice every time.

Thank you, Cadia Ericson. Good evening everyone. I am Kadisha Ericson. I am the executive director of the Mid Michigan Tenant Resource Center. I'm also the housing chair for the Lancing branch NAACP. I'm back again to talk to you about the same thing. Um still against all the proposals for the camping ban and the parking structure. You've heard from many of my friends, neighbors, and colleagues why you should also be against these proposals on the books. I've talked to you, some of you, at least most of you, at some length, about other opportunities that are available to East Lancing that do not include any form of criminalization, no fines, no civil infractions. That's not a path we have to go down. I've said in the last meeting and I'll say it again here. There is real opportunity for East Lancing to get a hold on the homeless population to funnel them into housing that is sustainable and per permanent. And it would be cheaper over time to focus time, energy, and finances on that as opposed to anything that would involve police interaction with our unhoused neighbors or causing them to write tickets. That's more paperwork for them. Um, they don't want to be doing that work. They are trained to do other stuff on the job. None of them went to the police academy with the idea in their head that they would be looking out on the street for homeless encampments and moving them along, evicting them from their homes. What they have left after what society had to offer them failed, right? And so again, I just must implore you to continue

having conversations with myself, with my colleagues, with other advocates. All of the unhoused people and formerly unhoused people that spoke to you today are open to meetings with you. They would love to sit down with you and share their own ideas about how you could address the issue here. And in fact, I would encourage you to have those conversations with them. They're much closer to what it's like to be homeless than even I. My last time out on the streets was in 2019, just before COVID hit, right? And so it's been a long time. I'm I've moved into home ownership since the last time I was on the street, right? I got that hand up that I needed so that I could stabilize, so that I could move forward in life. And look where it got me. There are so many people just like me who just need a hand up. They may not be driving people to city council every week to tell you about an ordinance they don't like, but they will certainly be contributing to your community. They will be sending kids to your schools. They'll be raising the next generation. They'll be taking care of themselves, contributing in the ways that they can. It is so valuable that those people are able to actualize. They become peer recovery coaches. They go back and volunteer at the shelters at organizations like mine. So that people who are in a rough spot have someone that they know they can relate to. They can easily build trust with and walk on a journey that's very difficult with someone who knows every step they're about to take. we can be a part of a real solution. A model that could be followed nationally. A model that other people would pay attention to and maybe feel more encouraged, more emboldened to choose humanity and dignity over criminalization, which on the surface seems like the easier option, right? You just get them off the street, you get them in jail, you don't have to deal with it, right? There are programs in the jail, right? And when they leave jail, suddenly they'll be reformed and

ready to do what? Engage in an economy that is crumbling, find housing with a criminal record, which I mean, I don't know how many people could come up here and tell you that really impacts your ability to access housing. I want to lose my use my last minute to talk about what would happen if you went forward with any version of these proposals that even included the civil infraction because those do stack up. I have questions about how are you collecting those fines? When you have the fine and it goes unpaid, will you send it to a debt collection agency? And when you send it to that debt collection agency, are they going to report it to the credit bureau? And when they report it to the credit bureau, will they tank their credit score? And then how will they access housing even if they find stable employment? Even if they get everything together, how can they access housing when a poor credit score is one of the number one reasons that people are unable to access housing?

Every step that you are taking that causes you to be in tension and conflict with unhoused people will produce harm. And you don't have to do that at all. We've talked and talked and talked and I will keep talking because my unhoused neighbors are important. My house neighbors are important and when we take care of all of our neighbors, the community is so much stronger and better. So, I implore you to vote it down. Thank you.

Thank you, Matteline Lumis. Okay. Is this good? Okay. Um, so my name is Meline and I wanted to speak about my opposition to ordinances 1565 and 1566. I'm currently a student at MSU and I have lived in East Lancing for 15 years. I'm against 1565 because from my experience as someone who skates, an officer asking people to leave parking lots typically results in skaters leaving. There's no reason to find people in the scenario. Like generally people do not want to have negative interactions with the police and it's enough to politely askers to leave parking lots if they are deemed to be disruptive. Additionally and far more importantly the ordinance can be used against the homeless community members who are seeking shelter from the elements and who not do not have homes. The criminalization of homelessness um also pops up in ordinance 1566. And I think that the city should be focusing more on providing housing and opportunities for homeless people rather than criminalizing homelessness. In my own experience, I have seen housing prices in East Lancing rise by hundreds of dollars each year due to the lack of housing. My own unit was $600 nearly five years ago and today is $1,100 a month. This is because landlords know that residents do not have anywhere else to go. By providing access to subsidized housing, the city will not only upload uplift those who are struggling to find affordable housing, but also those who are struggling to pay for the housing that they currently have. Additionally, through the criminalization of using public spaces, the city will impact those who are not homeless. Those who um seem to be just hanging out could then have the police called on them and who are not doing anything harmful to the general community. Like as other people have mentioned, there is racialized policing that is involved. Um not to mention the historic use of laws like banning uh public loitering or vagrancy.

Vagrancy laws similar to this were enacted nationwide and particularly in the South following the Civil War to specifically target people of color. These laws only deepen problems faced by marginalized groups and do not help to create a more equal society. These laws hurt both people of color and homeless people. Uh the criminalization speaks to an uncomfortability with homelessness in East Lancing. But if the city is uncomfortable, they need to create an actual support system for homeless people rather than just pushing people out. If people are uncomfortable with homelessness, they should be providing homes. Thank you. Thank you, Edward Allen.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Edward Allen. I work with Aba House Ministries. I am the, uh, street outreach uh, team lead. Um I work in the downtown Lancing area um as a outreach uh worker. Um as you all know um such as um similar to East Lancing um the issue of homelessness. Um I see the same thing in downtown Lancing. um our agency um couple years a few years ago uh matter of fact um we've provided resources right here in the city of East Lancing um specifically to the parking uh structures into the downtown uh East Lancing areas. Um, since doing this job for 4 years, um, I've seen and have had successes in the downtown Lancing area. um specifically working with the businesses downtown um bridging the gap between the business owners um managers and also with the uh homeless population um in making efforts and to um not just bridging the gap but also making a connection to resources that are available as well. Um and since doing that, I've seen the successes of it um which um provided um positive outcomes to getting individuals uh housed. Um, I will speak to this. Um, working in East Lancing down in the downtown area, um, I've had clients in the past that I've, uh, personally have worked with, um, into getting resources and getting him connected and into getting housing. Um, one in particular, um, I had been in contact with him for about two years and in efforts of trying to make that connection and, uh, connect

the resources. um with the efforts of me uh continuously showing up um and the consistency uh that I provided um it allowed me to build a rapport for for over a span of two years um for him to be able to uh eventually want to seek out those resources um and actually get him connected uh with our um different housing programs that we have. um and um um to include that um just the efforts that our agency itself um provide. Uh that's just one of the um stories that we have. Um there's many other success stories that we have of individuals that we've helped uh throughout the community in Lancing uh get housing uh resources. So, I would uh urge uh this uh council and the mayor um to look at this. Again, I don't think that criminalizing homelessness is the solution. Um these are people, they are uh human beings with dignity and should be treated as such. Um I think that providing offering resources uh to them will be um helpful for them. But then also having those resources available uh specifically within the um East Lancing uh police department of the social workers um I think that with them making that connection and being assisted even with from agencies like ours um will also help bridge the gap. Thank you.

Thank you Julia Stoer. Hello. Um, I work in the city of East Lancing. My household pays $442 plus a processing fee that even the state secretary of state wouldn't charge me um, every year in income tax. In opposition to the proposed uh ordinances 1565 and 1566, I do not see why a scent of my tax dollars should go towards criminalizing the use of available parking space to seemingly the sole benefit of government sponsored debt collectors and an inde additional influx of houseless individuals into the prison slaves labor system. After all, slavery is perfectly legal in the United States if it if it is a punishment for a crime. The roads in East Lancing are far too full of holes for my tax money to be geared towards dehumanizing and criminalizing individuals of my community who are struggling to survive. Uh any given person in the US are often one or two paychecks away from becoming houseless. So, it's not lost on me how easily that could be me or my neighbor one day. While I have had the privilege of never being houseless, I am capable enough to realize that it could easily be anyone in that situation and have enough empathy and self-interest to be against criminalizing that struggle. And you should be capable of the same. If we are willing to spend tax dollars on solving problems related to the unhoused, may I suggest an unconditional temporary housing assistance program instead, where buildings are dedicated for the use of housing the unhoused or offer stipens for housing if buildings cannot be found. I'm sure there are many more options that don't involve criminalizing

poverty. If perceiving homeless people is the issue, you can easily solve this by housing them. And I don't mean in a jail or prison. If perceiving your neighbors in public spaces is the issue, get over it. I would like to encourage council members Ember Soul Singh, Griggsby, Wellin, and Meadows to not vote for any pathways of criminalization as they have stated because everyone in this room are here to hold them to account. Thank you.

Thank you, Jennifer Vin. Good evening, mayor and the member of the city council. My name is Jennifer and I'm here because of the violent assault that hap that was inflicted by the East Lancing police where two young men students were violently assaulted and illegally detained while simultaneously inflicting maze to the student surrounding. I stand before you today because the city council elected by the people meant to serve the people today as a member as as a member of this community. I am concerned and frustrated and deeply invested by what kind of city you the council are trying to turn East Lancing to be a city that kicks down our most vulnerable our most vulnerable for down or unhoused. A city where violence and corruption is not only allowed but rewarded with cover-ups. During welcome week, a time where the city's full of students, energy, and life, celebrating the pursuit of education, an incident that involved use of violent use of force was inflicted where was inflicted. And to add insult to injury, the officer that was involved was cleared internally. An investigation that was never made public, although the violence was public, although we the people paid for that investigation. But I want to ask cleared for who? cleared according to what standard and cleared in a way that rebuilds trust or reinstates corruption at our most local governmental level. Because for many of us, the working people, those that don't have money, influence, or the network, hearing that an officer was cleared does not bring comfort. It brings questions. It brings concerns. And it brings back a history that East Lancing cannot afford to ignore. East Lancing is not separate from that history. This is a college

town. Yes, but is also a space where power, race, age, and authority intersect in very real ways. Where students, especially black students, students of color, and young people are often navigating these systems that don't always make us feel safe. That were initially built to protect us. And here mo in moments like this we don't just doesn't doesn't just end when an it doesn't just end when an internal report is written. These moments of violence they stay with the people. They shape us whe they shape us whether we begin to trust the city. They shape whether someone trusts authority. They shape whether someone believes in the city is truly here for them. And right now this trust feels fragile because pepper spray is not a small action. It is violence. It is assault. It causes pain. It causes fear and it causes harm. And when it is used in spaces specifically filled with students and members of the community, we deserve more than a quiet internal investigation, more than a quiet internal conclusion. We deserve transparency. We deserve accountability. And we deserve to see not just be told that violence is done. But what makes this moment even more concerning is that it does not just stand alone. At the same time that we are asked to trust internal in decisions about the use of force, we are also seeing conversations and policy that move forward to further criminalize houselessness in the city. And that matters because it tells a story about priorities. It tells us it tells us who is seen as a problem and who is worth protecting. When a city begins to treat its most vulnerable residents, people experiencing houselessness as as they are vermin, as they are to be regulated, pushed out, and punished for already being in unfortunate circumstances.

While it further asks us to trust the systems and law enforcement without transparency, the same law enforcers that has actively harmed and caused injustice towards us, the people. This not only further weakens the trust but it breaks it. And let's be fair clear people experiencing houselessness are not criminals. They are members of this community. They are people who deserve dignity, care and support, not further surveillance or punishment and policing. Because at its core, the police is meant to serve the people. The council is meant to serve the people, all people. Not just people that are comfortable, not just the powerful, but the vulnerable, too. specifically meant to serve the vulnerable in this community. So when we see use of force in not just one situation but further pushing other situations, it creates a pattern where law enforcement where where law enforcement expands but trust does not. A pattern where authority is protected and community is not centered. And for this and for this this is why this advocation matters mo the most because the council has a choice. You can treat those you can treat these as separate issues or you can recognize them as being connected by something deeper. The question is who is the city truly?

Thank you for your comments. Your time has expired. Uh Michael Lynn.

Hello. Thank you. Uh Michael in Lancing resident, CEO, Lancing Empowerment Network, uh coordinator for Lancing 360 Gun Violence Collaborative. Um what's up, Chuck? It's good to see you up there, brother. We've been a long road. Um I wanted to just touch base real quick on this this proposals that are here for you guys um consideration. Um, I'm not surprised at all the community outlash or outcry and all that's being said. Um, and I I just am really kind of surprised when people just act as if East Lancing is who they've always been. I'm 44 years old. East Lancing has always been a no-go space. Even when I was in the streets uh dealing with, you know, all the things that you guys have described in the paperwork, we didn't we didn't come out here uh for that intentionality. Although sometimes fights broke out, usually it was the white boys knocking each other out in the streets and it wasn't us. We was terrified of this environment. Um, and it seems it's it's still that way. Uh, our 360 meetings, we talk about gun violence and gun violence prevention, intervention, supports, as well as enforcement. And your guys's chief Jen Brown has been there a couple times and our couple of the social workers have been there. Um, and they, you know, sporadically come to that space. And so it was disturbing as I was in an advanced peace meeting today and I heard a conversation about them and their work being mentioned in this ordinance conversation. And I was uh along with Advanced Peace as it as it um sailed from Richmond to Lancing. I was there at the very beginning of it and throughout this entire process have been there and I really would rather you all not use it as a political pawn in any aspects of what you guys are doing. There has to be a community trust with this work. Uh I I read at the very be bottom of the the 26th page at the very bottom that Advanced Peace needs to have a continued relationship with East Lancing Police Department. And it's the first thing Devon would tell you is that there is no partnerships there because they can't get fellas to trust them if they believe that that's true. So you guys have to stop committing harm when you don't know any better. And so sometimes you can do that unwillingly or unknowingly. Uh but

you're now being told. So I think that you all uh criminalizing, loitering, or any of those certain things are all going to be used disproportionately against black people. You guys already got a huge problem with that. Giving law enforcement here to refuse to take accountability for any of their actions right in y'all's face, right in our face, is terrifying to me, even worse than when I was 17, 18 years old and coming out here. You've got to get control of that aspect before you give them more power uh to walk up to somebody and put handcuffs on them. If you're not going to do that, you're just setting yourselves up for more lawsuits. And you know, you know, for the families who have to do that and go that route, I know what that takes. It took me six years to get to the end of mine. Um, and I'm still not healed from that process. And so, also, as being somebody who was 18 years old and lost a friend to the Lancing Police Department uh to 11 shots and a bullet in his head, I can tell you that I know what that trauma feels like as well. This was uh that incident occurred because of a false uh a false call to 911 uh that ended up in a police chase and and 11 bullets and a gunshot to the head. Uh, and we lost an 18-year-old young man. So, every time you give these people an opportunity to have uh to have interactions with our young men, specifically our black and brown young boys, and you're not putting any parameters or accountability on them, I'm terrified. And I show up like Batman out here when y'all do that type of stuff. We got to have some accountability before you do any any more of those things. And anything that you put in place by way of ordinance, I'm always been going to be concerned it's going to be used disproportionately against us. Uh, I can't tell you how many times, even as a grown man in East Lancing, I've been told to move along. Why? Why? Why do I need to move along? That question alone would get me locked up out here after you guys passed that ordinance. Uh, so I just would I would just uh ask you guys to think twice on that. I would ask Jen Brown to continue her uh if if this is a concern, gun violence is a concern, uh, continue to show up at the collaboration meetings. Every week, somebody asks why you aren't here. Uh, and that meeting is open to all of you all and anybody in the

public. There's a Zoom link you can catch. You can go to empower lancing.org and find us there or the lancing empowerment network on Facebook and find this. We are very accessible. About 85 people show up to this space. Gun violence is happening in our city. Tremendously happening in our city. You guys have like a first world issue out here. We really have that problem in Lancing. And so we're attacking that problem. Your your guys' problem. I think the solution to your problem is funding CVI work, not creating ordinances. So if you want there not to be any violence out here, fund the work where it's happening at. I think it written in there that the folks that are out here you guys believe are from are from Lancing, then help jump in jump in the pot over here in Lancing. That's so disruptive as well. I can see the clock.

Um jump in Lancing's pot for homelessness and for the gun violence prevention. We're doing that work out there. So that's where the resources are. Um outside of that, please do not politicize this work. Keep us out of your out of that conf that conversation. It can make things harmful for us. Uh, do your work without creating harm is the best way I can say. Uh, Chuck, really proud to see you up here, man. We went through a lot a lot of work and that police commission that you all were a part of getting going. Uh, give us some power.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is expired now. Paul Martin. Paul Martin. Last name Worcester. Uh uh good evening. Thank you for your time. I appreciate that. Um I myself am not an East Lancing resident. Um I was I was in a camp in Lancing, uh Dedric Park, one of the few hold outs of that. And I'd like to reiterate on what that last gentleman said and the fact that the racist aspect is very real. Not that I've experienced it personally, but we've seen it and we know it's we know it's true. You can't have this. You can't do this. You can't take away you're taking away people's right to try to survive. in this most basic form. What do you need? Food, shelter, water, right? Then maybe you could build on yourself. If you're going to loitering goes a little far, doesn't it? How do you define loitering? You're just hanging out a little too long, aren't you? Yeah. Well, maybe it's cuz you don't have anywhere else to go. Maybe it's cuz you can't. Good luck in a job when you don't have an address or a place to shower or phone to call. Good luck with that. Get

yourself together like that, right? That's Do you really think that's going to click? Probably not. That being said, um it's not good your it's not your best interest to start uh maybe discounting your less than fortunate citizens. It's not at all. It's not a good idea. It's going to lead to horrible other things and more police size. Sorry. If you look at the money that you would save from not doing this, you'd probably be smiling at yourselves right now. The more you the more you police people, the more they the more you isolate people like that, the less you help people like that, the more you spend on medical police actions, certain things. If you're not on the street all the time, then you probably not getting the cops called on you every day either, are you? Right. All that guy's sleeping here. I don't like the Sorry. Get nowhere else to sleep. Does that seem fair to you now? You're going to make that a criminal action. You are going to make that a criminal action. You're going to put yourself in that situation. Somebody else had already said this. You're any one of us in this room could be two weeks away from a a bad paycheck and whoops.

And there you are, buddy. Here you are, friend. Uh, that being said, have a have a good night, guys. Thank you. Sandra Seaton. Sorry, I'm almost sir. Did you want to use the rest of your time? There's another speaker. Thank you. My apologies. Not not good stuff. Did you call Sandra Seat?

I did.

Thank you. I remember speaking about the um proposed uh proposal from TD T acquisitions a while ago. I don't remember the last time it came up, but I'm just reading it over. And it says, "For approval of a new building with height exceeding eight stories, so on Albert Avenue. The applicant request is to construct a 13-story development consisting of one, two, and three bedroomedroom multifamily dwellings, groundf flooror commercial, and two levels of interior parking. I just had to read that over because I'm I'm not sure what's changed. Um and the first time I reviewed it, we raised four kids in East Lancing. I've lived here since 1971. And I'm I'm not here to talk about that experience. It would take hours to talk about my kids used to go to Hannah and you know so on so on. We're not interested in that right now. But I did grow up on the west side of Chicago. I saw projects where kids had no place to play. So I had to use my imagination to figure out how this would work for families, multifamilies. Um any I think about Cababrini Green the projects in Chicago

and we have this building in downtown East Lancing and this really doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect most of the people I know because I really to tell you the truth. I don't know anybody. I haven't heard anybody talk about moving in once it's completed. But I need to use my imagination to think about some things. One of them is where do these kids play? Um I picture kids playing in the hall. Uh, and then I heard the last time there was supposed to be a small community room. And what's that about? You know, um, is that where teenagers would go after school? We've got parents working. So, are they going to be out in downtown East Lancing? Where are they going to hang out? you know, and of course it's going to be very tanalyzing to try to hang out with uh college kids. Um, so for various reasons, reasons that I just mentioned, I don't see this working out at this location for downtown East Lancing, not to mention our small businesses there. But I just don't see this working out as a place for families. I think there just have to be other locations in East Lancing where you can have a building of this size where kids can actually have a decent life. I I just don't see it happening in

downtown East Lancing. Uh where are folks going to shop? We talk about the price of gas now. So where do we envision family shopping and they'd have to have a car? I guess that's that's my concern. And as I said, I keep trying to use my imagination to try to figure out how this would work in downtown East Lancing without turning into a really bad social experiment and I just do not see it and I thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Um, I have several slips for the hearings that are coming up. Apart from those slips, is there anybody else in the room who would like to address the council during public comment? Okay. Do we have any callers? We have three callers in the queue. Caller with the phone number ending in 595, you are now permitted to address council.

Hello. Um

my name is Erica Lynn and I live in Lancing. Um, but I also work in community violence prevention, intervention, and support. Um, and I do so using a public health approach. It is something that I very, very deeply believe in. Um, and I just wanted to speak tonight to acknowledge something that, uh, I think isn't talked about enough, and that's that Lancing and East Lancing are sister cities. Um, I think our communities are very deeply connected. There are so many people that live in in one and work in the other. They may go to school there. They have family between both cities. Um, we all spend money in both places. We have relationships in both places. And so the decisions that you all make in that room don't just affect these lancing, they affect us, too. Um, and I I decided to speak tonight because the two ordinances that you're considering tonight. Um, I mean, you've heard the public comment. They're obviously extremely problematic, but it's not just that they're problematic. They're inhumane. Um, you know, I would classify them as one being criminalizing poverty and and the other one is a a green light to racially discriminate, to overp police, to racially profile. And I think presenting those as solutions to public safety is so disingenuous. Um, the camping ordinance, I mean, we're literally talking about it making it illegal for humans, for people to exist outside when they don't have stable housing. If someone is sleeping outside because they have nowhere else to go, they clearly do not have the money to pay a fine to be cited, um they don't have the capacity to be charged with the misdemeanor that's going to throw off any path of stability that they may be on. Um but the most important thing is it's not going to solve the the unhoused um you know quote unquote issue that you have because it doesn't actually create housing. It's not connecting people to any services. what you're doing is you're just pushing people somewhere and

and I want us to be honest about where that somewhere is. That's Lancing. So directly asking you all, how can you justify absolving yourselves of the responsibility for the unhoused members of your own community? Like h how do you justify that you're not attempting solutions that are going to support those people? Um there are there's there are way too many people in your community and in ours that are doing this work that are taking housing first strategies that's doing outreach. They've spoken tonight. We all know where the most of the resources are. They're in Lancing. So you have to know what this looks like. It looks like East Lancing has decided that it doesn't want to deal with a quote unquote problem and they're willing to push human beings into a neighboring city. And I want to just say that these aren't problems. These are people. They're your neighbors. They are members of your community whether you like it or not. And just because you push them out, it is not out of sight, out of mind. They still exist and they still deserve your support. Um, I also just want to acknowledge the the the lording ordinance. That's an even deeper concern for me. Um, I read in one of the in this in the very bottom line, the the staff memo part that it's meant to give police the authority to move people along and it cites advanced peace work. that type of work, community violence intervention, street outreach. It's the kind of work that is a public health strategy and it is designed to support the small number of people that are at most risk of being involved in gun violence. And the entire point of that work is the point of it is trust and support. It is not a green light for over policing or for enforcement. So when you're basically putting a vague move people along law, because that's what an ordinance is. it's a law that's going to get enforced that that means that young black men that are gathering or hanging out or existing becomes loitering and now their simple presence

is a suspicion and I just have to ask how dare anyone and especially you all take a community rooted violence you know prevention intervention strategy that is meant to support these people and twist that into justifying a policy that you know is going to increase racial disparities and the overp policing that you know exists already in your community. So I just ask you to really all everyone ask yourselves that if you all were really serious about public safety true public safety this solution your solutions would look so much different. uh you would be partnering 30 seconds initiative.

You would be sitting at the Lancing 360 gun violence prevention collaborative every week where there are leaders, providers, service providers, everybody working every week to address root causes of violence and you would be co-creating solutions across our communities instead of pretending that they stop at a boundary or they belong on one side of the of the other. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Next caller, please. caller. Caller with a phone number ending in 449. You are now permitted to address counsel.

Hello, I'm Chantel Spears. I'm here to oppose your efforts to penalize to penalize homelessness whether it be through civil infractions or criminalization. Penalizing people for being unhoused is as nonsensical and ineffective as using a band-aid to fix a broken femur that requires surgery and a body cast. It is as ridiculous as treating cancer with chicken noodle soup instead of scientifically supported interventions such as chemotherapy. Indeed, finding and penalizing homelessness has garnered no scientific support whatsoever. But what has garnered scientific support is a housing first approach to homelessness. In fact, we have dramatically reduced homelessness in general and among veterans in particular by utilizing this approach. Housing first refers to an intervention where people are housed first and then given the resources they need to remain housed. The housing first approach stands in contrast to other punitive measures that are ineffective such as criminalization, civil infractions, and the treatment first approach. Treatment first refers to a homeless intervention where people are required to attain mental wellness and sobriety as a condition for being housed. But how well do you suppose this approach worked for people who became mentally unwell and developed alcoholism and substance use disorders as a result of experiencing homelessness as many people do? How well do you think this approach works for the majority of people experiencing homelessness who do not suffer from mental illness, alcoholism or substance use disorders? Housing first is not only more effective

than criminalization, civil infractions, and other punitive measures, but it is significantly cheaper. People tend to remain housed with this approach, and it costs about half the price. I would implore you to change your attitude and view housing as a human right, not a commodity. Housing provides a secure base from which to function. Without it, everything about a person's life is compromised. Their ability to live in dignity, to be safe and secure, their ability to hold a job, their ability to remain mentally and physically well, and their ability to maintain optimal social functioning. I would like to tell you about my personal experience of homelessness. Six years ago, I lost my housing or I I'm sorry. Six years ago, I lost my career through no fault of my own. I had no money and nowhere to go. So, I moved out of state to live with my best friend in Arizona. However, he died unexpectedly of diabetes 6 weeks later while I was on vacation. I couldn't bring myself to go back to my apartment because my best friend died in our shower. I went homeless afterwards because I was born to people who don't love me. My family had no problem with me living in my car. I remember the first night I spent homeless. It was in a Meer parking lot in January 2020 when the windshield was 5 below zero. I did not have enough money to run the heat in my car. I had no winter coat. My family had no problem with me living in my car like that. They also had no problem with the fact that I was stalked for a full year and

almost abducted by a sexual predator because I was living in my car. Eventually, because I was almost abducted, I found my way to Lancing because there was an opening at the city rescue mission, our horribly homophobic and prejuditial local shelter. However, to my dismay, I had to leave the shelter because they refused to accommodate my medical disorder, as they do with most people with medical disabilities. For the next few for the next few years, I found myself living outside in my car again, waiting for my housing voucher. If I was in East Lancing in the ordinances,

30 seconds remaining, I would be in jeopardy if facing civil infractions and other punitive measures because I went homeless because my housemate died and I was born to an abusive, hateful family who refused to offer any support. I would be penalized for having to live outside because people in our shelter system hate people with disabilities and refuse to accommodate them. But I was fortunate enough to live in a city where there were not punitive, nonsensical ordinances against homelessness like the ones you're proposing. Thank you for your comments. Could we have the next caller, please?

Caller with the phone number ending in 264. You are now permitted to address council.

So, my name is Audrey Wlette. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

I'm I'm gonna I'm speaking because I'm homeless. I have lived on the streets for eight years. I live in my car. I've lived in a tent in the woods. I have witnessed a community of people who are trying to survive. And criminalizing people just trying to survive is not the solution to the homeless issue. These people, I'm me, I we're just trying to survive. We're trying to get through one day at a time and we don't need the pressure of being afraid to sleep in our cars in the Walmart parking lot or to sleep in a tent. We don't have any options. The house there's not enough housing and if there is housing then we aren't getting paid enough to to rent that housing. And then you choose as a as a community of people who should be taking personal responsibility to help the poor. You have chosen to criminalize us for being poor. And that is absolutely ridiculous. We have no choice. How many jobs do I need to work? I already work two jobs. I can't I can't physically work more jobs. I I what is going on where we think it's okay to criminalize people for being poor? Anyways, have a wonderful day.

Thank you. Are there any more callers? Andreas Martin, you are now permitted to address council. What do you think? East Lancing, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

Nice. Okay. Uh, yeah, bear with me. It's 3:00 in the morning. I'm calling from France at the moment. And yeah, Mayor Elkman and honorable council, I'm addressing the item 56 on your agenda and I'm representing the Wagner group. Uh yeah, it's almost 3:00 in the morning as I said and I care too much about East Lancing to flee through this important boat that you are planning today. We all want a thriving downtown. No question about that. But as we can hear from maybe the celebrations tonight on the streets, uh the streets of East Lancing, as I know, are pretty packed on those days, game days, all celebrations. Cars and people are blocking the streets of East Lancing already and it's at capacity. So adding 55 more residents to the downtown area in one in one block, it's insane. I have no other words than than that. Uh yeah, on top with uh zero reserve parking isn't just a tight fit. It's a long-term safety and congestion issue for all of us. More importantly, we have to look at the reach of our safety teams like the fire fire department, our ELD heroes. Um

they are equipped well but uh they are limited. So they have a 101 ft limit on their aerial trucks, but this building is uh 150 ft. And Mr. Dietrich is asking for even higher buildings I guess with the exception um you are planning to give him maybe which again is insane. We shouldn't be building higher than our safety equipment can go. No question about that. Maybe someone from the fire department is uh in the room and will back me on this on this safety matter that we should all care about. So, council, uh you mentioned on March 4th that this plan still feels incomplete. That's your words, not mine. Let's not rush uh yes on a 4.2 million buyout from Mr. Dri and his developer team when the safety of East Lancing is on Jeopardy, the parking and the technical details are not ready yet and the whole project is just just a mess from an outside perspective that I want to give you today. So I want to conclude and wish you all a happy Thanks St. Patrick's Day. Say stay. Sorry. Stay stay safe tonight. Thank you for your time and your attention from the Wagner Group. I respectfully ask the honorable council to wait to vote no on this insane project. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other callers? Ariana McDaniels, you are now permitted to address council. Um it looks like they have left. So that those are all the callers in the queue.

Those are all our callers. All right. Thank you. Uh Kathy Dashambo. Kathy Dashambo, um, resident at 997 Longfellow Drive and retired parks, recreation, arts, and government buildings director for the city of East Lancing. Good evening, Mayor Alman, Mayor Prom Griggsby, council members. Every community is fortunate when it has a public servant who dedicates not just years but heart, wisdom, and integrity to its success. And for East Lancing, that person has been planning, building, and housing director and current acting city manager, Annette Irwin. As director Irwin prepares to retire after more than three decades of service to the city of East Lancing, it is hard to fully capture the depth of her impact on this community. Over the course of her career, she has become not only an exceptionally capable leader, but also a trusted colleague, mentor, and friend to so many. Annette represents the very best of public service. She is known for her integrity, her intelligence, her deep engagement in the work of this community. She brings professionalism, humility, and care to everything she does. And through decades of service, she has developed a wealth of historical and institutional knowledge about East Lancing. knowledge that has guided countless decisions and helped shape the city that we know today.

But what truly sets Annette part apart is not only what she knows, it is how she leads. Her leadership has always been humble, thoughtful, and grounded in a genuine commitment to the residents of this community. always centering what is best free lancing. She empowers others, she listens carefully, communicates clearly, and holds herself to the highest ethical and professional standards. Director Irwin's tremendous communication skills, her thoughtful approach to problem solving, and her steady presence have made her one of the most trusted public servants this city has known. She is a tireless and loyal champion of this entire community, forever promoting all the best East Lancing has to offer. Director Irwin has a superpower. If you have had the privilege of collaborating with Annette or of being in a meeting with Annette, you likely have experienced Annette's superpower. She raises her hand and she asks questions without fear or hesitation and she asks the right questions. So often she is asking the one question in the room that makes everyone pause and realize we should probably think about this a little more carefully. Time and again, Annette has been able to see around corners, raising thoughtful, insightful questions that help identify challenges before they become problems. Whether by drawing on her deep understanding of the city's history or by encouraging careful consideration of decisions, she has helped avert countless potential issues. She never

hesitates to raise her hand or engage in the difficult conversations when necessary. And because of that willingness, many problems have been solved or prevented entirely for the benefit of this community. Annette's superpower has served this community well. It is my hope that those who remain to do the work follow Annette's lead. Raise your hand. Ask the questions with confidence and without fear. consistently stepping forward to take on the tough work has evidenced in her position yet again this week as acting city manager in what is her last week with the city. Director Irwin so often taking on the difficult and definitely the thankless but undeniably needed tasks and she has always done so with professionalism,

positivity and much appreciated humor. a Spartan through and through. And Annette has also played a vital role in maintaining one of the most important partnerships our city has that between the city of East Lancing and Michigan State University. I'm going to run out of time so I'm going to run to the end um to say Annette, thank you for your extraordinary service to the city of East Lancing. Congratulations on a retirement that is so richly deserved and may the journeys ahead be every bit as rewarding as the one you have shared with this community. East Lancing has been extraordinarily fortunate to have you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Heather Pope.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members. For more than 30 years, I've had the privilege of working along alongside Annette Irwin, a rem remarkable colleague and an even more extraordinary friend. Her dedication to public service has been remarkable. She's the kind of person who shows up every day ready to work hard, solve problems, and make things better for the East Lancing community and everyone around her. But what truly sets an apart is her kindness. She always looks out for her co-workers, offering support, encouragement, and a genuine desire to see others succeed. Her presence has shaped our workplace in ways that'll be felt long after she retires. When she took the role of director of planning of planning, building and development, she once again demonstrated the strength of her leadership, she guided the department with clarity, steadiness, and an unwavering commitment to creating a stable and supportive work environment. Her ability to balance high expectations with a genuine care for her team made her not only an exceptional leader, but a trusted mentor and friend. Annette and I have supported each other throughout the years through personal and work challenges, celebrations, and everything in between. Those moments of leaning on each other, cheering each other on, and navigating life side by side has created a bond I will always treasure. While I'll miss her dearly, I'm also excited to see what this next chapter brings for her. She has earned every bit of joy and adventure that comes her way, and I can't wait to hear about all the wonderful things she chooses to pursue. A career like hers is rare. A friend like her is even rare. Thank you, Annette.

Thank you for your comments. And that concludes communications from the audience. Uh, next item on the agenda is communications from mayor and council members. Council member Whan, due to the extremely late hour and there's so much business to be done, I will defer. Council member Meadows.

Okay. Okay, I'm not going to quite defer because uh you know I probably have worked with Annette longer than any other council member. So, I'm a little emotional about her leaving. And I told her I wish she'd stay at least as long as I'm going to be here. But she's ready to go. But I I want to just uh say how much of a pleasure it has been to work with you all these years. What a fantastic person you are and what a resource probably for every member of the staff in this city because of the way that you operate and the knowledge that you bring to the table on just about everything. So thank you for your service. I hope uh your retirement is uh short and you'll be back here really quickly, but I know that you've got uh great plans going forward. So, I love you. I I'm sorry that you're leaving. So,

thank you, Council Me or Mayor Pam Greg Griggsby.

Uh it's kind of hard to follow that up, Mark. Um but uh I I just wanted to speak to uh some of the comments that we had tonight. Um and then obviously some of the discussion will be with some of the our agenda items we have later that I'll address. But I wanted to thank the audience members for coming in and um really talking to us about their truth and about what's important to them. I think uh the word uh phrase been has been coming up uh democratic process um is kind of really what's been sticking out my mind when it comes to some of the things that I heard tonight. And uh not to get too long-winded, but you know, I I came to East Lancing in 2016 with my family, uh young family at the time, and uh really we really loved it. My wife grew up here and uh we just call it home. we're in the home that uh she grew up in and we're just blessed to be here. Um but soon as I got here, I wanted to get involved with something that was important in the community. I wanted to be a part of a lot of the things that were going well in East Lancing. As I got educated with the history and some of the different things that East Lancing was about, there were some things that needed to be worked on. And some of those things um um I was able to get involved. I was fortunate enough to be able to participate in those things by various commissions and working on specific issues in the city that uh I was very passionate about. Uh some of you may know that um my work um my career is really based off social and justice issues and really advocating for equity and uh fairness when it comes to some of those issues. And so when I came here, that was obviously something that I wanted to improve upon um here in our city. And um I got involved and I'd like to think with a lot of help from a lot of people surrounded with me uh in those goals, we were able to get a lot done

and um subsequently I did that for a little while, had tremendous success. We got to a certain point where we had a lot of first um in my advocacy here in East Lancing and then I ran for office and then um I fell short by 300 and some votes. I decided then to spend time with my family, my son who is now a senior in high school. Um I wanted to really be around for him for those last few years of his high school and some of the events that he had. And so I took a break from public work. As I took that break um with specifically to the issues that I brought up tonight, I saw with some of our leadership and the way that um policies and procedures were deteriorating in regards to social and justice issues. And that was partly one of the reasons why I ran. And luckily I was fortunate enough to get elected this time and those issues um and that work is very dear to me and I am working on those issues. but just in a different capacity. And so for the people who have seen me work in the capacity from before, um it's different now. And um an opportunity to work with some wonderful people and staff to work on some of those different things. So I want to just say that out loud. I think that when it comes to some of the things that you're passionate about, some of the things that are important to you, um, fortunately, but unfortunately, you get put in the place where you, um, are responsible for some of the different things historically that have gotten to where we are to now. So, um, I I like to ask for, uh, you to continue to speak out. I'd like to ask for you guys to continue to speak with me um and speak on those issues like you have and so that we can come to a solution together going forward. So, I just wanted to really say that just to make sure that

everyone understands where I sit from what you know about me to where I am today. And again, I just am really fortunate to be in this seat here. um as one of the um members in the audience knows where I came from um and how hard it's been to get here and I see this as a great opportunity and uh this work is very very important to me and that uh I can just assure you all that anything and everything that comes before me that's important to you I will be there to listen and do to the best of my ability to address those concerns. Thank you.

Thank you council member Singh. Yes, I too want to um thank everyone who came out uh and provided public comment this evening. I do want to at least note one piece um because I know when there's issues on the ballot uh or ballot I got elections on my mind. uh when there's um issues on the agenda um we have heard in many public comments like well why aren't you doing housing first why aren't you there's other solutions that we should be seeking um and I just want to note that um you know one of the items that are on our consent agenda this evening 3 um 311 um is a resolution of the council um to request congressionally directed spending requests um to install fall prevention and that connects directly to um the parking structures and some of the safety issues that um unfortunately we've seen in the last year um with three suicides um between our parking structures as well as um a structure on MSU's campus. So we are pursuing multiple uh levers to help support the community and this is just one example of those and some of the safety concerns at large um that are happening in the structures. But there'll be more discussion I'm sure um when we hit the agenda, but I just wanted to note that that piece is on our consent agenda this evening.

Thank you. Um, so you may have heard that uh Annette Irwin is retiring, our acting city manager. Um, Annette is an encyclopedia for housing issues and many other issues. And it's always hard to watch an encyclopedia walk out the door. Uh but more than that, Annette is the colleague that everybody wants and also that everybody wants to be. I have got off the phone after a call with Annette or left a meeting with Annette numerous times and wished I could muster that degree of competence and clarity of perspective and calm. City government can be chaotic from time to time. It's rarely not actually. and whatever else is going on, Annette surveys the landscape and she sees a path and she follows it. And that's what I want to be able to do when I grow up. So, thank you and congratulations. We will miss you terribly. And it is my honor tonight to convey a legislative tribute from the governor and the lieutenant governor. Pulling a rabbit out of the hat here.

And with that, the city manager's report. Miss Irwin,

thank you. So, my cheeks are pink and I'm a little warm. Thank you to everyone who said such kind words um this evening. I really really don't feel worthy of the accolades that were given. Um I really do just try to do the best I can when I come to serve this community. I first fell in love with East Lancing as a college student visiting from another college and then I met the man I married who grew up in East Lancing. So I sometimes have said uh I married into the city but it has been an honor to work here. The experiences I have received are many that I never imagined I I would. the people I have met beyond what I can explain. Um the opportunities that I have received, the opportunities that I was able to take to represent the city of East Lancing really across the country and once even Canada. So I um I will always be grateful for my time in my work here. What I most will be grateful for are the people that I worked alongside of all these years. I have worked with some of the most amazing people. People that take their work very very seriously and worry every day about the community and the work they are doing and really trying to do the best they can. I hired in as a part-time employee in a brand new position that had never been at the city before and have held many, many different positions throughout the years. I was fortunate to work for some great people and some great managers. I hired in under Theodore Stton, who was

the city manager at the time. I've uh I've had an awesome opportunity to work with many of our elected officials who have also done all they can do to try and represent this community and make things better for those who of us who live, work, and play here. It's a great city to raise your family, to work, to play. I've always said that living in a college town or working in a college town is amazing. Your family gets opportunities that you can't imagine and especially in a city like East Lancing. You know, this isn't a big college town. We're a small college town. So, gee whiz, in 15 minutes I can see worldclass theater. In 15 minutes, my girls got to see world-class athletes. They went to writing classes in the summertime. They looked at astrology. They also would go to eat breakfast and see the guy that won the national championship and think of him as just another guy in town and if he can do it, they could certainly do great things, too. And I used to tell the students when I would speak or to their parents at orientation that it is one of the great things of living in this city is having those students who interact with our families every year and are an example of what we can all accomplish. So, I um I thank you all. Now, um to get on to the real business a hand, I wanted to give a couple of announcements on behalf of the city manager or as acting city manager. It is uh soon to be spring. I know the last two days doesn't quite feel that way, but soon to be spring. And with that, I know we all get concerned about rain. There's a lot of discussion about flooding. And I just wanted to uh give a reminder to folks to

go to east lancingfloodstudy.com, visit the site to get many answers to some of your questions. Also, you can share feedback and the deadline is Sunday, April 5th. So, that's coming up fast. So, uh please visit that website and um give your feedback. I also want to share that the dialogue has gone out in the mail. Many of you probably have gotten it. If you haven't, you'll get it in the next day or so, I'm sure. Please take a look at the dialogue. Lots of great information in it. Crystal Award nominations are open. The deadline is Friday, so this Friday. So, please take an opportunity to go on the website, look for Crystal Award nominations, and fill out that form. Also, I wanted to bring to your attention tomorrow uh at 12:59, no panic, but there will be a cell phone test alert for se severe weather awareness week. So, we'll all get an alert on our cell phones and there also will be the um countywide outdoor warning sirens activated. So, this all a test. Uh let's hope it's all a test now that I say that. Our plan is it's all in a test and there won't be severe weather tomorrow. I also want to thank the fire department for their dedication to assisting residents, especially on some of the days recently where they've had a very high run call in making uh uh calls uh backtoback without a lot of breaks. Um and it is the season of spring where more of that kind of work I know uh comes along. And so uh on behalf also of Mr. Bellamin. I wanted to be sure the fire department um heard our thank you and under we understand their dedication to assisting all of our residents. Lastly, I want to recognize that this is

Women's History Month. um on our consent agenda there will be a notation of that and it also if you take the time to read it which I encourage you to there's been 16 women that have served as on our city council or as mayor or mayor prom 16 total since the first city council in 1907 they've played large roles for such a small group of women and we appreciate their time and uh effort that they have also given to our community and they will serve as leaders for the next generation of women who want to take up uh this activism in the city and volunteer their time. So I thank them and that is oh no sorry sorry one more thing today is national social workers day. If you go on our Facebook page, you will see a notation to the social workers. We in the city of East Lancing are proud to have three social workers that work with the city. And we cannot forget Silus, our comfort K9. This year's theme is social work, uplift, defend, transform to honor the prime mission of the profession. Social workers are committed to enhancing human well-being, meeting the basic human needs of all people, and putting special attention on the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. Please help us in thanking Hannah Taylor and our intern, Kylie, today, as well as our favorite our favorite dog, Silus, in the city of East Lancing. many in our organization and our departments go to them and seek help in trying to serve our residents here as we do our work throughout the day. Now I am done.

Thank you. City attorney's report, Mr. Jopic. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um uh I have no report this evening otherwise other than to say congratulations to Annette and express my appreciation for only worked with her for eight months. That's the extent of the pleasure I've had to work with her, but she played a large role in orienting myself and many of the attorneys that are working with the city uh when we were brought in. So, thank you and congratulations. Thank you. That brings us to item number three, the consent agenda. Miss Irwin.

Yes. Thank you. Item 3.1, approve the following appointments or reappoints to boards or commissions. Jamie Krueger to the Commission on the Environment for a full term ending December 31st, 2028. Cullen O'Brien to the Commission on the Environment for a partial term ending December 31st, 2027. Robert, and I apologize, Cooker to the Commission on the Environment for a partial term ending December 31st, 2026. Michael David Holt to the Commission on the Environment for a partial term ending December 31st, 2026. Item 3.2, approve an updated city of East Lancing lease addendum form to align with ordinance 1538. Item 3.3, approve a conditional class 3 rental license for an occupancy of up to two unrelated persons or a family at 338 West Sagen Street, unit 49. The owner of record is Derek Lampart. The legal representative is also Derek Lampart of Bath, Michigan. Approve the Ingam County Child abuse protocol and authorize East Lancing Police Department Chief to sign. Approve a resolution of support for the submitt of a grant application from the city of East Lancing for the Michigan Department of Transportation local bridge program. Approve an amended version of option two for downtown seating and events with scaledback minimal seasonal outdoor seating options primarily installed to accommodate downtown event attendees. Item 3.7, approve a traffic control order 505 for the installation of multi-way stop at Forest Road in Harrison Road. 3.8, approve a resolution celebrating Women's History Month and honoring women trailblazers in the city of East Lancing.

Item 3.9, approve a contract with Restore Consulting LLC for engineering services for parking facilities, repair, project design, bidding, and construction administration in the amount of $172,385, which includes a 15% contingency, and authorize the city manager to sign. Item 3.10, 10. Approve a maintenance agreement with Harvey Electronics and Radio for service of the gated parking facilities, parks, equipment, servers, and camera systems for a 5-year term in the total amount of $483 and $483,480. 3.11. Approve a resolution supporting the city of East Lancing's fiscal year 2027 congressionally directed spending requests to install fall prevention barriers on the upper levels of the city's downtown parking structures. That concludes the consent agenda for this evening.

Thank you. Would any council member like any items removed from the consent agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? So moved. Moved by Meadows, second. Second by Griggsby. Any discussion of the consent agenda?

Just a comment with regard to the resolution uh celebrating Women's History Month. I just want to while it mentions uh many of the uh women who have served on the council, it doesn't identify uh except for one uh Joan Hanalt as mayor. And I just want to mention that Liz Schwitzer, Diane Gary, Ruth Byer, and Jesse Greg have also served as mayor in this city. So, thank you. Any further discussion?

I got a I got a one out of nowhere. I I just want to know if it's true or not that we do not have any of our parks named after any women.

Is that true? I I think that it is true at singular, but I think a a park on the corner of um Grand River and Hagedorn is named after a husband and wife who uh were um largescale realtors within the community. So there is a a park named after a woman but along with her. So, so I'll just put it out of universe. Not enough. Thank you. Thank you.

I'll also note that um Sally Silver, uh a major player in neighborhood activities within this community, was nominated to be named for a park. And frankly, I don't know what ever happened with that. So, any further discussion of the consent agenda? Okay, the motion is on the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor say I.

I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. That brings us to uh the first of two public hearings. Uh item 4.1 is a public hearing in accordance with ordinance number 1206 for property owners in the fiscal year 2026 hazardous sidewalk project area to contest the need for sidewalk repairs. Staff, please.

Good evening, council. I'm Steven with the engineering department of department of public works. With me I have Joseph Callahan also with uh engineering department. Um we have a public hearing for the sidewalks the fiscal year 26. Uh this is kind of a yearly project. Um so many of you are familiar with it. Uh it's in accordance with the municipal code and with ordinance 126. Um which says that the residents are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the sidewalks. Um there's a process that's outlined in that ordinance that staff has followed um including sending out mailers in November and then having a administrative reviews February and uh also including that list of people who have reserved the right to contest either through that administrative review or through written um correspondence. And uh so for your consideration is the um the resolution to order the repair of the sidewalks at the locations as well as I can answer any questions about the public hearing.

Questions right now for staff. Okay, this is a public hearing. Uh I will open the public hearing. There's one card. Kevin Hagen.

How you doing? Kevin Hagen uh Hagen Realy 927 East Grand River. Uh Annette, in our last meeting, I made a comment that uh you would not be here forever. I did not know it was going to be this quick. Uh I am sad to see you go. Uh 20 years ago, you let me hang out in the office when I was uh trying to avoid Matt at all cost. Uh so uh seriously, all the times we've we've worked together, you've been great to work with. So thank you very much for your service. I appreciate it. So, um 4.1 um I just wanted to I think we did submit a written letter against uh first of all, let me state that uh we have seven properties that are uh being looking to be assessed. Uh we agree that there definitely needs to be some work on on some of them. Uh it looked like there was pictures submitted that you could see every sidewalk section of sidewalk was xed off uh in the 500 block of Lexington. Uh that is where we do not agree. Um hopefully uh we have a great working relationship with public works. Uh ultimately what we're hoping to do is just get that time with them out there to go over the uh the sidewalks. Uh given the snow uh again we did write the letter. Uh we're just hopefully I'm not doesn't I don't think you're going to vote tonight. So hopefully in the meantime we'll we'll work with public works. We just wanted to get it uh on file. Um I guess a question that I had and maybe we can answer it when we meet with them. Um is that they are willing to pay for the city sidewalk sections where the trees are have caused the damage. Uh I guess twofold. Um one that's great that they're willing to pay for it, but ultimately that's city tax dollars. Uh so what what are we going to do with the city trees that are still there? Uh and then also we're planting more city trees in that same block and throughout the city, albeit smaller trees, I would if they don't if they grow any bigger, uh my guess is they're going to affect the the sidewalk. So, uh as a city as they're going around

assessing people and asking for money, uh those were those were questions that I would uh certainly be asking. So, um and I just had one question or one statement about I thought I was going to speak during public comment, so I apologize. uh the 530 Albert uh situation. Um I hate to speak against another developer being that I've been on the other side of it. Uh I share concerns like with Doug Cone and a lot of the members about parking and all sorts of issues out there. Um certainly I you know one one person stated that there was you know this is the last parcel. That that's just not true. Uh just around the corner there's a 15story building or 12 story now that's getting proposed. So Evergreen's going to come down the pipe. We own property on uh in East Village that we get a call once a week that they want to buy and build a 15 20 story building. So, a bird in the hand is not necessarily, you know, if if they're the best developer. And I guess ultimately what I'm getting at is if they if it's if it works, I would I would say let's get them get the tax dollars that we deserve as a city. Um you know, it's just that has to be there. Uh just in Eli today uh there's an article about you know that we need $10 million you know for the city to improvements of Hannah and city center have to get the tax dollars from this. There will be other developers. Uh please do not give away the city's money. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to address uh the council in this public hearing? And I will close the public hearing. Uh bring it back to staff. Do you have a recommendation concerning a vote? Should we vote tonight? Do you have a timeline that you need to keep up with?

There is a timeline. Um, I think we were hoping to start construction on May 4th. Um, there could be a postponement, I guess, of the vote from that aspect of it. Um, usually these are good to go in hand in hand. kind of just settles the the assessment and then the resolution all in one. Um, as long as we can hopefully start by May 4th, I think we should be okay. Questions? Mike, is April 4th our our next meeting or somewhere in that? I believe so. Or the 10th or something?

Like the 10th? Sorry, the seventh. Sounds like seventh. 7th. April 7th. April 7th. If if we were to take a vote on the 7th, would that be enough time for you to crank things up for for May? Yes. Okay. Well, that gives you a little bit of time then to uh meet and um make another recommendation for us. And if it's the same recommendation, then we take action that night. Okay. Is that all right? It's at the will. It's the will of the council. If somebody wants to make a motion, I thought do we need to make a motion on a

We don't need to make a motion. If somebody wants to make a motion, that's fine. Mr. Mr. Jopic. Yes. And looking at the ordinance, it just says that um council may adopt the proposed resolution ordering the work and aortioning the cost thereof with or without amendment following the public hearing. So it could be at this meeting, it could be at the next meeting. It leaves it open to your discretion. Mr. Whan, my thought is we were just asked tonight to have some negotiation or discussion. Um I I don't think as long as there's April 7th, there's still time. I don't see any reason why we couldn't wait till then. Any other discussion on this issue?

Just seems like there's some pretty high costs here, okay, for the homeowners. So, if there's no motion, then that uh concludes this item and we'll expect to see this on our agenda on April 7th. Next on item on the agenda is item 4.2, a public hearing to consider residential permit parking on Cali Avenue from Michigan Avenue to Oakidge uh Avenue. Good evening,

Clayton. Uh Stephen again with engineering um and again with me Joseph Callahan um from engineering. So the background of this uh public hearing is uh the staff have been working with the Kelly residents about a parking um concern uh particularly by uh Michigan Avenue. Um staff have kind of noticed it on the operation side as well uh from a leaf removal and snowplow perspective. So, we're supportive of that of uh that effort from that perspective. So, the public hearing uh is in accordance with section 44- uh 336. It's uh to expand the existing Chesterfield Hills uh residential permit parking program. Uh the residents have filed a petition in accordance with that uh the MUN code uh and staff have responded by u evaluating the parking spaces out there. The evaluation is based on 20 foot length of a a car space and there's a there's an established number based on that 20 foot which in this case was 26 legal parking spaces. Um and then the ordinance outlines the uh threshold as 75% of the parking spaces being occupied 75% of the time that come out to 19 spaces. So you can see that the counts were taken in September in the morning and the evening. We did want to note that it didn't strictly meet the the uh threshold of that 75%. Staff did notice in the field though that there was um majority of that parking that we did observe and it was a lot was on the south half it was of the Cali Avenue. So essentially from Michigan Avenue up to about halfway up

the block, um you had consistent parking. Um we do think that if the uh if staff time were to be rededicated to that uh section that we would see that that meets the threshold essentially. Um so um we understood that and we um based on the petition we took it forward to the uh transportation commission. They also recommended that it come before council. Um in favor of modifying or extending the Chesterfield Hills residential permit parking program. Um in accordance with the ordinance, the ballots were also sent out or mailed out as well as a notice of this public hearing. And um there was a concern about that ballot area recently. I did want to note that that's not in the packet. Um, according to the ordinance, there was a concern that the area might be too broad based on the the definitions in the ordinance. So, staff is going to be evaluating that and sending correction letters if that's the case, just letting the uh affected properties know that uh that was sent an error and uh to request that they don't send in a ballot if they did send in a ballot to let them know that that would not be counted. Um so again you know based on what we observed in the study we staff is recommending this and uh we're presenting this before council for their consideration. If you have any other questions for the public hearing I can answer those

questions for staff at this point. Mr. Will there will be public hearing. There will. Okay. I'll wait till after that. Okay. Anything else now? Okay. So, this is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Uh, we have three slips at this point. Uh, Cara Solano.

Good evening. Can you hear me? Is that good? Okay. Uh, I'm Carara Solano. I'm a Cali Avenue resident. uh here to speak in favor of the extension of the permit parking program in the Chesterfield Hills neighborhood. As uh Stephen and Joe who've both been really very professional and conscientious in this work that we've undertaken for about 18 months now, as they've pointed out, uh we have a cumulative and recurring issue on uh the south end of Cowi. What they did not mention, and perhaps it's in your paperwork, the south end of Cowi is actually downhill. And so the accumulation of leaves, of ice, of all of these things which cannot be cleared by services because of parking, non-resident parking, um when the melts happen, uh when storms blow through, we have lots of storm water drainage issues simply because it's downhill. So, we've got a a very serious issue just with that and our basement. Um, in addition, the Chesterfield Hills neighborhood had the permit parking program approved, I think, close to a dozen years ago for most of the streets except for Cowi. And so, this obviously made Cowi the destination for non-resident parking. um it becomes a place for students and university employees to park and walk or grab the bus. Um so it's it's very much a park and ride kind of um scenario that's happening. Finally, I want to say that the university is really a poor neighbor in this regard. um they place a lot of expectations on the neighborhoods to absorb their expansion and all of their activities and it's making of our neighborhoods uh

into parking lots. These are not just streets on maps. They're neighborhoods, their communities, and we really need to be thinking of them in those lived experiences. Thank you.

Thank you, Leel Carlson. Good evening. Thank you. And I wanted to thank Stephen and Joe as well. Um, they've been really helpful and thoughtful through all of this. Adding on to what Cara said, and I won't repeat it. Um, but as far as the density of the parking, um, building on what Stephen mentioned, when I left my home this evening to come here three and a half hours ago, um, there were already 21 cars parked at the very end of Cowi. I'm the fifth house in. So that part of Cowi is parked 100% of the time. I walk my dog in the morning, it it starts at around 5 5:30 and ends by about midnight. So, we have become um essentially we are a public street. We're not a public parking lot. So, I appreciate uh both the council listening and um the engineering department uh working with the neighborhood association and the residents to try to find a solution for this that will work for everyone. So, thank you. Thank you, Derek Bush. Um hello everybody. Uh my name is Derek Bush. I'm a resident on Ki Avenue right in the um area of concern on the south end towards Michigan Avenue near right near Cara and Leisel uh who just spoke. And it's the same um I could go on with the same problems that are taking place that they've mentioned, but um it's just become a a parking space for uh non-residents and the inability for city services to maintain the roads during

the winter time with plowing and then spring and fall cleanups. We constantly have uh flooding on our street. Um and a lot of that is because the uh streets just can't are not able to be maintained during daytime hours because the vehicles that are parked there. Um it's it's always it's it's continuous. There's cars parked there all day long. A lot of times cars left overnight. Um and uh parked on on in certain areas where they're allowed to park during the daytime, but also there are certain areas where it's no parking period at all and there's cars parked there, too. So, it's just it's become a problem that's gotten worse and worse over the years. We've been um my wife and I have been in our house for over 15 years and we've just seen the progression of uh the problems increase and so we're um hoping that um we can work on a resolution to uh resolve this um similar to what's happened or how they've handled it on Kensington and other streets um in Chesterfield that seems to work well. But unfortunately for us uh the way it is now, it's not working and it's uh it's it's be become a a problem for uh residents in the area. So we hope that uh we can come up with a resolution to um that works for everybody. So that's it.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to address the council on this issue? Right. Seeing none, I'll close a public hearing. Mr. Whan. So, first of all, I'm absolutely in support of this. Um, I've experienced personally over the last 25 years, a huge congregation of cars, and that's been a huge issue. Uh, my question, I'm sorry, I do have a question for the staff. The um the letter that was sent out, was there a date that was told what time to have those back by? Yeah, April 11th is the date of the ballot.

Okay. So we we so then we need to wait until that comes out. But in the transport transportation commission and here I've heard no negatives about this from the public. So um I guess because of that date of that letter um we need to wait on this then. But um I'm in I wish we could do this before spring because that means neighbors have to continue a deal with this through the end of the semester which is unfortunate. Other comments on this issue. So we have to wait because the ballots are still outstanding. So we can't do a motion tonight.

And when it comes back if you can provide us a sample motion uh would be appreciated. Yeah. with the with the uh pol with the policy resolution number and also for the uh previous one with the sidewalks. Be helpful to have the policy resolution in the motion. Yeah, I'm kind of wondering how did we miss Ki when we were doing all the permit parking in 2015 through 2019 because everybody else was yelling at us, I guess. So, yes,

cuz that was a contentious one. Okay. Any other questions for staff on this issue? All right. Thank you. That concludes uh item 4.2. So that brings us to item 5.1, consideration of policy resolution 2026-8, a six-month moratorium on new data centers in the city of East Lancing. Mr. Bartley,

thank you. Uh Landon Bartley, your principal planner. I'm just doing our city attorney a favor uh since it's his birthday. So, happy birthday, Steve. Um, essentially staff has uh has been um we've received some inquiries. We don't have any pending applications and we don't expect any applications immediately. However, we've received inquiries and we're not about data centers, especially um I should say we're not quite sure how to uh respond to them if we did receive an application under our current zoning ordinance. Uh so we've requested uh through the city attorney to um have a a brief moratorum on data centers. We propose six months. Uh we did receive a letter from the Lancing Chamber of Commerce today uh this afternoon saying we don't agree with this uh moratorum. You should just reach out to us to uh to talk about how to create a good ordinance which is completely our intent. Uh and also uh working with other subject matter experts in the area. Uh we just want to do more research and have more time. So, uh, we're requesting a 6-month moratorum just to give us a buffer in case there are, uh, applications that come in. Uh, it doesn't have to take 6 months. It could be sooner if we finish. Um, but in the sample motion that we've provided tonight, uh, it does, uh, have a a deadline or an end date of September 17th, 2026, which is 6 months from tonight. Can I answer any questions?

Questions for Mr. Bartley or for you? Okay. No questions. No questions. No questions. I guess I'm curious what experts in the area like who's on your list that you're going to be engaging.

I'm aware of a couple uh folks at MSU. Um and then the Lancing Chamber certainly reached out and said that they can help connect me with some experts in the area. So, I'm interested to see who they have as resources as well. And then if we know there's no current projects in the pipeline, although you've received some requests, I'm just curious like knowing that it seems I what's the service of the moratorum? The moratorium is intended to give us more time to uh research and make sure that we can craft a I guess we don't have any projects in. So like you could work on it today without us taking action on a moratorum.

We could um and we have been uh we just simply don't have the capacity right now to devote as much time as we'd like to um given other ordinances that are on the table. So it'll be very difficult for us to come up with an ordinance uh soon. I would say maybe within the next month uh we need more some more time to do more work uh to research this just because we we've been working on so many other items. has has but has there been any inquiry that has said we plan to apply for your community? No, there's not been there has not been. So, this is just

Okay. I'm just like is this I'm not sure even the work that you put on into this already like if that would have been better spent in another location. Um, so I'm not sure if it was requested by a council member or if it's just something that the uncertainty in terms of capacity is driving it.

Sure. Well, and that we just we just have difficulty um I guess with our the way our zoning ordinance is currently written, it would be hard for us to respond to an application if we got one. And that's that's my concern. also uh I guess reiterate that six months doesn't have to be the the amount. I think a a brief moratorum would be good. Uh if if six months seems too long, I would say maybe three or four months, but I I also would like to say what if we do 6 months and then if we can complete the work sooner, it certainly doesn't have to be that long. I just I just fear putting a a sooner deadline on the on the work.

Further questions? U Steve, did you draft this? Yes, I did. So, uh it seems quite detailed to me uh maybe more than I thought uh we would find necessary, but I I just want to confirm that this last it is further resolved you feel is absolutely necessary in here.

Yes. Uh and I'm glad you pointed it out. um you know valid questions in terms of why do this and it's you know uh everything that uh Mr. partly pointed out as entirely accurate. Communities uh other communities across the state and elsewhere in the country are receiving applications. Granted, East Lancing hasn't received one yet. Uh but um took a look at the ordinance and um and yeah, it has some some areas of uncertainty as to how if we did get an application, it needed to process it. How would that be done? How would it fit in? And that's the idea here to clear that up, right? So when you do a moratorum, you haven't changed your zoning ordinance yet. So a moratorum says you can't come in and ask for relief. You can't come in and ask for a permit to use your private property for a certain purpose here, a data center, right? Uh which we are saying our zoning ordinance needs some attention before we can legitimately process those. So during this short period of time, you're saying you can't apply. There's a timeout here on accepting applications for this land use while we figure it out. It's a newer type of land use with some level of intensity that needs to be evaluated, figured out where it best fits. the land owner in the meantime doesn't get to do what normally would happen would be to come in and apply for the necessary zoning approvals. What we don't know is that there could be some unintended impacts on that property owner that cause its property to be um negatively impacted to the ex by the moratorum to the extent that it affects the uh property owner's investmentbacked expectations to the point of uh affecting its value and ability to um you know meet what it

expected and essentially wind up in a regulatory ing type situation. We don't know. We impossible to know. This provides a safety valve, a relief valve that if a property owner is in distress because of this moratorum in terms of this moratorum causing them to suffer that sort of damage, they can come in and ask for relief. So yes, I think it's necessary. I think it's important. You don't see it in every moratorium. It was in the gas station moratorium you handled a few months ago. Uh, and I've I I recommend this and I prepared this for just that reason to make sure that if if it affects a property owner in that manner that they can come in and ask for some relief. Um, and again, the whole idea here is to move fast and a lot of work has already been done uh, you know, by staff and and including us. We've talked a lot about all the resources. So, it's not as though we're waiting to start work on this. We we have been doing some work and digging and finding information. There's on this page three uh there's two paragraphs above that uh which have blank spaces that are not referenced in the proposed motion. So do do we have uh the figures that are supposed to go in those blank spaces. I'm trying to look to see if the draft motion includes language to that effect. Uh the September 17, 2026 based upon this motion would be filled in the resolution. Uh paragraph, let's see, uh the first now therefore paragraph would have that September date filled in. if you adopt that motion. Um the blank for planning commission or uh city

council completing its review after the planning commission's recommendation. I don't see that in the motion um or the time for the planning commission to complete its study and review. Uh I would suggest um including in the draft motion um and landing can being closer to the planning commission than I am. I would think um uh 120 days for the planning commission and 30 days for city council might be valid numbers to fill in at the end of that motion. Okay. Thank you. Council member Singh.

Yeah. Do so during this moratorum we cannot accept applications. That's correct.

So there's no catch all in we could be foregoing an opportunity as well. Is there any other option to that if someone were interested? I mean, this when we talk about tax dollars, you know, it could be meaningful as as we're going to be turning to budget season here soon or community benefits. These guys are some of these data centers are willing to do some pretty significant community benefit packages.

U if I can just suggest that uh um ask Mr. Bartley, if there is an interval with in which you can um or or or a better idea might be for city council to direct staff if there are inquiries and desire, you know, an expressed desire to submit an application that council be informed of that. um so that you're aware of it and if you desire to take any action at whatever time that occurs during the moratorum that you could you could lift the moratorium you could speed it up so on and so forth uh thing actions like that could be taken if there is an inquiry so is I don't know if that's feasible for some sort of communication to city council if you do receive an application I don't want to put that on you without knowing or you know the director weighing in on that.

Yes. I mean, if if we were to receive an application, we can certainly report that to council. Okay. Absolutely. Any further discussion or questions? Does this need to be amended then? To include that? Yeah. Um, if you'd like, you could or you we have it on the record here as part of the discussion if it is included in the minutes. Either way, however you would like. Mr. Griggsby, would you like to make a motion? I can. Is it as red right here motion? Well, it's a little Sorry, we had 120 days uh edit on there. Do you want to take the motion?

So, I think Mr. Meadows has those numbers written down. Okay. Fill in those blanks. Sounds good. Mr. Meadows, would you like to make a motion?

I'll uh plug in the the missing spots, too. Uh, I move to adopt policy resolution 2026-8 for the reasons and based on the findings set forth in uh, the resolution. The city council's review and adoption of amendments to the zoning ordinance to address the issue of data center land uses should precede any development, zoning, planning, or other action or decision in the city pertaining to such land uses. And accordingly, the city council hereby defers until September 17th, 2026, a date that shall be placed in the first now. Therefore, on page three of the resolution, uh any consideration or action taken by a city, entity, body, official, and/or agent regarding resoning, special land use, site plan, change of use, permit, certificate of occupancy, and other proposals and submissions pertaining to data center land uses. And in addition that and uh in on page three of the resolution in paragraph two uh the planning commission's uh action shall take place within 120 days and in on that same page in paragraph three the city council action shall be designated as 30 days.

Motion by Meadows. Second. Second by Griggsby. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? None opposed. That motion carries and 2026-8 is approved. Which brings us to item 5.2, Two, consideration of ordinance 1565 to amend chapter 26, division 2, section 26-52 of the code of the city of East Lancing. Chief Brown, good evening.

Good evening, Mayor Alman, Mayor Prom Griggsby, and council members. For the past few months, we have come before council to move forward two ordinances proposed by the downtown solutions committee. The proposed amendment tonight regarding parking ensures that parking facilities are used for their intended purposes such as parking a vehicle, walking back and forth from a vehicle, or paying any fees. It does not apply to those seeking shelter from severe weather such as tornadoes or thunderstorms, or simply cutting through the lot to get to another destination. The focal point of this change is to increase community safety by preventing large gatherings from occurring inside of the ramps and giving our officers the ability to move people along. This ordinance is preventative in nature. From the fall season of 2024 to the fall season of 2025, crime more than doubled in the parking structures downtown. This included assaults and a stabbing that make made the local news. Officers reported lararsenies, damage to property, and disorderly conduct. During the fall, community members also reported feeling unsafe in the ramps. A report filed by one of our community partners, Advanced Peace, documented having contact with affiliated gang members both in the streets and parking structures last fall. Their work has been mentioned because Advanced Peace often had difficulties getting people to disperse from the parking ramps and had to request police assistance on several occasions. This fall, Advanced Peace provided assistance to the city through their presence, deescalation, and communication. This proposed ordinance simply adds language to ensure parking facilities are used for their intended purpose and will allow safe usage for all. Enforcement of this ordinance first calls for the subject to be warned by an officer and if the person refuses to comply, a noncriminal civil infraction

citation would be issued. This allows officers to proactively prevent crime before it happens. On behalf of the downtown solutions committee, I ask that regarding ordinance 1565, you move to not adopt previously propos proposed ordinance 1560 and to instead adopt alternative either A or B of ordinance 1565 to amend chapter 26, article 2, division 2, section 26 to 52 of the code of the city of East Lancing as presented. I'll take any questions you may have. questions for the chief. Mr. Griggsby,

um I can you walk me through just the enforcement part of your challenge with when it comes to that because I know you said this was preventative and and I'm just I'm struggling with um what we have on the books. And I guess maybe I'm naive to how how it works as far as enforcement and and how uh officers are able to kind of go in and deescalate large crowds or gatherings and things like that. Just it feels like from just a civilian um perspective that we have enough on the books to still be able to address these issues. And I know that you had talked about an increase in crime in some of those areas and um from my understanding having the additional police officers and social workers was one of the remedies to that challenge. So could you please just bear with me and walk me through some of that?

Sure. Officer presence down there certainly um helps, but when an officer doesn't have the authority to make people move along, then there is no enforcement. So if there's a large gathering in one of the ramps, we see things starting to escalate which we believe would lead to a fight. As it stands today, we can tell people to move and they don't have to. So again, we're trying to prevent situations from occurring by forcing them to move along and we saw it time after time again this past fall. Thank you. Further questions, Mr. Will

does this also address possibly a a group of young people standing on the top of the ramp um not using the ramp for the intended purpose? And we've talked about some of the concerns of some young people or older people throwing stuff off the ramp or even just standing up there or even maybe someone's just standing in the ramp without a crowd, but there's several people standing in there not using the ramp as an intended purpose. When someone's walking through the ramp trying to get to their car, maybe they might be concerned. So, this isn't just dealing with a large crowd, but maybe someone that is in the ramp, not um not using the ramp as the intended purpose.

That is correct. We could use enforcement for those situations you described as well.

So um and this is really not an issue, how I read this, it's not really an issue with the unhoused. It's an issue with people that are um maybe just not using that ramp with intended purposes, standing around I I honestly don't know how it was twisted into believing that this ordinance ever was um for enforcement to the unhoused. We get called um especially during the fall and winter um to the parking structures and um if we're called because someone is unhoused and somebody has a concern about that individual, most of the times we send our social workers to help those individuals. This intended proposed ordinance really has to do with moving folks along to prevent crimes before they occur.

Further questions, Mr. Meadows,

it's not for the chief. It's actually for Steve. But um this this particular ordinance in 11A uh talks about a municipal civil infraction and we've removed I believe uh the aspect of this which originally also made a second uh incident um a misdemeanor. But in terms of enforcement of a municipal civil infraction, can you go through that a little bit for us? What happens with that? How do we enforce that? Let's just say it's a a $100 fine or a $10 fine or a $50 fine or a $20 fine. How do we enforce that?

Yes. Well, part of it is, you know, how how an officer would approach and and address the situation. And of course in the first requirement, it's an enforcement requirement in here is for the officer to advise the individual or individuals. And it's stated right in here. Let them know that what they're doing is in violation of this ordinance. Um and a and it states to ask them to leave to ask them to leave. So, it enables them to engage the individuals uh uh not writing tickets right away, but instead trying to deescalate or not allow it to escalate by simply indicating, look, what you're doing is in violation of these ordinances. You may not know that. Uh and uh to in inform them that you can leave and I you know, no ticket will be written. Um and and ask them to leave. That's the first part of enforcement I think that would happen here. Uh well, it has to happen here. Uh only if the person fails or refuses to leave the parking structure or parking lot would the officer be able to, you know, after being provided that information and that request. only if there's a refusal to leave um would the officer then be able to uh move to the next step of writing a ticket to the individual or individuals which of course would involve asking them for their information to be able to fill out the citation and uh provide them the citation. At that point, it it um uh it becomes a court matter. Of course, they would be provided a court hearing and an ability to contest the ticket in court, challenge it or not, or pay the ticket just like any other civil infraction that you receive. uh with a civil infraction, the judge could also, you know, issue I I I'm I'm not sure it would really apply here, but civil

infractions provide some additional authority to the judges to uh identify injunctive relief to say you are not allowed to do this anymore or something to that extent to provide additional orders to the individual to not uh violate this order ordinance any further. Um and um uh that I think that would be the extent of the enforcement. Um you know it's perhaps part of the non-escalation portion of the engagement to advise, inform and advise the individual. Uh that is probably the most important part of this ordinance in terms of enforcement. Um it enables them to to simply move forward. Not a lot of ordinances allow that. For example, speeding is a civil infraction. The ordinances and code and motor vehicle code don't provide an opportunity for the officer to say, "You got to stop doing it and I won't rate you a ticket." That's not there. This is an added part of this to help provide for the engagement and avoiding escalation, uh, keeping order, uh, and not unnecessarily bringing it to the next level. And if the individual in, you know, then realizes, "Oh gosh, I'm going to get a ticket." That's an added that would be an added opportunity for them to uh remove themselves from that area. Um they could also inform the officer, look, my car is over there. I'm walking in my car. Then that's going to be a situation where the officer says, okay, you go go won't be able to write the ticket in that situation, but otherwise that's how that would it would proceed.

Okay, so let me get this straight. So, I'm an officer and I encounter, you know, a group of people uh and I want to move them along out of the parking structure and they refuse to do so. I write a ticket. I am not at that moment in time. I've handed them um what essentially is an appearance ticket and the um that does not authorize me to arrest them if they refuse to move. Is that correct?

That is correct. Yes. So, we rely entirely on them showing up uh on a stated date to either challenge the ticket or pay the ticket. And if they fail to pay the ticket, then we would pursue it through we have hundreds of tickets that don't get paid. Whatever process we have established uh within the city, we would follow that same process. But there is no arrest associated with this.

There is no arrest associated with this. and and I I don't want to predict, you know, uh um options for the future. The idea here is that um again to not escalate the situation into a a criminal situation such that um this will hopefully work and resolve the situations that have been presenting themselves in the parking structures. Uh but if it does not if people don't move on even when they get a ticket uh they could theoretically get additional tickets for remaining there. Um but if it's not working you know this is actually under a sectional ordinance that most of the violations are misdemeanors. This is specifically called out as a civil infraction as a first step to try and resolve the situation without making it criminal. If that doesn't work it could come back to council. could consider it, take it to that next level, but it's believed that this would be effective.

Okay, those are my questions. Further questions, Mr. When? So if if if someone notices someone standing around and either someone calls or an officer notices themselves and that person is overly intoxicated or they're under the influence of severe some kind of narcotics or if they have other mental health needs possibly forbid some kind of suicidal thoughts. that gives the officer a reason to come up and assess and to try to help that person. Correct.

That is correct. And that's again not what this ordinance is intended for. So those individuals would be treated by our officers in terms of getting that individual help um using um the the PRT statute, which is the person requiring um treatment. so they could take him um into uh protective custody and get them help at one of the local hospitals. Um again, in that type of scenario, that's another call where we would likely have a social worker um also go to that call. And again, the intent isn't to, you know, move along somebody that is suicidal or needs help. Our goal as the police officer is to help the individuals that need help, but the individuals that are standing around in the ramps getting ready to commit crimes, they need to move along.

So, you could also possibly call in the fire department to assist with the trans transportation or issue or to assess their their well-being also. Yes, that is correct. Um, often when we have patients that are either intoxicated or under the influence, um, and sometimes when they are suicidal, we will call medics for their opinion, um, and assistance because sometimes transport is needed by the medics. So, it's kind of a multi-prong. Absolutely.

Further questions. I have one uh in version B in uh section 11 page three um paragraph B the new language which was I think responsive to council member Meadows comments at the last meeting um the new languages or or during instances of other emergencies or events requiring individuals to take shelter. So this makes a lot of sense. There could be lots of these sorts of uh contingencies. Does that does that language does it make that exception in that paragraph too broad? Is anybody concerned about that?

I don't have any concerns,

Mr. Mayor. Yes. Just one thing I'd like to add. Um another aspect to this that we've talked about is the fact that obviously I don't it goes without saying but it's hasn't been part of the disc or emphasized as much. Uh these are obviously parking structures. Traffic vehicles are moving in and out and through and backing up from parking spots and driving through and um having uh individuals not, you know, going to their destinations is not just contrary to the purpose of the parking facility, but could also be dangerous. And one of the core um responsibilities of uh the city is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of individuals. So that is underlying uh this ordinance as well. Sometimes overlooked based upon a lot of the discussions, but I think it's worth mentioning in the in connection with this. I'll just make a comment that um I think I think it makes sense to define a parking facility the way we define other facilities that the city owns and runs like this facility that we're in here. Um there are certain types of conduct that are appropriate in this facility and other types of conduct that create problems for the people who are using the facility for the the purposes for which it was designed and built and for which it's run. And I think it makes sense to define parking lots in the same way to address the issues that the city attorney mentioned. Other people want to use people want to use parking ramps to park and they pay for that uh privilege and they should be able to do so without interference. So I think I think this ordinance is a very measured response to a problem that I think is quite real. I've seen it um myself firsthand during a couple of my trips downtown in the wee

hours. Um I've seen situations where it would have been helpful for police to be able to head off a problem before it started started to get out of hand. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Mr. Well, I move to adopt previously proposed ordinance 1560 and to instead adopt alternative B of ordinance 1565 to amend chapter 26, article 2, division 2, section 26-52 of the code of the city of East Lancing as presented.

Uh, Mr. Well, and you are moving to, just to clarify, you're moving to not adopt previously proposed ordinance 1560. Did I let me reword that? Okay. I move to not adopt the previously opposed proposed ordinance 1560 and instead to adopt alternative B of ordinance 1565 to amend chapter 26 article 2 division 2 section 26-52 of the code of the city of East Lancing as presented. Thank you for that clarification. Motion by Whan. C can I ask a question about that? Uh I I know it's not seconded yet. That That's why I want clarification.

Is it a procedural clarification? Yes. From the city attorney. 1560 is not on the agenda. So why would we make any reference to that at all?

Uh it it's recommended to take that action because uh through the history of 1560 there was no action taking concerning it. So, it was technically still as a business item uh in city council's uh set of business. So, it has a ordinance number assigned to it. It was uh 1560 that resulted in these in um a different you know 1565 being proposed. So if if you if you want to keep 1560 potentially out there, you would remove that from the motion. If you want to keep it out there as potentially being adopted, uh I would note that I think 1560 is an ordinance that would amend the same current section of the ordinance that's under consideration. I I take that back. It does not, but um it it 1565 was an outgrowth of 1560. So, it clears the clears the deck from that.

Well, I I'm really I don't have a problem with voting down 1560. I thought we threw that out in December, but the um but the question is why would we have it as part of this motion? Why wouldn't that be a separate motion? I didn't state that very well. You could make it a separate motion if you like. it was taking care of both items at once in a single motion because they were related um in the sequence of events of how this issue was addressed

and and the reason I'm asking it and you can correct me uh but I am worried that if we take a motion such has been stated like I don't want 1560 but I do want 1565 and then the motion fails are we then enforcing 1560 60 or approving 1560. So is that a concern?

Uh it's it's your comfort level. I think if the motion failed and it's because of 1560 another motion could be made or vice versa. Uh another motion could be made uh tonight. But if they're both on there together then and it passes then I it seems to me that it would be resolved unless I'm misunderstanding. I think the question is if this motion fails, have we just approved 1560? No. Does that answer your question? All right. So motion by Whan. Is there a second? Second. Second by Singh. Any further discussion of these motions? Okay. I think I would.

Yes.

Yeah. I just, you know, I I spoke fairly extensively on this matter at our last discussion meeting on the issue. I don't want to, you know, reiterate everything that I mentioned. Although um you know we are taking a variety of steps to remedy a whole I'm going to use the word slew numerous issues that we have had um some of which that included directly the police department as well. We have taken action on those in the fall. Um, and this is a continuation um of looking to address and support both community members um and um ensure that we have uh the appropriate mechanisms and our ordinances to um uh do what we need to do to keep uh the community safe downtown. I'm I'm glad the city attorney mentioned I I think last meeting the discussion only meeting I meant there are speeding cars that also are in our parking ramps. I have an 8-year-old um that I am frequently ensuring that I either have his hand or I am like blocking him against you know cars as we are walking in and out. Um and uh the intent of this again is use our parking facilities, go to campus, come to Ann Street Plaza, go to some of the variety of businesses, go visit friends in the neighborhoods. Um uh also you know for you know the concerns that you know we've been working very closely with a number of the advocacy groups throughout this process. You know, if there is extreme cold, we'd rather you

uh select being housed in a a hotel room for that evening than um you know, staying in uh a prospective stairwell or um the like. You know, we want to again provide many mechanisms uh to be supportive and to ensure uh folks are safe downtown. So that's I that's my comments. Further comments. Okay, seeing none, roll call vote, please. Council member Whan, yes. Council member Meadows, no. Council member Singh,

yes. Mayor Prom Griggsby, no. Mayor Alman, yes. Motion carries. uh 3:2 ordinance 1565 uh version B is approved. That brings us to item 5.3 uh consideration of ordinance 1566 to amend chapter 26 division 2 section 26-51 and section 26-64 of the code of the city of East Lancing. Chief Brown,

good evening again. The proposed amendment to the camping ordinance reflects a thoughtful and coordinated response to the challenges that were impacting our downtown. It's a result of months of collaborative work and engagement. Three alternatives were presented to council on March 10th. At that meeting, council expressed a preference to focus on the discussions on alternative 3A. So before you tonight are alternative 3A as well as 3B. 3B includes additional language that was proposed by council last week. Both alternative 3A and 3B prohibits persons from obstructing, impeding, or interfering with public events, activities, or other uses of public places. Enforcement of this ordinance first calls for the subject to be warned by the officer, and if the person refuses to comply, a misdemeanor could be issued. In 3B, language was added about a person as or is identified. So those three words were added as unhoused and enforcement again shall not be taken without reasonable efforts to place the person voluntarily in appropriate social services, treatment facility, or consultation with a city social worker. Additional language is also added about enforcement not taking place during instances of other emergencies or events requiring individuals to take shelter. Downtown East Lancing is a shared environment for residents, students, business, businesses, and visitors. The proposed amendments will help the city maintain safe, accessible, and welcoming public spaces while continuing to invest in long-term supportive strategies that address the underlying needs. On behalf of the downtown solutions committee, I ask that regarding ordinance 1566, city council move to not adopt the previously proposed ordinance 1560 and

to instead adopt alternative 3A or 3B of ordinance 1565 to amend chapter 26, division 2, sections 26- 51 and sections 26 to 64 of the city of the code of the city of East Lancing as presented. I'll take any questions you may have. Questions for the chief,

Mr. Meadows? I don't have any. I I've got a question for the city attorney again if that's okay. The um th this particular proposal does not make reference to um a appearance ticket or any kind of penalty. Is there a penalty that applies to 2664? Yes. Uh the current 2664 is a misdemeanor and this is amending that section and not changing that. Uh so this would still be a misdemeanor. Would still be a misdemeanor. Yes. So this would add to the disorderly code. Sorry. This would basically adding one more to the disorderly code.

Yes. Uh uh that part of the ordinance. Yes. Right. Yes. Part of the code. I apologize. Yes. So, I have a question. Did you have I'm done.

I have a question. Um, in version B, uh, page two in section 2664, uh, subsection D, the new words or is identified, right? That's a passive construction. So, who's doing the identifying? I I I'd be happy to try and address that anyway. Um perhaps intentionally left it a little open-ended so that anybody could identify, you know, perhaps the individual is unable to communicate at the particular time but has a friend there and indicates that the individual is unhoused or uh the officer knows the individual is uh unhoused and can therefore proceed with this provision. So, it is a little open-ended somewhat intentionally to enable various ways to identify the individual as unhoused so it's not missed. Is there a concern that an officer finds themselves in a situation like this and a passer by random passer by observes the interaction and identifies that person as unhoused without knowledge. Is that a concern? I don't have any concerns about that happening.

Okay. Any uh one final procedural question in terms of the motion. Um in this case, we would not need to include the language concerning not adopting previously proposed 1560. Correct. Because we've already put that to bed. Um or it wouldn't hurt to include it. I I think it wouldn't hurt to include it because the provisions that this ordinance emanated out originated in that ordinance as well. That's why we included it in both just to raise any question. Yep. Okay. Um any further discussion? Is there a motion?

I I do have a question Steve again. Sorry. the um if we were to add uh given that there's a general misdemeanor aspect to this entire uh section of the ordinances. Is it possible to add an e here that would indicate that uh enforcement of this particular section shall only be by an appearance ticket of some kind? that that is in council's discretion. If you choose to go that route, I think we would need to come up with that language uh and and bring it back at that time at a future time. Is there a motion?

Question. One more comment.

This is a really difficult one because I think there are a lot of concerns. I think there's a lot of people that have been um affected downtown by different people and also we've heard um incredible comments. Um everyone does have a story and each one of us do need to be more involved in engaging with our community that are in difficult times. And I think that's the action point that I hope a lot of us have done. And um so this has become a very very difficult situation for me um seeing the incredible needs of our community and as council member Singh very accurately presents that we do need to be more engaged in part of the solutions to some of the issues. I think we've narrowed this this ordinance intentionally to avoid other unintended consequences. But um I guess now that we've we've been talking about this for three months, I'm not sure that we've gotten to the place where we need to be with it. Even though I'm concerned about some of the concerns downtown. So I guess I'm in process right now and I'm trying to see what is the best between my opinions and the law and the the voice of the people and I have heard voice of the people from both sides on the situation but um I guess that's where I'm still still some concerns but comments That's Mr. Griggsby.

Yeah. I mean, we signed up for a tough tough job, didn't we, when it comes to these decisions. And for me, I'm I'm I I just don't think this is the answer. I haven't thought it was the answer before uh I got a chance to sit down and talk with many members of the community, many professionals of the community. Um, and uh, I don't I don't know how you can rework this in a way that really addresses the concerns that I brought up and most of the feedback we've gotten from this. So, um, I just don't see a version where I will be on the other side of this. So, um I I think I I just think we have a responsibility to um have solutions as opposed to um an ordinance that really for me I think is going to cause more harm, cause more money um in the long term and uh I think that we can find a better path. I appreciate the concerns of um our police department and the issues they're dealing with. I really do. I really um respect the hard work it is to go out in the community and do uh policing. It's not a easy job. Um, and um, when you're dealing with behavior and people and situations and you have discretions and you have different things going on, there's so many different combinations of things in this that I think would cause us a little bit more problem right now um to to to push forward as opposed to going down the road with more thought into this. And I'll stop there.

Further comments, Mr. Mr. Meadows.

Uh, I do have a comment. You know, I would I would be more um I guess receptive and and we're talking about 3B, right? That was I thought where we were headed uh after our discussion only meeting. So, um and I think 3A is sort of the same with a couple of extra changes. But um and and the reason I'm torn is because if we turn down this ordinance, the existing ordinance is in place and that existing ordinance prohibits lying, sleeping, or sitting in a parking structures and city-owned parking restrooms for purpose of using the structure as a shelter. And it goes on uh to um say um has the language that it won't be enforced against a person unless the officer has first advised them of um that and provides for the use of the parking structure as a shelter um during certain uh weather situations. and uh to has the language that um refers to uh the person being identified as an unhoused individual and what happens under those circumstances. But it still turns it into a misdemeanor and applies to what would be the use of uh one of our parking shelter parking structures as a place to sleep. I'm not interested and I'm not going to vote to um criminalize the activity of likely uh individuals. And I realize this is broader that this applies to

other circumstances as well, not just to unhoused people, but it can. And um if it was not a misdemeanor, I'd probably be more receptive to it. But as it's worded right now, I can't support it. So I have a question for the city attorney. The language that this ordinance replaces, right, the language currently in 2664 about lying, sleeping, or sitting in a parking structure, uh could you address the enforcability of that current language?

Well, uh you know, it it is uh as I indicated earlier, a misdemeanor at this point in time. It's language that currently exists in the code. I don't know if it has been enforced. Uh I think on a question like that, um I'd like to sit down with it, evaluate it under constitutional law and provide you a review of that um instead of off the cuff trying to address it. I do have some questions about it. I will say that. So could you just echo that last comment? You do have some questions about I do have some questions about it. I if if if it is not amended, I would like to advise you further regarding that section of the code.

Could we do this? Can can would would you entertain a motion to postpone this to the second business meeting of April and then we by that time we could have an analysis and have a potential amendment to remove the misdemeanor aspect of it. Well, you can make any motion you like. M. Okay. I move that we postpone consideration of this item to the second meeting in April. Second business meeting in April. Motion by Meadows. Second by Griggsby. Mr. Whan, did you have a comment?

I think we should deal with this tonight. Um, the existing law has been there for a long time. I think if we need to review other ordinances, that law has been um on the books for a long time and it's been effective. I don't know that there's been a lot of concerns about how the law is written. I think the concerns over the the new ordinance and my perspective is I'd like to vote on this tonight. Further comments. So I share that perspective. I have heard several times now suggestions for changes to these ordinances uh that made me think that we were converging on something and apparently we weren't and I'm not interested in kicking the can again. Further comments Mr. Well procedely how I'm always the first one to vote. Uh well that may be if it's a roll call. So uh the motion at this point

sorry that's that's beside the point is on whether to postpone this item until the second meeting in April. Uh any further discussion on that motion. Roll call vote please. Council member Whan no. Council member Meadows. Yes. Council member Singh no. Mayor Pro Tim Griggsby. Yes. Mayor Alman, no. That motion fails. The item is not postponed.

If there are no further motions, then this carries over to our next business meeting. So, is there a motion? I can't find it. I'm coming up with one if Yes. Council member Singh,

can I move to not adopt either any of the options nor 15 60? not the typical method of acting on legislation, but it certainly would be a decision in the record to not to not adopt them. I think that that would suffice. Sure. I move to not adopt the previously proposed ordinance 1560 nor to adopt alternatives proposed of ordinance 1565. actually

both a 3A and 3B to amend chapter 26 division 2 section 26-51 and section 26-64 of the code of the city of East Lancing as presented motion by sing any concerns about that motion I think it was mentioning 1565 I think this is actually 1566 in the motion it was it referred to 1565 this is 66. Council member Singh, could I ask you to restate your motion? Yeah.

And I and and if I can I um perhaps simplify it if it's going to be restated, I think you could just refer to 1566. That would take care of all all versions that are in the packet or that have been presented. So just 1566. Yes.

Oh, it's the same motion on both our papers. and the memos that I keep click clicking on. Okay. I move not to adopt the proposed the previously proposed ordinance of 1560 and not to adopt options of ordinance 1566 to amend chapter 26 division 2 section 26-51 and section 26-64 of the code of the city of East Lancing is presented. Motion by Singh. Is there a second?

I'll second because I just want to make sure I understand everything. So, we're open that up to discussion. Second by Griggsby. Uh, so, um, what are you doing here? What? just cuz I'm I'm just took a flavor of the comment of the council this evening and I said let's bury it

vote against it if we think we got we still have stuff on the books that you know lends some in uh enforcement mechanism so this would uh you know essentially clear this off our docket Okay. Yeah, definitely second that. Okay. Motion to not adopt 1560 and not adopt 1565. Motion by saying, second by 66 66. It is wrong in the packet. You're right. I'm sorry about that.

Okay. Motion to not adopt 1560 and not adopt 1566. Motion by Singh, second by Griggsby. Any further discussion of that motion? Okay. Roll call vote, please. So, just to be clear, a vote, a yes vote is to not adopt these ordinances. Okay, so we're clear. Roll call vote, please. Council member Whan, yes. Council member Meadows, yes. Council member Singh, yes. Mayor Pro Tim Griggsby, yes. Mayor Alman,

no. That motion passes and those ordinances 1560 and 1566 are not adopted. Next item on the agenda is item 5.4 which is consideration of a resolution to provide notice of termination to Ogalry Deacons Nash Smoke and Stewart PLLC for labor and employment legal matters. Miss Irwin, could you give us a brief overview?

Yes, I'd be happy to. Just let me get to my spot. Uh, yes. This is um consideration of a resolution to provide notice to terminate uh as you said, Olga Tree, Deacons, Nash, Smoke, and Stewart for labor and employment legal matters only. Um, and that uh resolution is attached. The um terms of engagement for this particular um service went from goes from September 2nd, 2025 to June 30th, 2026 with the right to terminate services and representation. And so that would be uh acting on that right to terminate the services and representation. Gory Sashetal, the city's current labor and employment law attorney, will be leaving Ogal Tree, Deacons, Nash, Smoke, and Stewart effective March 30th of this year. The city issued an RFP on January 26, and did receive uh two responses, an RFP for this work. Interviews were held by the city council on Monday, March 16. Council is also being asked to select one of the firms. As such, the city will no longer need the services of Ogal Tree. Um, and that is uh basically a synopsis of what you have before you this evening.

Thank you. Um, questions for the acting city manager or anything else concerning this item?

I have a question. Yeah, there's no motion in our packet. Do we have to read the whole resolution? I have a motion. Oh, you do prepared that points to the resolution. Okay, make it. Okay, please. Uh, I move to adopt issue resolution 2026-18 to provide notice of termination to Ogulry, Deacons, Nash, Smoke, and Stewart PLLC. Second motion by Alman. Uh, second by Whan. I think you've made it by nose. Uh any discussion of that motion? All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? That motion carries. And that notion and that uh issue resolution is adopted. Which brings us to item 5.5, consideration of a resolution to engage a city attorney for labor and employment law services. Miss Irwin.

Yes. Uh this is as you stated a resolution to engage a city attorney for labor and employment law services and that resolution um also is attached. Uh city council will need to include the name of the firm it desires to engage for these services as part of the resolution. Uh city council interviewed two firms yesterday uh Monday March 16th. Uh that that was in followup in responses to our request for proposal for city attorney services for labor and employment law. And the two responses are from John Clark of uh Gar Garco Mullins and Horton and Steve Jopek and Jeremy Romer of Rosetti Schultz Japic and I'm gonna mess up the last name. Amure. Uh the city also received a letter from Lindseay uh Denge, managing shareholder of Murphy and Spaggnolo declining to bid. Uh so as I stated um city council did interview these two firms yesterday, Monday, March 16th. Uh city council uh did express a desire to issue an RFP in 2026 to consider other law firms specializing in labor and employment law. This will assist with contract negotiations uh as one of the items with eight of our nine unions whose contracts will expire in June of 2026. Um the city coun city council has been notified that Gari Sashhatal its current labor and employment attorney has joined the law firm of Rosetti uh Schultz Japic and ambulure effective March 30th 2026 which should also be noted.

Um the financial impacts are laid out for you to review. Uh and um and uh the resolution is attached. Also, I'm happy to answer questions. Let me just note for the record uh that at the start of this item, our city attorney um who is with the one of the firms we're considering uh left the room. So is not in the room and is not in the room currently. Questions or comments or motions? Mr. Griggsby, go ahead. Mr. Whan,

I would just say that we did get have a very engaging um communication from two different law firms. Um both had many positive things. I would say that the second firm which is Rosetti Gopic I don't know the rest of their names um was had some more resources. They were also very very responsive to the needs of the city and also the needs of our the employees of the city which was very impressive to me. Other comments? Mr. Riggsby?

Yeah, I echo that. Uh, Council Member Whan, I um I just want to speak to um maybe the price point of the two for the public because um I think the mayor made a great point uh when I was when we were talking about this and and really just appreciating, you know, you're getting what you pay for. And before I was on council, uh, one of the things I saw that we we moved in the direction that we did and that was one of the things that I noticed. And now being a part of the process, being a part of the negotiation, being a part of the expertise um within not just the interview process, but just since I've been here, I understand that a lot better in regards to the difference in what we're getting as opposed to what uh we would not be getting um based on what I know from the previous uh contract we had with the different uh organizations. So, I just wanted to say that out loud for the public and you know that is something that's uh really a learning curve that I've gotten from this process.

Further comments? I'm ready to make a motion if you want me to. You got one? I got one. Okay, go for it. Any other comments about this? All right. Um, so I'll make a motion and then I have some comments, too. Um, I move to adopt issue resolution 2026-9 to engage labor and employment law services with the blanks in the resolution filled in by Rosati Schultz Jopic and Amps Bller PC. That is my motion. I second it.

Uh motion by Alman. uh second by uh Meadows. I'll address my motion. So, the uh the interviews we had yesterday were well worth it and I appreciate the suggestions to have them. Uh I think we learned a lot about both firms and both firms interviewed well. Um I understand better now why uh GH decided to pursue this contract. I think they made a good case for themselves. But we really have an exceptional situation opportunity now with uh Rosati Schultz. They have been giving us really excellent legal services the past six months and I can't tell you how much of a difference that makes to our job. And then we've also been getting exceptional help from uh Gari Sashal, our labor attorney, who is currently with another firm but is moving to Rosadi Schultz. And in the course of that move, her hourly rate will drop from $400 per hour to $250 per hour. So that is a win. So everything points in the same direction for me here. The stars occasionally align, and I think they did in this case. Uh so um I'm fully supportive. Any further comments? Yeah, I I do want to say that uh you know, I think this is very much the right move and um I've been very impressed with the services that we received after we switched attorneys uh earlier this year and so I'm I'm happy to stick with the Rosati firm. I I'll just note that um the reason I didn't participate in the interviews is because we interviewed both these firms about six months ago. And I might add that we had already moved our labor services to the firm that we terminated this or announced the termination of this evening earlier last year when when um Gary moved to that firm and then now has moved to this firm

which I think is good for us. Uh I've been uh dealing with labor attorney for 30 years now and she's a very excellent labor attorney and I think we're getting great services from her. So um having the Rosati firm now handle our labor issues I think is a positive for the people of this community for staff and also for the city council. Mr. Well, and this firm also has other attorneys that could step in right with her, behind her. Um, so there's a great wealth of information from that firm. Further comments,

it would only be duplicative. I was going to mention that the, you know, that her second is uh recently at the city of Dearbornne, which a large community and uh has dealt with a lot of various issues. So, it's good that we have backup even though there is a price differential. Um, I do think there are meaningful relationships um that are being created and cultivated on behalf of um Garry um and hopefully that continues to grow uh with the community engagement. So,

further comments? Okay, seeing none, the motion is to engage uh Rosati Schultz for Labor and Employment Law Services. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Uh motion carries and resolution 2026-9 is adopted. And if somebody could go fetch Mr. Chopic because we will need him next. Oh, um, the mayor prom reminds me that we are once again about to turn into pumpkins. And so, uh, I would entertain a motion to allow us to consider, uh, to continue past midnight. Moved by Meadows, second. Second by Griggsby. Uh, all those in favor say I.

I. Any oppose? We are unable to go past midnight. Thank you for that reminder. Okay. Uh, attorney Jopic is back in the room. Um, Mayor, yes. Can we have three minutes? Five minutes? Sorry. Five minutes. Either I can walk out. Okay, we're going to recess for five minutes and we'll be back after that.

It's not Zoom. Is it team? I don't even know that. It looks like Zoom. It is Zoom. Yeah. I have been crashing out all night because it's been playing out of the speaker next to me while everyone's talking and I'm like, "Oh, yeah. Like a little delay. Stimulated by this thing. It just would not." Nobody else could tell because I'm right there and I couldn't hear it. Man, we have been going like this all like naked. I was to slam the laptop shot and just do it off of my computer. Okay, so let's just plug back in this one. Oh, I can't see. Sorry.

I've been wanting a five minute break to deal with this for the last seven hours.

There he is. All right, we are back in session. Uh, thank you everybody for your patience. Um, welcome to municipal politics. Um, next item on our agenda is uh item 5.6, consideration of a proposed special use request from Cody Dietrich on behalf of TDP Acquisitions LLC for approval of a new building with height exceeding eight stories at 530 Albert Avenue. The applicant request is to construct a 13 story development consisting of one, two, and threebedroom multif family dwellings, groundf flooror commercial space, and two levels of interior parking. The property is zoned B3 city center commercial business district. Miss Wright,

good evening. Alicia Wrightton, Planning Department. Happy birthday, Steve, and congratulations, Annette, and thank you for your leadership. City Council held their public hearing here on March 3rd. The planning commission had previously recommended approval of the request. The DDA had also previously recommended approval of the request, which includes the required diverse housing component in the building. The applicant would likely apply for a pilot for the diverse housing component to help with the cost. This is not a fee in LOW, but a separate application request that council would review related to taxes. If an alternative option were to be adopted by city council by ordinance such as a fee and loo or credit transfer, the applicant may want to utilize one of those alternative app options if there is something that would come forth. However, this ex structure does include the required diverse housing. The B3 zoning district prohibits parking. This is per the zoning ordinance. The applicant had requested two levels of public parking and the planning commission found that the request demonstrated the need for the structure because the proposed parking is intended to be used for the public and businesses in the area. Tenants will likely lease spaces and other city facilities. The applicant has provided data regarding their estimation of 0.2 to.3 parking spaces per bed which for 505 beds would be 101 or 151 at.3. They have provided comparable urban developments in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana showing a range and average of 2 to.3 which was included in the report. Additionally, should the project be approved, the developer would contract with the city for the parking department for the operation of the garage. That agreement would be worked out after an

approval and returned to city council for approval. The developer would be responsible for the capital improvements and city parking would handle administration including permits and enforcement. Details would be worked out through an agreement which again city council would be presented for approval. Items in the traffic study account for the requested scope of work and the engineering department has indicated that the few remaining items to be addressed can be handled um in a minor sense. The remaining questions uh the couple of uh examples talking about the height as an example the hub is four blocks to the east is also 10 stories. The Abbott and the Landmark are four four blocks to the west, both of which are 13 stories. Um, in consideration of this request, a sample motion for council is included in the packet, which includes the standards of the ordinance, which are to be stated in the motion, whether it's for or against, and the reasons why. The conditions of approval are also included for sample for council to consider of which the applicant is aware and include standard conditions such as following all state local statutes codes as well as conditions specifically related to the parking facility, the diverse housing component and for the proposed festune lights. The applicant is here and would like to address council and answer any questions you may have and I can also answer questions you may have.

Questions for staff at this point, Mr. willing. So if this is approved tonight goes back to planning to discuss the percentages of the diverse housing. So is there still time to talk about the fee and loo versus the That's what I thought I understood. Please. So

the application before you includes the 25% of diverse housing as required by the ordinance. That's what you're voting on. If in the future an ordinance were changed to allow a fianl or a credit transfer, the applicant could return and request that change depending on how the language is written in the ordinance. That may just have to go to planning commission. It may be through the public hearing process to city council. Um, but the applicant would have that opportunity to make the change because there are some experts on the planning commission, I think, that can speak to this, but that shouldn't change the application before you.

I understand. So, it's either it's a yes or no, but then there's a dis further discussion possibly if we do a new ordinance, change the existing ordinance, we need to do public comment. We'd need to have a first and second reading of it. I understand that. And then it would be a modification of the existing special use that's approved for the applicant to return to change their diverse, but what's in front of you meets the ordinance requirements today? I understand. And you did clarify um the Abbott is 13 stories. Yes. And which other one? I believe the landmark is 13 and the hub is 10.

Okay. And do either one of do any of those have public I know the landmarks coordination with the public private parking. The Abbott does not have any public parking in it. Correct. It's got their own parking. That's correct. It's got their own parking but it's not public parking. Correct. Okay. So, did we ask, just to clarify publicly, we asked them to put a public parking lot in their building? The current application? Yes. This application we're talking about 530.

They proposed the parking based on their interviews and community input sessions that removing the existing surface lot would be a problem for the commercial businesses in the area. So they are voluntarily providing this commercial parking. So they would basically pay to add the parking and then the city would work out. I know my council member Meadows has talked about the contract. You said we can deal with that. Yes. They would do the capital improvements and then the city would administer but through an agreement.

Thank you. Other questions of staff at this point? I have a a couple of questions. One is um would we it's probably too early to say, but would we anticipate that the city would keep the revenues from the parking or would that all have to be worked out? I believe that would be worked out and it would be a cost share. A cost share. Okay. And then could you clarify what's allowed by right in the downtown in terms of height? Eight stories, 112 ft.

Okay. So commercial on the first floor. If somebody came in with an with a proposal for an eight-story building, right, that met all the other aspects of the ordinance, would we even see it at the council? No. So, that would be administratively approved. Yes. Okay. Right. And well, and so now's the time to figure this out because this is important, which also would not require a diverse housing component. It would not. No, because it's used by right, not a special use. Mr. Jopic, that's my understanding as well.

And it would not and on the on the parking issue for buildings in the B3 in the downtown, they have to ask for a waiver to get parking. Correct. Right. So, this applicant has to had to ask for a waiver. So they did and they did and they got one from the determined that they demonstrated that there was a parking need which is this was not us asking it was putting on the they provided the request right they took on the burden of proposing the parking and making the request. Yes.

Okay. Right. Further questions for staff. I have some questions for the applicant or if I could ask the applicant to approach the podium. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, mayor. Um, does anyone else have any questions for the applicant at this point? I I just and ap I have a question and it could be you guys can pick who answers. So, the application before us fulfills our requirements, but in order for them to f the applicant to fulfill the 25%, they need a pilot.

Yes, they would request one. They would request a pilot later. So, are you going to start building if you if you were to get approval tonight? Okay. No, I I can't build without a pilot because I can't offset the loss in revenues. Okay. So, it's all going to be on hold till a whole bunch of things.

Well, if they would the applicant could return with an application to city council for the pilot for the tax relief and if that were approved, then the project could begin. We we could start designing and everything like that but you know we won't be breaking ground by any means. So I guess and this may be a city attorney like so the assumption is if we approve the project as presented is the assumption that we have to give them a pilot later cuz if we already know they can't meet the 25% today without a pilot and we don't or I I'm going to be far stretched to get to supporting a pilot. So, I'm just struggling with what does that mean for a vote today, you know?

Yes. Good question. Uh the requirement today is to meet the 25% under the current ordinance by providing 25% of of uh the project as uh diverse housing.

Yeah. Whether there's a pilot or not, uh, in other words, how the developer chooses to make that happen is a separate matter from the zoning decision tonight. Um, they don't have to have a pilot. They could proceed with the project without a pilot, but they still have to provide 25% diverse housing within the building. I think what we just heard is that they're not going to proceed with the development if they don't get the pilot, but this would be the first step. The next the f a future step is going to be, I presume, to come back and ask for approval of the pilot um at some point where it makes sense from the development timeline standpoint. So, they probably have a whole sheet that lays out what's happening at what stages. They're in the approval process for zoning approvals. getting the pilot approved at some point is going to occur in that process. Maybe you could elaborate on that if council would like. We don't know exactly when that is, but that is up to them. And if they don't get it, they could still go forward with the development based on the approval tonight as long as they meet the requirement, which is a condition of the approval uh and a requirement of the ordinance regardless to have that 25%.

I got you. Yeah, I I would agree with the city attorney. is a land use item and then the pilot is a separate economic development tool and um you know with any of those things the lease agreement the um um the pilot that would all come back as separate items that we come for approval but it would be great to know your feedback if you're absolutely no on the pilot that could sync us later on all of it like I mean it gets to the other math equation it's all a math equation for you and for us

yeah no and I can answer questions, but I can just to throw another thing out there. I know I mentioned this on the public record at the DDA. The mayor, I know you were there, too, but building the parking is is a burden on us. It's going to put us in the hole on overall scale of it by because we're going to lease it back to you at a reasonable rate. We're not charging $250 a stall or a revenue share program, whatever it is. Um, so we'll lose on that deal, but we were committed to do that for the, you know, the neighboring business owners. It's actually really disheartening that some of them have changed their tune on some of this piece in the public record now. and you know they want us to go to eight stories but still provide the parking because it benefits their public interest but it hurts us. So disheartened on that piece unfortunately but um you know that is the piece we've been trying to do to try to support the businesses and that's what excuse me contributed the height as well in the project. So

trying to solve everybody's issues the best we can. So, just to the to the point of the pilot versus the uh the separate votes that we're going to have, um just for everybody to keep in mind for the extra height, uh that will require a super majority in favor. So, that will require four votes to pass. Uh a pilot and the other decisions would just require a simple majority. So, that could lead to different configurations of outcomes potentially. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of of the dynamics of that.

But your point is bananas because those are the type of words I use at this hour. Um that it could be not a housing development, not a special use permit and built to that scale. Correct. So I'm assuming that's very bad news for some of the neighborhood that heard that that their contention is the height. So something else.

Yeah. Just to follow up, I mean, what do you think happened with the change in the tune with from the neighborhood and what you heard tonight? Because I know you said you had met with them. um they kind of understood what you were doing, what the goal was and then now it seems that um a lot of people come forward as if they weren't involved in the previous process. So I was just curious if you speak to that a little bit.

No, absolutely. You know, I think and mayor again, you're at the planning commission. We meeting we had uh Al Bay, I think, was the only person there that was opposed to the project at the time. And so the planning commission chair mentioned it. You know, last time there was 100 plus people in the room. This time there was one in opposition. And um you know, we had the public hearing last time. Um I'm sorry I forget your name, but you were here as well. And uh and then Al as well, but that was basically it. And what I think happened is a grassroots campaign over the last weekend or so, as she mentioned, and um did get more people. And so, you know, we we did not go door knockocking by any means. We reached out to the neighborhood association and, you know, assumed people who were involved in the land use policy would be able to be connected from there or notified. And so, we went through that piece. There was no qualms. They didn't comment last time at the public hearing. And so, it just has come out of I think grassroots efforts and totally understands in their legal right and everything like that. So, I think there's just more people maybe who aren't typically engaged got more engaged here at the, you know, 11th hour.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it just seems such a dramatic turn. I like this is my first go through, so I apologize if this is kind of the norm or or what, but you know what what are your options if the fact that you're not able to do this in the way you want to do it and try to cater to some of the concerns as far as the height? Is that is that is that a realistic deal for you guys at all? Uh, somebody's going to lose in this scenario. I mean, whether it's us partially, the business owners are going to lose their parking or the height for the neighbors. So, there's not a a win solution for everybody. It's just the true fact of it. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's Thank you. That's all I had.

Could you tell me when you first contacted the Bailey Community Association? Uh, I believe we went to the October 8th meeting because we wanted to do it before we submitted. So, it was probably about uh end of September. Okay. So, that was pretty proactive. you were you were getting out in front of it. Yep. So, we we uh we met with or coordinated through Justin Booth who's the chair of the group and so and then I know Mr. Overby is the vice chair of the planning commission and then uh Mr. Wagner was also on the planning commission. He was those both were at the meeting as well too and

at the planning commission they didn't mention any other concerns that the neighborhood had as well too. So, um you know we started with all the business communities at first. So, we had those original meetings back in April of last year and then I think we had one in June or or yeah, June and then August and then we had follow-up meetings with as many of the council members that would meet with us and then we had meetings with all the potential council members that meet with us. Some of them did who did not get elected and then the neighborhood as well. So, we tried to just talk to as many people as possible. Open book um in our neighborhood meetings with the business owners that was a little bit revolving door. Some people only showed up to one meeting, some showed up to all three. Some were only at two of the meetings. So, typically five to nineish people.

And I just want to I want to say we we haven't met. The only interactions we've had is at these public meetings. And that's just that's nothing personal. It's just my preference and I think there's nothing

wrong with having those meetings outside of uh outside of these public interactions, but it's just my preference and I think it gives me sort of a fresh eye. So, I just want to explain what's going on with that. Um so I our ordinance as you know um for the additional height right above eight stories there's an ordinance requirement that the applicant has to I'm reading here from the code the applicant has to demonstrate that additional building height is necessary in order to make the proposed development economically feasible for the intended use and no reasonable alternative to additional height exists. And you had a fairly short qualitative statement in your narrative that's linked to the agenda packet addressing that issue and it is basically construction costs are high

and the additional height is going to pay for the parking. Right. Do I have that basically right? That's correct. Okay. And then I'd asked I contacted Alicia yesterday and I think she contacted you because I was interested in some more details and I appreciate the email that you sent today. The the issue is that for people who don't live in this world, which includes me except the past several weeks where I have been living in this world struggling with this issue. It's not obvious that parking is a money loser. Mhm. Right. It's obvious to you. Yeah. It's not obvious to the community, right? Because they pay for parking.

Mhm. And nobody realizes that the amount that they pay for parking is a fraction of the cost of the parking, right? Because the rest of it gets subsidized from for some other sort. So a critical aspect of this proposal is that you are using the extra height to pay for the parking that the business owners ask for. Right? That's the basic configuration. Correct?

So here's my question. Can you put numbers on that? I I'll put rough numbers on it. So, you know, it becomes more efficient the more you build. If we were building the division ramp and 400 stalls or whatever is in the actual division ramp, that'd be very efficient because we don't have the structural components as well as a building above. When you add the structural components in with that, that adds to the cost. But then the little, excuse me, the smaller number of stalls you have also makes the efficiency cost go up. So realistically, I mean, from the some of the numbers we've gotten to to just break even on the parking, each stall has to generate $200 a month of profit of revenue minus after expenses.

And when you say break even, is that in terms of the construction costs? Just the construction costs. Okay. And so you're taking $200 in profit per stall and running that out 30 years or something. Correct. And then but we don't assume that that's going to be the the lease we strike or anything or the revenue share, however that works. we don't think we're going to get to those numbers as part of that as well too, right? Okay.

So, that that's the the other conundrum there. But then that doesn't factor in. So, so um when we go to institutional investors, they're going to look at yield on cost, which is your NOI divided by your total development cost. So, whatever your bottom line revenue is divided by the total cost of the building. Me adding three to$4 million of cost brings my yield of cost down even if I break even. So, it gets harder to finance that way, too. So I have to make ways to bring that back up. So I have to get higher than that piece. And so I don't just find enough units to offset exactly. I need to find units to go above and beyond to get to back to those numbers. Okay. So here's what I'd like and I'll ask I'll ask again and I'll keep asking because I think this is really important. Yeah.

Um can you can you put numbers on what you just said? Okay. So, you got to you got revenue that you've got to generate from your new housing units, and you're going to use that to cover the cost of building the construction. Yeah. Can you put numbers on that that are that are good good enough for us in the community to understand the tradeoff here? They don't have to be exact. They have to be ballpark. And I'm not asking you to do this tonight on the spot. I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to do I'm pretty good at math. So, yeah. No, I what I'm going to ask for and and this is I'm going to get to this issue later, but I don't foresee us voting tonight, okay,

on this issue because of reasons having to do with the sample motion. It's just not going to be practical. So, I'm thinking ahead to our next meeting. Okay. And can you potentially generate a memo that puts some numbers on this to help us and help the community understand what it means to say that you're using the extra height to pay for the parking? Yeah. If it helps you, I am teaching at Michigan State tomorrow of financial uh real estate class. So I I could do that for you. When and where? 10:20. Uh and Greg Denton's class. What room? Uh I can send the information. I would like that. Thank you. And I may see you there.

Yeah. Okay. So that's my ask, right? Is to put some numbers on this because as I was working through the this the standards of review. Okay. The one that tripped me up was that one about demonstrating that the additional building height is necessary to make the development economically feasible. Mhm. Okay. And I feel uncomfortable relying on a qualitative assessment there. Yeah. I would like some numbers and the community is going to want to see them too. Okay, you can probably guess that based on some of the testimony that we heard earlier, right? So that is my ask. Okay,

Mr. Whan. So if the proposal is delayed to delay and the pilot program is controversial and I've heard about that from people also, can we start the process of either lowering the diverse housing or something on that same agenda to start to deal with that now rather than wait until after we vote this. I think that there's um we have not had a lot of building in the community for a long time and I think that is a concern. I think um the tax burdens on the home owners out there is incredible. I do think there needs to be some growth in business and in other housing and less pressure on the rentals in the community. All that to say is, and I think there was a discussion of that number in several council meetings ago, um, if we're going to push it down the line, can we also start that process?

I think that process has started. Right. The planning commission has their public hearing next week. So that it's we we introduced an ordinance to address this issue. Right. Right. So that's in process. I just wanted to get that. So then can we be pretty pretty responsive as a council to that information from planning? At the same time as this project comes back to us. I think from council member Singh's comment I think that makes a lot of sense that I'm sorry you're about to say something. Go ahead.

The planning commission will probably have um some conversation before it comes back to city council. There's some different ideas that are being proposed. You've got the 10%, you've got different variations. Landing can speak to the ordinance more.

I just add that yeah, planning commission will have the first public public hearing next week. Um, and we will report back to council. Actually, council member Singh's request last time. Uh, we'll be reporting back to council on how the discussion is going. I I don't expect a recommendation back from planning commission next week. I I don't and I don't expect an ordinance to be adopted if adopted for several months still. The process takes some time and it would it would be it's not possible to address the ordinance at the same time unless you were to delay this months and and you wouldn't be able to do that.

So procedurally what happens is that council member Singh had asked for us to give a report back on what planning commission's discussion is. Then it'll go back to planning commission for further discussion. Then they'll make their recommendation to city council. Then city council will have to hold their own public hearing which has to be scheduled and you'll have your discussions and then you vote after that. So we're looking at a couple of months. Okay. I'm just asking for us to start the ball. It's rolling. Roll as fast as we can within reason and with due diligence. What? Yeah. I I should I don't want to mislead you. I will not vote for a pill. Okay.

So, um that is one vote against. I will just tell you that you know I don't consider I I realized staff's view with regard to the completeness of this um this particular application, but if this application had associated with it uh what I consider to be a locked in diversity requirement. In other words, you're going to put 25% in there if you and you're going to do that if we approve the project and if you want to come back to us and make a motion for a PILT, but this is conditional upon us granting a PILT and you've indicated that already and I'm not going to support it. I don't know how everybody else feels about it, but uh you know, I think it is an issue for you. The other thing that concerns me is that I'm probably not going to vote u yes on this unless we have a contract with the city associated with this with regard to the parking and the control of the parking structure if it is built and also a contract with the city or proposed contract with the city with regard to the other parking spaces that you're going to be leasing so that we have those documents available when we approve this project. Uh, with regard to the height, I haven't decided, you know, how I'm feeling about that yet. You know, I'm a I'm a believer in building up, not building out, as somebody said at the microphone earlier tonight. So, um, you know, height doesn't bother me as much as it apparently does some other people. Uh, but I want this property, this location to be functional and a positive thing within the community and I need to have those agreements negotiated and taken care of before I'm ready to vote yes on anything. So, and it wouldn't matter whether it's your project or somebody else's.

Yeah. Comments. Please speak to that. I'm sorry. Can you please speak to that about the agreement requirement? Can at the at this point in the land use approvals process, can we require an agreement or Well, asking use your microphones, please. Use your mic. I was I was requesting that the city attorney can speak to whether or not we we can require an agreement at this point in the approvals process or use that as a u a reason for um I guess as a criterion for a vote. Concerned about that? I'm not asking you to require it. I'm requiring it with regard to my vote. I understand, sir.

That that would we've heard from one council member uh in terms of looking for that sort of documentation. Uh I don't if it becomes something that council is going to include uh as a condition, we certainly would want to receive some input of whether that is something that um we have the necessary information at this time to be able to prepare. Number one, and I know we do have some information uh we have heard I think at the last meeting that uh there's a willingness by the applicant to work through those documents uh development agreement and so forth were mentioned as something they'd be willing to work uh with us on at the last meeting. I don't know if that still stands. So it it it partly is a question of is it possible and knowing an answer to that question um if it is indeed going to be part of a condition. Typically um it would be put in the condition that such an agreement be prepared and brought back and approved by council. uh and if that if council doesn't approve that agreement then that condition cannot be satisfied. So there is motivation to make it happen. Um but if again the comment from council member Meadows was an interest in seeing that before a vote even occurs as opposed to a condition and and that again would require some exploration some additional information to make sure that that can happen.

Yeah. No that is understood. Council member Meadows, we got feedback from some city staff before just trying to save on legal dollars for the city and everything of negotiating those out before you have an approval just to save money. I'd say let us worry about the legal dollars. Okay. Okay. So, thank you. Further questions, mayor, if I may to just add one other piece um about the property taxes because I know you've asked that several times. Um Lori Mullins uh was able to share some information what she put together. We didn't have a chance to discuss that piece, but um I think she put together which showed the city total getting from the DD and everything about $700,000 once the building's in year three or four.

Um our conversations previous that she's being a little more conservative. We assume that full assessment more in year three or four where she's kind of pushing out to five or six. So that's just maybe some of the differences in our numbers getting to the million dollars. So I just want to clarify that for you. Yeah. And that was a useful analysis and I'm satisfied that the project would would pay its full freight. Um, any other comments because I have some. No, I have one one question for for Steve if you will do this for me. Um,

I'd like just a slight analysis of section 50-36. Uh, while it does make it makes reference to general site plan approval. And while it does differentiate when we have a um when we have a special use permit being considered, it appears that it says that we approve it uh a site plan period. So I I just want some advice from you on that. So Okay. Yes. Okay. Um so thank you. I'm going to I'm going to talk for a bit. So you don't you don't need to stand there through through all this. I'll be back if you need.

Yeah. All right. All right. So, I appreciate all the feed and I also appreciate it's 12:22 a.m. But but we've gotten an awful lot of feedback recently just in the past few days about this project. And I think I think that a lot of the concerns we've had are ones that I or a lot of the concerns we've heard are ones that I share. I don't disagree with a lot of the comments. Um, but as is often the case, there's more to it than we don't want student housing and we don't want 13 stories. Okay? There's more to it than that. And so, I want to go down the list of some of the issues and it's I'm not going to try to be exhaustive, but I do want to take this opportunity to try to put some more context on the record. So, first of all, this is private property. Okay? People have written in to say, you know, we don't want the surface lot to disappear. Well, it's going to disappear, right? Because this is private property and the de the property owner has a right to develop it and it's it's a surface lot currently that the city runs, but we lease that property from the owner. Okay? We can't keep saying no to projects that go in there because at some point the owner will have a case that we are interfering with their right to develop their property. It' be a regulatory taking maybe I don't want to use those words in ways that I don't know what they mean but that's what I think it would be. So it's not if but it's when and it's what right which brings the history into play. Okay, as many of you will remember, two and a half years ago, there was a project proposed for this parcel and the project was for workforce housing, right, which was going to ask for they were going to ask for a for a

pilot, which we've had some discussion about, basically a tax abatement. And they came in proposing no parking, as is their right under the ordinance, right? you have to get a waiver to propose parking. So they they read our code and they said, "Okay, you don't want parking. We're going to not have parking." And the mistake they made was not doing the outreach that the current developer has done. Okay. So what they didn't realize is that they stepped on a bit of a landmine there and the local businesses were not happy and the community got behind them. Okay? And there was an organized no campaign which came out way ahead of this most recent flurry of negative responses we've gotten and it was it was an effective campaign and so that project failed. Fast forward current developer comes in looks at the history says I would like to actually build a project as opposed to just talking about it. talks to the Bay Community Association, talks to the business owners, learns that from everybody's perspective, nobody really likes the tax abatement, but the big killer is the parking. Okay, got to have the parking. And it's not just 30 spaces. It's almost stall for stall. That's what the business owners want. So developer says, "Okay, I'm going to include parking in the project." And to get to almost one for one replacement, you got to go up two stories because you got to have other stuff on the first floor of a project, right? Like a way into it. Okay? So, you got to do two floors. So, they listened to the community. They saw what doomed the last project and they addressed the issue. Parking is expensive. Okay. There is a book titled The High Cost of Free Parking. Okay, the thesis is in the title of the

book and it's like any other facility like this one. If you charge people the full freight of parking, if you charge that to the people who park there, nobody would park there because the rates would be too high, right? So, parking is subsidized. We spent $50 million on the Albert garage. Okay, that was a publicly subsidized structure. So, somebody's got to pay for the parking. Okay, you got to pay for it somehow. We could pay for it if we wanted, right? We could give them a tax abatement if we wanted to do that to buy two levels of parking. We could do that. We could give them tax increment financing. I don't know if they'd be interested in that. I don't want to go down that road because tiff is a dirty word in this city because it's been abused in the past. Okay. So, that's not on anybody's radar. Still got to pay for the parking. question is how they're paying for it with the height. That is what is paying for the parking. So you push it in here, comes out there. Okay? As the developer said, somebody's going to lose. And if in fact the next project, if we turn this down, if the next project comes in as eight stories by right, no parking, then everybody's going to freak out again. Okay? So, we have to think very carefully about this and what we really want here. And I've been trying to do that for weeks. I don't I'm not trying to lobby on one side of this or the other. I'm just trying to lay out why this is trickier than it looks from all the emails we've gotten.

Some of the emails are we don't want student housing, right? And yes, this would be the fourth fourth privately owned dormatory in downtown East Lancing. Okay, you got the Abbott, you got the Landmark, you got the hub, and now you have this project that's going to change the way our downtown functions. Somebody wrote in to say, "Well, this is the next step in extending MSU's campus into our downtown." And he's not wrong. Okay, here's the problem. You can't discriminate based on housing type. We have an ordinance that requires diverse housing. And if the developer meets that, we can't say, "Well, we don't like how you're meeting it." Okay? It's the ordinance. So, we can't turn them down because it's market rate housing. and it's going to be student housing. If we had a development agreement with them because they were building on public property or maybe if we were giving them tax abatement, then it might be another story. But if they meet our ordinance, we can't say no just because it's student housing. Parking assumptions, lot of skepticism about parking assumptions. Okay, they're assuming 2 to 3 cars per bed in this project, which is seems pretty low, right? And everybody says it's Michigan. It's Michigan State University. Every everybody's going to bring a car. Well, guess what? We have a couple of projects that have exactly that ratio. Okay? The Abbott and the Hub hover just above 02 spaces per bed. And the world didn't end. Okay? And there's been no complaining from the neighborhoods. So, it's self- selection. The people who are going to live there are the ones who don't have cars. That's how that's going to work. Traffic assumptions. Okay, the traffic study was very useful and it suggests minimal effects on the neighborhood in terms of trips up division in Bailey. You can look at the turning movements. There's not a lot of increase there. And that's the traffic that's the main traffic issue that I

heard about. Well, it's going to increase traffic from that project up to Burchin. Well, it doesn't look like it is. And guess what? If you put a hotel in there, okay, or an office building, that's going to generate a whole lot more traffic, right? Because people are going to be commuting to it. So, there's a lot of different moving parts here. Okay? So, I'm going to shut up, okay? Because it's late. But I want to close by going back in time, okay, to the 2000 to the 2023 meeting where they voted no on the previous project and that was a two to three vote. Mayor Bacon at the time, according to news reports, who voted against the project said, "Careful what you ask for. Careful what you ask for. We have now gotten what we asked for two and a half years ago. Okay, it has landed in our laps. It has landed in the community's lap. And together, we have to figure out what we're going to do, bearing in mind that something's going to go in there. And it could be eight stories with no parking and no city council approval. Okay, so that's my version of a reality check. Now I have a couple of procedural issues. Okay. The one is if we do nothing tonight then this carries over to our next business agenda under our operating procedure. So we don't we don't need a motion to postpone. Okay. If we do nothing tonight

goes to April 7th. It just goes to April 7th. Okay. That's the one procedural thing. The other procedural thing, city attorney sent us a sample motion in email Thursday of last week. Wednesday of last week. Thursday.

Thursday. Sample motion is in the agenda packet. It is four pages single spaced. It took me 20 minutes to read without filling in the blanks. Okay. And that's the hard part, okay? Is filling in the blanks in this motion. We are headed in a new direction because of case law where we have to make motions to deny or approve that are heavily detailed and relate factual findings, representations, other information to specific standard review criteria in our ordinance. Okay, that is going to require some homework, more than we can possibly do tonight, even if it were 7:00 and not 12:30 a.m. Okay, so it ain't going to happen tonight because it's going to take some work to put that motion together. And I spent most of Sunday on this. Okay. Um, this is our homework, okay? between now and April 7th. This is our homework is thinking about this motion. And so what I'm going to suggest based on a conversation earlier with the city attorney is that if people are inclined one way or another on this, approve or deny, okay, talk to Mr. Jopic and figure out how to start filling in the blanks with him, okay? and he can pull in planning staff as necessary because there's going to be some real work involved in this figuring out what aspects of the entire 700 pages of information we have in front of us here are relevant to these different standards of review. So, this is going to be work, right? And the city attorney has offered to help with this. And if somebody else is inclined in that direction, okay, two of us can work

together, right? Two of us can work together. Three of us can't, but two of us can work together and with the city attorney and we have three weeks. So, let's start thinking about this now. Okay. Can I ask a question, please,

Steve? the and it's actually a question for the for you as well. The uh and I'm going to use the phrase development agreement, but let's not think of it as a traditional development agreement. Could we handle something like this by essentially negotiating the motion and having these conditions stated forth in a motion that ultimately is shared with the uh applicant and that the applicant and the city agree that some document because if this is four pages long single space it's in the nature of a contract not not so much the nature of a motion. So, I'm asking you is that um something that we could uh try to do uh in order to make sure that we've filled in all the blanks that we've dealt with perhaps an issue like uh the agreement with the the city with regard to parking and the control of the parking structure that would be constructed. If it was in a document, a contract, part of a motion that approves the project, would that be a way to go? I I think it could be depending on how it evolves. I think if you're talking about including a condition that right now, the sample motion has a suggested or possible condition you might adopt that addresses the parking structure. Uh it's not long. We could add detail and more specific information about control and who's respon, you know, general ideas of who's responsible for what in a contract to be prepared at a point in time in the future. But yeah, we could add a lot more detail on that motion could even or in that condition and even, you know, I know that there

there's some thoughts from staff side that I've heard and and learned uh and and communication with the applicant as well perhaps to to establish at least, you know, an idea that yeah, we're on the same page, include that in the condition, but it would have to be encapsulated in an actual more detailed agreement down the road. Yes, certainly if that's what you're talking about.

So that wouldn't negate what you're you're suggesting to us in any way. But I'm just trying to think of what's what's how how could we systematically take care of this in a way that um where we can make a simple motion to adopt the agreement that has been reached for that as opposed to going through the entire damn thing uh single spaced and making a motion. So could we do could we do an issue resolution or something equivalent so that the motion is simply to adopt something that has all the language in it?

Yes. I was just going to mention that if if um you know if there is some communication and we identify uh how everything's going to be laid out, it could be done um by way of a motion that has the approval language and adopts and attached or document that's in the agenda. given a label that you could put the label right in the motion similar to how you adopt resolutions sometimes just referring to the number and name of the resolution. So there could be a document prepared in the agenda packet maybe stating the conditions or maybe stating all of the findings and conclusions as to all the elements or both. Um yeah, we we could work on that. It it really depends on how prepared we're able to get prior to the agenda packet being due uh for for uh whatever meeting it's put on. If if that additional detail is going to be provided um you know I'm I'm not it sounds like 3 weeks until the next meeting. I honestly didn't look uh might be able to do it by then or can make our best effort in that regard. Depends a lot on communication. And it might be better to postpone to a a date 30 30 days down. Give us a little extra time, but that's up to you. We'll we'll make work uh make it work as best we can. Um and then uh just from my standpoint because I as sort of a counterpoint to to one of the things you mentioned, you know, personally, yes, we've been beaten up on tax increment financing, but um the reality of tax incre increment financing is we built a $25 million garage that the city owns that was built by the developer and we pay that debt. through tax increment financing with

your money because it comes to us and then we hand it back to you as payment. So, uh the fact that the public doesn't quite understand that we aren't using any of their money uh to pay it off a lot of meetings with that. Yeah. The um you know that is another way of approaching this in my opinion. So, let me just add that tiff is great because you get to use other people's money. Yeah. Right. We capture taxes that would go to other jurisdictions. So, it's actually a really good deal. And if we want to go that route and suddenly suddenly everybody starts to want us to use tiff to pay for a two-level ramp on that lot, let us know. Maybe start a campaign door knockers on our property, too. So,

um, timing gets to be tough. Yeah. So, Mr. Jopic, I'm floating ideas here. So, if a council member says, "I want a motion to approve," or, "I want a motion to deny," and asks you to build a motion based on that in conjunction with planning staff by filling in the blanks. Is that an appropriate and doable thing? I I think it is, and it might end up being one of each depending on where council is.

So, we got a direction then. people are leaning one way or the other, then register that with the city attorney and they can get to work and start developing a motion. So then we give direction, they do the homework and inter interactively, right? We interact with them on it and say what we like, say what we don't like, and then we could do some things and conditions that address some of the issues you mentioned. Sounds like we have our next stops. I think you got your your marching orders. Um, do we want to take Steve's recommendation?

Mike, say, do we want to take Steve's recommendation to go 30 days out for the return of this? Uh I'm going to the developer saying no here. You're running out of time. Time is of the essence of this piece and even you know stretching three weeks is hard on us too um on that and you know we have to take in consideration some of the things you know not supporting a pill today. So there's things for us to think about from this meeting too but stretching 30 days I think is just too long for that piece and I want to yeah I want to try to be accommodating. So I'm also not inclined to support a pilot. Okay. So more feedback on that. No, that's we appreciate that transparency, but I am also inclined to support a reduction in their threshold. Yeah.

Okay. So, I don't know where other people sit on that, but I just wanted to mention that. Yeah, there will be some changes of some sort, but yeah, thank you.

I do want to I promise to shut up, okay? But I'm not going to quite yet. I want to say that there are things some things I like about this project, okay? And again, you can sit I'm not going to ask any more questions. So, one of them, they're going to pull the edges back from the property line by four to 5 ft on three sides of the building. Okay? And that's in part in response from to concerns from the the business owners that didn't want to be crowded. They don't have to do that, right? In the B3, they can build to the property line, but it's going to help. It's going to make it feel better at street level. It's going to give some breathing room. They're going to step it back another 10 feet above the third level as it goes up. That's going to help with the crowding. And you can you can discover that for yourself if you go downtown to the 13-story buildings we have and you stand under where the buildings are stepped back. You don't feel the height. Okay. They're going to do aggressive storm water management. Okay. Beyond what the ordinance requires them. And they're going to do geothermal which is cool, right? And good. So I've worked with a bunch of developers in this capacity. And this developer has been responsive and accommodating. Okay. and has engaged with the community in appropriate ways and this is relevant and now I really am done. Is there anybody else who would like to comment? Anything more from planning staff, city attorney, anything more that we need to you need from us? All good. All right. Thank you. I think we're done. Is there anything that you Elsa you need to tell us?

I'm good. Thank you. Okay. All right. Again, appreciate your patience. Which brings us to consideration of amending the boundaries or type of a previously approved residential rental restriction overlay district. Mr. Meadows,

if you don't mind because of the late hour, I do have a motion and if it goes, I'll talk about it. If it if it isn't seconded, then you know, we're done here. Um, but I checked with Steve uh to create a motion with regard to this because when we received the the agenda item, it didn't have an ordinance number attached to the the document. So, I move to have the city attorney assign an ordinance number to this item and for this item to be referred to the planning commission and the housing commission for review and recommendation with instructions to provide a recommendation by April 30, 2026. That's my motion.

Motion by Meadows. Second. Second by Griggsby. Any discussion of the motion? Mr. Mayor, I do have one procedural question. Does this I didn't hear the word introduction. Is that intentional that this would not be an introduction of the ordinance at this No, this is an introduction. I'm sorry. Okay. Just wanted to make that clear. That should be part of the motion if it's not. Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I I skipped a word. It's moved to introduce and have the city attorney. Okay.

All right. I'm going to vote against this motion. I think that writing zoning ordinances for a single person is an abuse of the zoning process. At best, it's favoritism. At worst, it looks like corruption. Um, and for that reason alone, it's inapprop and it's inappropriate. Rental restriction overlays have worked well for 20 years in some instances to protect owner occupancy in our neighborhoods. Um they don't work if you start letting people out of them. You start poking holes in overlays. The houses around them feel increased pressure because that hole becomes an over a student rental. The houses around them start feeling additional pressure to ask for their own exception and they now have a precedent to rely on. You wrote an ordinance for that first person. I want my ordinance too. And that is a slippery slope. We are crossing a Rubicon here for absolutely no good reason. And we are proposing a process that violates the intent of the enabling ordinance for overlays, which is neighborhood self-determination. And if a community member can convince council members that there is a fairness issue, then they can con convince their neighbors that there is a fairness issue. And we should allow it to proceed that way. And I don't think there's a fairness issue here because the person who's been

requesting this by their own account signed the overlay petition when it went into place and now has changed their mind. If we grant an exception, a special ordinance for that case, then all the people who didn't sign overlays but find themselves in one and unable to rent their houses have a really strong fairness argument. Okay? Because their right to rent their property has been taken away. You let the person out who wanted the overlay initially and then changed their mind. you need to let me out, too. This is not going to be a problem for me because by the time the holes reach my house, I'm going to be six feet under. Okay? But we have an obligation to not do damage to the next generation. And we have real problems to solve here because it is 1:00 a.m. 10 to 1 and we are talking about creating a new problem for ourselves and so I am going to oppose this ordinance at every stage. Okay, I'll respond to that. Uh number one, given that um the overlay the entire idea of overlay districts was one of my ideas that we had uh enforced and uh implemented uh back in the early 2000s. And part of it was to pre continue to prevent the spread of of rental housing within our particularly the close-end neighborhoods, although it applies to White Hills and other areas of the city. In this particular instance, um I think

we're actually talking about an ordinance that is so limited in scope that it will apply to basically the only properties that um have been identified. But also it provides a missing element in the overlay zone which is a function to allow somebody out under certain circumstances. And the other part of this is that I know there was a question about democracy uh a little bit earlier. The democracy is filing a petition because the city council determines the scope and the size of every uh petition and makes determinations to expand or restrict. It is not bound in any way by the boundaries that are set forth within the petitions. In this particular instance, I'll just tell you my memory of this and all you have to do is look at the map that is uh uh on our website and identify these this property down here in the lower left hand corner. And the only reason it was included was because Mr. Hank signed the petition. It is completely surrounded by rental property other than the next door neighbor on the back. Uh even though that's not in a in a um rental over overlay zone um you know went ahead because you know every every rental property is also listed on our website. You can look up every neighborhood, every address and find out whether there's a rental property. Even the backyards are covered by rentals. Across the

street are rentals there. Frankly, the only issue that uh I saw down here was I guess we did the same thing with some um some properties on um Sycamore Lane because there's three houses there completely surrounded by rental properties and we included them because they probably signed the petition. So, I don't think this is unjust. It isn't a slippery slope. It isn't anything like that. What it does is it actually supports the ordinance by inserting the one thing that someone can come in and sue us over as a matter of justice and say, "I should have never been in here." And this is the only way they're going to be able to do that by having themselves and no more than one other on one side of a block completely surrounded by rental houses. So I disagree with you. You know, we we've we've had this sort of passionate conversation before about this, but I don't think this does any damage whatsoever as to what we do. And frankly because I am so invested in the idea of um overlay zones and that I feel that they have been very very successful within our community and we just voted for one uh a couple weeks ago. They um you know I'll just say that if I thought it would do damage to it I couldn't possibly vote for it and it I don't believe it will. Any further discussion?

Uh, Mr. Griggsby. Yeah, thank you. Um, so I guess I mean I understand this particular situation. If you were to take this situation out and just look overall um I'm I'm just wondering um the equity part about it. If someone feels justified that they want to be let out, you're saying that you just you want to provide that process and you want to be able to have a process. Yes, I'm sorry. You want to be able to have a process uh that gives us the decision making ability to to address that. Is that correct?

That that that is completely correct. And I might add, although we didn't discuss that, that this proposed ordinance, all it does is say somebody can ask and council can either agree or not agree. And the only condition uh only time they can ask is if they're on one side of a a block surrounded by rental properties with no more than one more um owner occupied property on that block. So it's a very limited uh let out but it is always up to us as to whether to agree to it or not. So if this passed and the uh the individual who would be affected by this um asked made a petition or made an application to do this we would ultimately we decide whether we're going to go forward with it or not. But I think having it as part of the ordinance, as part of the process of overlay actually enhances our ability to in the future against the legal um challenge to defend the ordinance even better. Um I guess my question is to the mayor. You said you were concerned about litigation in regards to this amendment being in here. Did you say that or did I misunderstand you?

I don't think I mentioned I I thought you said they would open us up to lawsuits, but I could have been

No, I I am I am concerned when when we start talking about litigation and threats of lawsuit and bolstering our ordinances, we we need to defer to the city attorney on those issues because he's the one who's going to be doing these things. But I do want to say that I think there is at least a moral if not a legal or a legal moral if not a legal argument um where if one person gets an exemption then the next person has a right to ask for an exemption because we just gave one and if we don't give it then I think we're not being equitable and that's why that first exception is huge that is crossing the Rubicon on that first exception is the problem and we haven't given any in the history of overlays and that's what we're talking about and that's my concern.

Any further discussion?

I'll just say that I would normally agree with that if we weren't establishing a process. If we if we just you know somebody came to us and said uh you know I don't like I don't like the fact that I'm in this any longer and we said okay then I think we are establishing a precedent of some kind and someone could rely on that in the future and say you let them out but this is a process and is a strict process set forth in an ordinance and I think that's a different thing and you know this is a long way from from coming back to us for a vote because it's going to planning and housing. But if uh Steve can give us more information on that, I know we got something today, but he can probably give us more information on your concern. The process establishes a parameter set of parameters that includes a particular set of processes, right? Or includes a particular set of houses. Somebody else can come in and say, I would like those parameters changed so that my house can get out too. That's the sense in which this is a process.

Yeah, they could they could ask us to to make an ordinance change and we don't have to do that. So, all right. Any further discussion, Mr. Whan? Just for the record, I'm concerned about opening the door. Any other comments? Okay. Roll call. Uh, the motion is to introduce and refer an ordinance that will be numbered by the city attorney. If this motion yes is adopted, that's what we're voting on. It's going to the planning committee and then it's coming back to us for and when it's introduced and referred, it would go to the planning commission. They would hold a public hearing and they would send us back a recommendation and then at that point we would make our decision.

Okay. Okay. So, that's the motion. Everybody clear? Uh, roll call vote, please. We've got a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Did you put a date that you wanted to hear um back because I thought early April 30th was the the date. April 30th. Yep. I wanted to make sure that that gave time to the planning commission and the housing commission. The housing commission has one meeting. Is it April 2nd?

And would would you guys have time to avail Just to put on the record, the comment from the audience is that the next available planning commission is May 13th. So, let's make the can we if there's a friendly friendly agreement, can we make that May 15th? Is that does that work? Is there unanimous consent to change the motion from April 30th to May 15th? Any objections to that change? Okay, that amendment is adopted. So, the motion is now for May 15th. Yep. Okay. Uh, roll call vote, please. Hang on with the vote for a second.

Are we good? Okay. Roll call vote, please. Council member Wayan, no. Council member Meadows, yes. Council member Singh, yes. Mayor Pro Tim Griggsby, yes. Mayor Alman, no. That motion is adopted. Uh the motion carries and the ordinance to be numbered ordinance is referred to the planning commission. That my friends brings us to item six which is motion by Griggsby, second by Meadows. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? We are ajourned. Thank you all.