Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lancing City Council regular business meeting of April 7th, 2026. The meeting will come to order. Could we have the roll call, please? Council member Whan here. Council member Meadows, here. Council member Singh here. Mayor Pro Tim Griggsby here. Mayor Alman here. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So move. Moved by Meadows, second by Griggsby. Uh all those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Agenda is approved.

Is there a motion concerning the minutes of previous meetings? I'll move that we approve the regular council meeting minutes from 17 March 2026 and the discussion only special meeting minutes from 16 March 2026. Motion by Meadows. Second. Second by Singh. Any corrections to those minutes? The motion is on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Next item on our agenda is a special presentation by AARP Michigan recognizing East Lancing's continued good standing in the AARP network of age friendly states and communities. Welcome.

Okay. Good evening, Mayor Alman and members of the East Lancing City Council community. My name is Satie Shadic and I'm the communications analyst for AP Michigan and I help lead our age friendly work across the state. Thank you for the opportunity to present this um plaque today. ARP Michigan is proud to recognize the city of East Lancing for its continued commitment to being an age-friendly community. Since joining the ARP network of age friendly communities in 2017, East Lancing has demonstrated meaningful leadership in creating a city where people of all ages can thrive. As you know, the ARP network of Age Friendly States and Communities is the United States-based affiliate program of the World Health Organization's global network of age friendly cities and communities. The network supports communities as they prepare for a rapidly aging population by encouraging thoughtful attention to environmental, economic, and social factors that shape quality of life. What makes East Lancing's work especially strong is the way age friendly principles are not treated as a standalone effort but are intentionally aligned with broader city plans, policies, and community priorities. This integrated approach helps ensure that considerations around housing, transportation, public spaces, and more are woven into how the city plans for the future. The greatest impact of being an age friendly community comes through implementation. Nationally, there are over 1,000 network communities. the majority of which have successfully advanced policy changes and overcome barriers that once limited livability. That is why this work and your continued commitment to it matters. This evening, it is our honor to present the city of East Lancing with a plaque recognizing your sustained leadership and dedication to creating a more inclusive, accessible, and connected community for residents of all ages. ARP Michigan looks forward to seeing how you advance your recently approved action items through integrated plans while continuing to work alongside you and

help share the story of your progress. Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to making East Lansancy a great place to age, a great place to live at every stage of life. I also want to thank our great um committee members um that serve on our uh East Lancing Age Friendly Steering Committee. Um without them, you know, none of this would happen. So, thank you. Thank you for your presentation and thank you for your work. I think we have someone coming up to receive it. Nobody stand behind people squeeze in here.

Good. Thank you for your work. Somebody's gonna have to hang it in city hall.

Okay. Uh, next item on the agenda is uh, communications. All our written communications, the email, which we receive at the email account, council@cityvancing.com. um all those emails as they come in, we council and the city manager see them in real time and then they are linked to the next business meeting agenda uh online late in the afternoon of the meeting. So that's how that works and those emails are an excellent way to reach us. Uh communications from the audience, Tim Rosowski, uh Tim Rosowski, uh 613 Grove Street. So, I'm here just to uh give my support to ordinance 1562 for the properties on Gro Street. So, uh this project or this came before you. You granted a uh reszoning uh for an uh uh condition upon an apartment building and there's a change of plans to go to keep these as as uh single family homes uh rental homes. So, we had uh great support in the neighborhood for this. there was no opposition at the planning commission and we think this is a really good outcome for the uh for the neighborhood. I I'm working with uh the Hagen group on the renovations uh renovation plans for these projects. So I've I've been in the houses multiple times and I think they can easily support uh the rental uh for four. So, um, and then also I wanted I know that, uh, Councilman Grisby is going to comment on on Larry Cross and make some comments, but I served with Larry on the building board for almost 40 years and just a wonderful person and I think a great loss for our community. So, I'm looking forward to hearing your your comments, Chuck. So, thank you.

Thank you. And I will notice I will note that we do have a public hearing tonight uh concerning um the resoning that the speaker just referenced, ordinance 1562. I'll go ahead and call all the slips I have now during public comment, but we will have a public hearing later if anybody wants to comment at that point. They can also have another opportunity. Uh Denita Brandt Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. Denita Brandt from the Bailey neighborhood. I'd like to use this opportunity to share what I've learned over the past five weeks advocating for our neighborhood in regard to granting a special use permit for a 13story apartment building on our doorstep. At its core, this is a question of scale, compatibility, and long-term impact. first scale and compatibility. A 13-story building at this site is fundamentally out of proportion with its surroundings. We understand that the height exemption is to compensate the developer for the financial loss represented by incorporating parking to accommodate the affected East Lancing businesses. We appreciate that at the March 17th council meeting, Mayor Altman asked the developer for the numbers to demonstrate this loss and the break even point for this project. But at the same time, we marvel that these numbers were not in the hands of the city planning committee before they approved the request for a special use permit. Second, infrastructure and traffic. We've been asked to accept projections that traffic impacts will be negligible and that car ownership will be minimal. But lived experience in this community tells a different story. Even the

project's own numbers indicate a significant gap between projected demand and available spaces. Approving this project without a clear plan to manage these impacts places the burden not on the developer but on the city and all of us. Third, housing diversity and community stability. Supporters of the project share the common refrain that we need more housing to get more affordable housing. The simple math of supply and demand. But it's not simple math, is it? It's complex. And the math only works when the housing being built serves a range of people. This project is single demographic targeted highcost housing. It does not diversify our housing stock. It will further concentrate a transit population in a critical corridor of our city and that has consequences. Communities are networks of people who invest in the long-term health, stability, and identity of a place. When we prioritize housing that turns over every year, we erode that stability. Fourth, impact on neighbors and existing assets. Issues of privacy, noise, and overall livability are not hypothetical. They are predictable outcomes of an influx of 505 beds and their occupants in a small area adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Fifth, process and public benefit. We have not seen clear data on the potential costs to infrastructure and city services including fire and police. And importantly, there is resident input raising consistent concerns about this proposal. That input should matter. Finally, identity. We have a comprehensive plan to help us answer

questions like, who do we want to be today and in the future? Here's an excerpt from that plan. Housing trends reflect the need to have affordable, diverse, attractive, and safe housing available in walkable neighborhoods for many different demographic cohorts. This equates to strategically increasing the number of urban housing options available while maintaining the desired character of the existing neighborhood. Does this proposal get us closer to realizing the comprehensive plan? Many East Lancing residents say no. At the March 17th meeting, Mayor Altman cautioned us to quote, "Be careful what you ask for, as another project might even be worse." I can appreciate the sentiment without agreeing with it. Decisionmaking based on avoiding hypothetical worstcase scenarios while granting special use permits that subvert ordinances isn't governing or planning. its reacting and resignation. What do we want? Development that aligns with our zoning standards, our long-term vision.

30 seconds remaining and the lived reality of East Lancing residents. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Lori Stro. Oh, I was with the age friendly group. I don't need to speak. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you,

Lisa Homock. My name is Lisa Homine. I live at 222 Ridge Road in East Lancing. Excuse me. And after 2 and a half years, I can fully support ordinance 15. What is it now? It's gone through so many iterations now. 1562. I know there's a public hearing, but I don't see very many other folks here, so I figured I might as well get it down here. I fully support it. Um the reszoning from um to RM32 was not something that the neighborhood really wanted, but it went through anyway. The Hagen group decided they wanted to do an apartment building with 48 beds. What they're proposing now as a conditional resoning is considerably less considerably less than an apartment building. And the neighborhood is very much in favor of that. And we want to keep it that way. Want to keep our little pocket neighborhood a pocket neighborhood small. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Naughty sellers. I'm here with uh Mason West mother Kelly's Woods. It's been 228 days and our sons still have not received any justice. The leadership of East Lancing has mishandled the Peppa Spray incident to the point where all trust has been lost, not only with the community and my family and Kelly's family, but also amongst some of you. In response to the complaint my son filed with the MDCR, one of your attorneys, Timothy Faren, said to the MTR, "The city has created a human relations commission to implement the city's civil rights ordinance. A complaint process has been established by which any person claiming to be agrieved by a violation of civil rights may file a complaint." So my son did and so did Kelly's son with the HRC. But then the city attorney Caro said to the HRC and we were both there, do not investigate the complaint filed by Smith and Woods. It would hurt the city and the HRC is part of the city. Two hired attorneys, two different views, one to do the right thing, one to cover up what they did wrong. Another response from the city to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, Officer Lions, who pepper- sprayed my

son at close range, said this. I couldn't tell his race. H it was lit up that night, lights everywhere. Another response to the MDCR complaint. Officers were called because of an argument. That's interesting. The video showed Officer Kingsbury was already there. Then the city said to the MDCR, "They were pepper-sprayed because of a fight. I thought they were called because of an argument. Then you said my son was pushing his best friend Mason, which somehow made it a fight in the front when they actually came up behind Mason to pull him away from an argument. Then the city told the MDCR there were three people fighting, but you only arrested two and later dropped the charges because the video clearly showed there was no fight. You guys are some of the worst liars. You can't even find the truth if you looked for it. Jen Brown said the officer yelled stop three times, but the officer himself said he yelled to get back. Which one was it? The city told MDCR, "My son was arrested for disorderly fight and disturbing the peace." Welcome night. Welcome week. Everybody out there was disturbing the peace. Interesting. The city told the Michigan Department of Civil Rights this the claimment race was never injected into the conversation. H Jen Brown put out a statement right after saying her famous words, "Minorities come to this community to commit crimes." The city of East Lancing told the Michigan Department of Civil Rights it wasn't a minority issue, but white folks

were arrested that night. A lot of people were arrested that night whose name was leaked to the press. Two young African-American black men only. My son and Kelly's son, Mason Woods. So, Officer Lions resigned. I guess he had the courage to do something Jim Brown has yet to have the courage to do. The thing that's interesting to me though is Officer Lions had a criminal history. He had a criminal record that should he should never have been a police officer carrying a gun in the first place. And you talk about pepper spray. Did you know that the video showed your own chief of police was there ready to deploy pepper spray against black young kids? She had it on her too with the intention to release it. Meanwhile, my son Lonnie Smith has never been in trouble until that night. Never been arrested, never had a fight in school, never been suspended. He's a college student, not a criminal. He is a resident of Okamus, Michigan, not of Lansancy, Michigan. He wasn't drunk, but you guys said he was. At the end of the day, I know it's difficult for you guys to do the right thing. But I hope at some point you take it upon yourself to do that because you won't be judged by us. You'll be judged by God, and that's far worse.

Thank you. Uh are there is there anyone else in the audience who would care to address the council? If so, please approach the podium.

You can just leave it on the podium when you're done. Thank you. This second time I've been here, first time with same issue a couple years ago. I'm Katherine Dockerty. Could you make sure I'm sorry? Thank you.

I'm Katherine Doerty. We live at 963 Applegate Lane. It's in White Hills where Stonegate and Applegate meet. We've been there 35 years. We've loved living there. We've never had a problem with water. The last, well, since August 2021, we've been flooded four times. Um, the first time it happened, one, two, three, five times. The first time it happened, we never had a sump pump. We put in some pump, check valves, um, French drain. We did every, we did everything we could to remedy the situation. Now, the subsequent floods that have happened, our basement's dry, but where we sit and the water rolls down Stonegate from Sagena. It comes in waves. It fills that intersection with water um to the point that it has reached our porch. And if you were to come by and see the property, you would realize how how deep that water is in the center to get to our porch. It's probably Well, my husband's not very tall. It's definitely his ar it's definitely his armpits. I'm sorry. That water in the center of the street gets to be four or five feet deep. We've lost cars in there. Uh if if you had a car parked in the street when this water started, it would be lost. Most of the people that have lost their cars have driven in it. Anyways, I've called the city many times and I I read the statistics about these these new recent very heavy downpours and and I I agree. But after 35 years for all this to happen in the last four years, we feel something's changed. I'm not exactly sure that when they made that new circle around to come into Stonegate from Sagena that that somehow didn't make the water start to come down Stonegate. When they did our streets and curbs about 18 years ago, they took out two of the the storm drains on Stonegate that led to

our low intersection. We used to have four on Stonegate. Now there's only the two at the top and then nothing stops the water from coming down. I understand behind us it's every bit at worse. Realtor.com shows me as a 10 10 going to flood. Um I don't know where those numbers come from. I'm trying to fight that with realtor.com. But I I I I want to come here and and say I know the water study's been done. I've responded to it twice. I only found out about it accidentally. I do get the Lancing State Journal. I do listen to the the news. I don't think it was well publicized. I understand it's been kept open a bit longer so that people can respond to it with their own experiences. Um and I've done the best I can with my neighbors. I've done the best I can with my um rakes trying to keep our street gutters clean. My husband bought me waiters. He thinks that's funny, but yet he was the one out past his arms in the last uh storm March 6th and then the one Saturday night with those waiters trying to clear the drains. I don't know if something can be done about the drains. We need more of them. We need better ones. We need bigger ones that I don't know. They can't be too big because little animals might fall into them. But something's changed. I feel something has changed in the infrastructure that's causing this rain water to so quickly accumulate. I was looking out the window at 4:30 on Saturday. I could see the curbs. By 4:40, it was halfway up the yard. It happens so quickly that it's it's a little scary and really nothing you can do about it if it comes in the the the front of the house. We do have flood insurance now. We bought that. But, um, I did want to come here and just say I'm I'm very concerned about it and and I appreciate so much the street the street cleaners that they were out by 8:30 in the morning cleaning the the gutters and they came before. I mean, they've done a really good job. Um, but I don't know that it's and I'm not an engineer. I don't know that it's

just heavy rainfall. I've really I really think something's changed. Maybe it's all the building they've done by a friend. Maybe it's the new lot they cleared down there to put in the new Meyer gas station for goodness sakes at Abbott and um you know you know what intersection we talk about. Yeah. But anyways, it's it's frightening. I hope somebody will consider other options than just all this terrible rain because of the climate because I feel something's changed. 35 years not a problem. We've had five instances since August 2021. Okay, I'll leave this right here so you can get it. Thank you for your attention and I I can come now that I'm retired. I can come to every one of your meetings and I will. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to address the council in the room? Um are there any callers? There are two callers on the line. Caller with the name is Sid. You are now free to address the council. caller with the phone number ending in 552, you are now free to address the council.

Good evening.

Hang on a second. This is Kathle. Um, I want to give credit where credit's due to the four council members who voted down the camping ban. I want to thank you for seeing the humanity in the unhoused neighbors. I want to thank all the people who bravely shared what it's like to be unhoused and to share solutions that made it clear that the camping ban was counterintuitive. Yet, I need to point out that these individuals predominantly, if not completely, white appearing individuals, which makes the passage of the loitering ban even more obvious as to what it really is, a ban on and criminalization of black and brown people for existing in East Lancing. This was the intent from the onset when the ban followed shortly after the police chief's proclamation that minorities are coming into our community and committing crimes. There is no pretending this ban is anything else. Um declare that declaring that it will somehow prevent suicides is ludicrous and embarrassing. Whatever that looks like wouldn't require a loitering ban. Furthermore, the city already plans to put fencing on top of parking structures to deter individuals from jumping. The reason this is not only a copout, it is completely disregarding the harm caused to black and brown people who are teenly h harassed by police for existing while black. When he was 22, one of my sons was stopped and eventually handcuffed and thrown over the front end of a cop car for walking while black. Though he was eventually released because one of the nine officers on site for a single individual recognized me and negotiated his release. The next day, he came to my wife and I crying. He told us he had been searching for a rope because he was going to hang himself. The trauma from this encounter was more than he could bear. Thank God he came to us. Seeing the humanity and the unhoused, but refusing to see it in black and brown teenagers is so apparent and clearly the main reason our racist police chief still has a job. Now here we are 7 months since members of our police department assaulted the two young black

men. Two men who will live with the trauma of that night. A night which was planned to be full of celebration. One officer with a seriously checkered past even prior to being hired by this police chief was allowed to quietly resign. Meanwhile, the two young men were wrongfully accused of crimes by name in the city's press release, a violation of police policy, and they will live with this trauma lifelong. And the chief is still running the department. Makes one wonder if the press release wasn't just her doing. if maybe there's more people that would go down when the when the reality hits the fan. In 2020, a different council declared racism a public health crisis in East Lancing, as many communities did across the country. East Lancing City Council then created a committee to create a police oversight body, which stated as its purpose, addressing racial disparities in policing in East Lancing. If this council no longer has invested in addressing racial equities in our city and our police department, quit playing games, resend the resolution, abolish the police oversight. These are not performative actions for white people to feel good about themselves. These are actionable and must be fully supported if we ever want to be inclusive community we pretend to be. One other issue is this council has to address is if you're going to pass something like the loitering ban, you must follow up with seeing who it harms. There must be an actionable item with data-driven results to show who that loitering ban harms 6 months out from instituting it. Who is getting arrested? Who is getting criminalized? and and not with the lies as Nadia pointed out either, not with the BS, but actually reporting the data out from the harm caused by that loitering band. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further callers? There are no callers remaining on the line. Okay, that brings us to communications from the mayor and council members. Council member Singh.

Yes. Um just a couple brief comments. Um, one I'm not sure I'm hopeful. I'm about to put our city manager on blast as an update on I'm looking at Ron to Lass on the flooding. I know we had a a huge uh report and an openhouse. So, it'd be great to hear based on the events from the weekend um you know where we are if we learned anything new um based on the recent events outside of what we've already learned from our report whether that's tonight or soon. Um, one, so two, um, I wanted to I have the university student commission right before this meeting, and I just want to say these are individuals from Michigan State University that um, are there helping to bridge the voice from students at the university um, with our community and they had a very dynamic uh, discussion about their ordinance that created the university student commission. I want to thank our very own Elise for supporting them and that discussion. Uh and I think they are seeing the importance of continuity uh from one student um body to the next um as new folks come into those seats. So um just really you know just positive things happening um there. And the last thing I want to mention about the age friendly communities is um I know some of the representatives have left, but I heard first about this when I was actually running for city council and such an important endeavor and I think having those voices in the community showing up, especially when you have candidates running for office to talk about the importance of these issues and bringing it forth and integrating it into city policy um and the work of the city is really important. important. So, I just want to thank those individuals for bringing those important issues

forth. And that's all I have this evening. Thank you, Mayor Prom Griggsby.

Yes. Thank you. Um, I don't know about you guys, I'm pretty excited to be back. It's been a little while since uh got a chance to be here. Uh, a much needed break. Got my batteries charged up and uh ready to continue to work. Um, uh, I just want to recognize the young man in the crowd. I didn't tell him I was going to do this. So, I don't want to really too embarrass him too much, but Cameron Upshaw, teenager here, at least as East Lancing High School, is a great young man. Um, great qualities and, uh, really happy to see him here and, uh, just involved in the environment here. So, thank you for coming, Cameron. Um, the other thing I want to bring attention, Tim did bring it up. I did want to speak on Larry Cross. Uh, Larry Cross passed away on Sunday, March 22nd. Uh Larry served on the building boards and appeals for more than a decade. Uh and his impact on the city was unmistakably felt. His background um as an architect brought a level expertise and practical insight that strengthened the board's work time and time again. Larry had a way of grounding discussion in both technical understanding, common sense, and the city benefited enormously from his steady presence and thoughtful judgment. I do have permission from his son, David Cross. Um, there is an obituary that will be published in the coming weeks. The family is playing a memorial service for Mr. Cross at the University Lutheran Church for early midsummer. Uh the city is grateful for Larry's many years in thoughtful service and his contributions will continue to shape our work moving forward. He will be remembered with deep appreciation. Um and so I just wanted to bring that to his attention. I didn't work with Larry quite too much since I am a new member of council, but the little time that I did have with him, um I remember my very first time coming into the commission and uh he's like, "Hey, who are you?"

and and just, you know, he was just really open and made me feel comfortable. Um, you know, the building board's uh commission does have a high level of vocabulary in different terms and he really made sure at least that I was comfortable what was being said and what was being spoke on. So, I really appreciate him and that loving memory uh and that experience that I had with him in a short period of time. Um, and with that being said, that's all I have for the evening. Thank you for those words, Council Member Meadows.

Just a couple of quick things. One, congratulations to the Age Friendly Community Committee uh for all the long the work that they've done. uh both really that committee has been working since I want to say 2015 or 2016 on this and continued to work after we were designated as an age friendly community back in 2017. So, um this really is on them. Uh there's some longtime members of that committee and they've done a great job on it and I'm sure we'll find a place to hang the plaque so that everybody can see it. Um well maybe right in this building close to the senior commission. And then uh one other thing I just want to say that you know you're not alone. uh that you know I got a number of communications from individuals in the community who were suffering from the flooding that took place under this particular storm. It is something that I think has come to the four even even more because uh you know east lancing you know was originally I think part of the Chandler Marsh. So we have a lot of water that flows down through the city, but we were able to handle it for for many years and design our infrastructure to handle it. Uh this is an issue that I think council has been taking a look at and certainly storm water uh relief for our for houses within the community is a high priority for us. So, um, you're not not alone and thank you for coming tonight and talking to us about it. That's all I've got.

Thank you, Council Member Whan.

To stay on that topic, I actually spent two different nights this last month in the water almost to my thighs clearing out drains to um resolve part of the issue. I have always been a big lover of mulch, but the problem is I was clearing out mulch out of that gutter both times. So, I'm going to become a rock lover and um not have mulch in my front yard. So, that is a big concern. Um and I do appreciate the neighbors that stepped in. I saw several people help people get out of cars. I saw someone that was stranded going into um Bertam Hills and someone stopped and we helped them get out of their car. So, I love how neighbors jump up. Um I know a local tow company, H&H Mobile, helping get some people out of the roadway on Hagadorn that night. I saw police officers out there trying to direct people away from these issues because it's one thing it's terrible to have it in your house but also it can be a dangerous situation for someone in their car especially was a little bit chilly that night. Also as a part of transportation commission um we had one of our members oh now I lost it. Um stand by Jess please brought something very important. um to our consideration. And unfortunately, we're not going to have time to address this as the council, but the Michigan Department of Transportation is updating their current strategic highway safety plan, which is SHSP, and the vulnerable road user safety assessment. These plans um are set setting the direction for improving transportation safety needs across the

state. anyone can give input to the state for this new um priority. The um the opportunities for transformation commission we looked at it. We also um talked about it at length. There's a survey associated with that. There's a website that's associated that to give public input if any of our communities would like to do that. It's at um msmmanish.gov. That's m mans ma'am m o ns m- a mman.gov. It's a way for us to um speak into the safety needs of our community. Lastly, um we have two officers that were sworn in today. Myself and the mayor were able to watch that. Two very, very bright um young men, Officer Mosley and Officer Richardson. They are um joining the force. um they've come from a local another local agency. They've got several years of experience already and they're um quite dynamic young men. So, I'm excited to see um different parts of the city growing and and advancing. So, it's going to be a good night.

Thank you. Uh for my part, I will just mention that these orange binders are the budget which appeared on our uh desk hot off the presses at the start of the meeting. So this is officially the start of budget season and uh we will be talking about that I think at our discussion only meeting next week. Uh and then we have a special meeting at the end of April uh on the 28th to talk about the budget. So if people are interested in learning about our fiscal situation um which is something that we've been talking about the last little while I encourage you to tune in to those meetings. In terms of storm water, we have been um thinking hard about this issue for the past couple years since uh the storm in summer couple of storms in the summer of 2024. And one of the small but important steps we've been taking is that uh every project that we have approved since then, development project that required a vote by the council, we have made sure that the uh runoff from the site was less after the development than it was before the development. These are small but important steps and we're in a situation now where every step we have to take has to be in the right direction and with any luck those steps over time will uh will add up. The larger infrastructure problem is very expensive to fix. It's probably on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars and so there's a range of different um things that we need to uh keep an eye on. Uh I do want to foreshadow a little bit. There's going to be talk of some storm water management in the context of ordinance uh 15 62 which will consider the public hearing uh later today where the uh the property owners have done some smallcale but important and creative work with storm water management. So uh we will hear we will continue to hear about that actually throughout the night. Uh city manager report.

So I have a couple items tonight. Some may be redundant to council's comments. Uh first one, flooding. So this past Saturday, the city of East Lancing, like many Michigan communities, experienced another significant rain event that resulted in localized flooding. public works and environmental services crews responded within an hour of being notified uh to CLA catchbas and intram operations administrator Alando Chapel and I met with several property owners to assess impacts to the residents who woke up to the water in their basement or saw streets flooded. We hear you. It is frightening and frustrating, and this council and staff take every one of those experiences seriously. Saturday's storm exceeded what our system was built for. I'm going to get into some stats or data, so bear with me. At the city's uh water resource recovery facility rain gauge, we recorded 3.34 in of rain, including roughly 1.73 in in a single hour between 4 and 5:00 a.m., the heaviest period of that storm. At the Woodingham Pump Station, 2.83 ines were recorded overall. Our combined sewer overflow basin saw peak incoming flows of more than 441 million gallons per day or 41 million gallons per day with 32.92 million gallons entering the basin and 19.18 million gallons discharged partially treated to the Red Cedar

River. The systems east, west, and affluent channels filled in just 12 minutes. The woolarf drain also crested briefly, discharging approximately 7,100 gallons to the river. These conditions were intensified by high water and the red cedar and the looking glass rivers which limited our ability to discharge and cause water to back up into streets and basement. This is not an isolated event. We've experienced several major storms in recent years and long-term data shows that the trend that is annual rainfall in East Lancing has increased about 30% over 75 years and short duration storm intensifies nearly 75%. The weather our infrastructure was designed for is not the weather we're experiencing today. Some areas of the city see reoccurring flooding and we are identifying these locations and we'll be evaluating solutions. At the same time, because our drainage system is interconnected with regional waterways, issues upstream or downstream can directly affect what happens in individual neighborhoods. That is why we are completing the wet weather resiliency study, a detailed climate informed hydraulic model that will guide future infrastructure investment and ensure improvements are targeted where they re have real impact. In the meantime, residents can take steps such as extending down spouts, testing sump pumps, reviewing grading, and installing backflow prevention valves. Our assistance program is

available through public works. Residents who believe that the city may bear the responsibility for a backup can file a compl claim at the city of east lancing.com. To stay informed and share your experience to help shape long-term solutions, visit eastlancingfloodstudy.com. That's one word, eastlancing floodstudy.com. A prepared and informed community is resilient is a resilient one. And that is what East Lancing is committed to being. So those are my comments on flooding. I know Cliff and Ron and staff have been working very hard to better understand what's driving flooding where and where we need to make investments to change that pattern. Um, and hopefully when that information becomes available, we'll definitely be sharing with council and making requests for investments in the city. on another item, the city council strategic planning um and the 2026 2027 strategic priorities. So in the budget document, there is a section where city staff is proposing some priorities um of for 26 and 27 which will or are being presented to the city council for its consideration, modification, and ultimate adoption. I recommend the city council identify a discussion only meeting where city administration can present the proposed 2026 and 2027 strategic goals for city council's consideration and possible adoption. In January 2024, the city council invited department heads to provide an overview of their respective challenges and opportunities. This process took a different approach. We came to you recommending some goals and action items so that you can review

and consider those and then identify those priorities that you want to uh adopt for 26 and 27. Um in 2024 you ultimately adopted those strategic priorities I believe in May. So we're in line and on target to follow that same approach we did two years ago. The other item I want to bring to your attention is similar to council member Whan's comments. The Michigan Department of Transportation is actively soliciting input on pedestrian safety through 2026 as part of a statewide vulnerable road user safety assessment. Key concerns include poor crosswalk visibility, drivers failing to yield, and high traffic speeds, which align with rising pedestrian fatalities across Michigan. And we know firsthand how that's impacting the city of East Lancing because these are very concerns that have been brought to and discussed over the last eight months uh in this community. On March 20th, 2026, MDOT issued a press release outlining its commitment to improving safety, mobility, and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. The release also announced a series of public re webinars that will provide opportunities for attendees to learn more and offer feedback on the state's 2027 through 2020 2030 vulnerable road user safety assessment. A list of the remaining webinars is available on MDOT's website. Public comments may be submitted through MDOT's online comment form, which must be completed by April 30th. So, if our residents want to continue to not only impote I mean

impact what's happening in East Lancing, but because we have state highways that run through our community, I'd suggest going on their website and providing some feedback to pedestrian and bicyclist safety in this community and throughout the state. So, those are my comments for tonight. Thank you. Thank you. City attorney's report.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have one item I'd like to address for council uh relating to uh public comments that were made at a recent council meeting last month regarding our city prosecutors. Um there were some pretty serious um uh statements made about a case that uh they handled or or were indicated that they handled in the district court. Um so I I did take a look at that and looked into that with the two prosecutors uh carefully because uh of the nature of the comments and um through the course of doing that I wanted to report out that we we did that and in the course of doing that we we learn found three things. Number one, yes, they have a large case load, but they with the support staff in our lancing office, they operate out of the Lancing office. Uh they um uh took the facts that were presented during the public comment, although no name or case number was given, they took the facts, watched the video of the meeting, and and couldn't match it up with any case that they represented the city on. Um and uh so they weren't able to uh indicate that they had taken those actions in any way, shape or form and they don't recollect taking any sort of action in the past uh either in any case. Um so looking at some of the additional statements that were made in that presentation, it referenced a felony. um our city prosecutors for you and for the community. Uh we only prosecute traffic tickets and civil infractions and misdemeanors, not felonies. Uh they do we do not prosecute felonies. We only prosecute the city's ordinances. And by law, you don't have any ordinances that are felonies. Those so those are not handled

by our prosecutors. So it didn't appear to be a case um that they handled. uh and I wanted to report out on on that that we looked at that. Um the other thing that I wanted to mention uh that they explained to me is that uh as a general matter in the district court um uh individuals charged with crimes receive a public defender unless they have their own attorney. So, um the individual that was uh referenced in the court case most likely had an attorney representing uh that person while they were in court that day. I can't say for sure obviously because we haven't been able to link it up with a particular case, but as a general matter, public defenders are available and they are assigned if the person doesn't have their own attorney. And those public defenders are there just for this purpose to make sure that their constitutional rights are protected. That if they are going to plead guilty to something that they are properly advised of that and when they get into court the judge would also advise them of their constitutional rights that if they're not guilty do not plead guilty and so on and so forth. Um, so I again I just wanted to report out cuz it was fairly serious um allegations um put forward at that meeting and and I wanted to let you know uh how that turned out.

Thank you. Uh that brings us to the consent agenda. Mr. Bellman. So, on tonight's consent agenda, 4.1, approve policy resolution 2026-21 to order the repair of sidewalks at the locations included on the attached list. 4.2 is approve a one-year consulting services agreement with Harbor Strategic LLC for public relations services in the amount of 48,000 and authorized city manager to sign. 4.3 is received the 2025 annual reports for the planning commission, historic district commission, and the zoning board of appeals. 4.4 Four is approve a contract with Lopez Construction for the fiscal year 2026 CDBG Bailey Street sidewalk improvement project in the amount of $17,268 which includes a 15% contingency and authorized the city manager to sign 4.5 is approved resolution policy resolution 2026-22 recognizing April 22th 2nd, 2026 as Earth Day and authorizing the flying of an Earth Day flag in accordance with policy resolution 2024-9. 4.6 is approve a resolution proclaiming April 25th, 2025 as Arbor Day in the city of East Lancing. 4.7 is approved policy resolution 2026-25 declaring East Lancing as a pollinator friendly community reaffirming the city's commitment to protecting and conserving pollinators and enhancing pollinator habitat in the city. 4.8 is approve a resolution to accept the

public rightway located at 111 East Sagen Street. 4.9 is approved street closures for the eastbound and westbound lanes on Albert Avenue between Abbott Road and MAC Avenue for the Greater Lancing Area Moms Glam Jam Summer Kickoff scheduled for June 7th, 2026. East Lancing Pride scheduled for June 13, 2026. And the Summer Sultist Jazz Festival scheduled for June 26 through June 27th, 2026. 4.10 is approve a resolution authorizing April 6th through the 10th, 2026 as National Community Development Week. 4.11 is approved traffic control order TCO506 to update and the reserved seven spaces of the Hannah Community Center. 4 uh 12 is approve a professional services contract with Davy Resource Group, Inc. and an amount not to exceed 50,000 for the East Lancing downtown tree canopy revitalization project to be reimbursed by the Michigan DNR Urban and Community Forestry Inflation Reduction Act grant number IRA-2025-000010 and authorize the city manager to sign 4.13 is approve a street closure for the eastbound and westbound lanes on Albert Avenue between Charles Street and Division Street as well as a public rightaway request for the downtown management board district businesses during the East Lancing Extravaganza scheduled for August 29th, 2026 with a rain date for August 30th, 2026.

That completes your consent agenda. Thank you. Would any council member like any items removed from the consent agenda? Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? May I ask a question? Yes, city manager.

So, city manager, on 4.1, if a resident is there an appeal process for residents saying that their sidewalk they don't think it needs to be corrected or there's an issue. What kind of appeal process is there? Is there not? I think the appeal pro process was the public comment or public hearing.

So if there's an individual that would say I don't think my sidewalk needs repaired. I don't know. I'm just wondering if there's some kind of instead of the entire project, is there an individual process for one person to say to appeal their sidewalk being done? I think that process is the um the property owner adjacent to the sidewalk has an appeal that they Yeah. So there is an appeal process.

Yes. They get the letters. There's a process where they meet with our staff on site, try to resolve it. And if there's not a resolution there, there's an administrative review where they can come in and talk to somebody else in the office, try to resolve it there. And then of of course there's the public hearing here where they they can reserve their right to speak at the public hearing by going through that process, right? So that's already been exhausted for everybody. Thank you. I I just wanted to make sure I knew that was the case. I just wanted to make sure there is an appeal process in place.

Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? Yeah, I'll move to approve the consent agenda as presented. All right. Moved by Meadows. Second. Second by Whan. Can I interject? Yes, please. Just to make sure. 4.6. The date is April 25th, 2026 and not 25. Uh yes. So that's change. With that change. Okay. Second with that change.

All right. So there's unanimous consent for that uh for that change to correct the year. Um any further discussion or comments on the consent agenda. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. Which brings us to item uh 5.1, a public hearing to receive comments on ordinance 1562, a request from Hagen Group LLC to conditionally reszone 743, 755, and 765 Grove Street from R2 medium density single family residential district to RM32 city center multiple family residential district for 743 and 765 Grove Street to be used as multif family dwelling units licensed for four unrelated or a family. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh Landon Bartley, a principal planner. Um so, ordinance 1562 is a conditional resoning request uh for the three properties uh 743, 755, and 765 Grove. These are just north of Burchham uh road on the west side of Grove between um Burch and Library Lane. Uh and this is a request to reszone from R2 to RM32. Uh the reasonzoning request is uh essentially to license these two houses for up to four unrelated individuals or a family. Uh that licensing is not allowed under R2 zoning. Uh but it is under RM32, which is why the applicants are requesting resoning. They're requesting a conditional resoning to uh essentially assure you and the neighbors that this is the land use that is proposed uh to keep the existing houses. I should say there's some site work that's proposed, limited site work and limited uh renovations, but the houses would be uh kept largely in their in their current form uh with the reasonzoning uh request made just to uh allow the lensure of those houses for up to four family. Um these properties were originally approved uh at the beginning of 2025 uh for a conditional resoning to RM32 and that was for an apartment building, a 14-unit apartment building. The applicants have signaled that if uh this current re reason resoning request is approved uh that they would withdraw that that previous request. If it's not the conditional resoning the previous uh approval would still remain in effect. Um let me see I I should mention uh for conditional resonings uh conditions must be offered voluntarily by the applicant. Uh and they have offered four conditions. uh taken together those conditions can be summed up as the two houses that we're proposing to use uh can only be used as proposed for up to four unrelated or a family and must follow or comply with all city ordinances. I would say that's a uh a

good summary of the conditions of the offer and those are listed um specifically in the sample motion that I provided tonight uh for your information. It is a public hearing tonight and council's typical practice is to wait until the following meeting to make a decision. Uh however, if you would like to act tonight, I have provided that sample motion. Uh and if adopted, I would just ask that the mover uh read all the bulleted texts, including all the conditions uh laid out. The first four conditions uh in the sample motion are those provided by the applicant and cannot be changed uh under a conditional reasoning request. Conditions have to be voluntarily offered by the applicant. The fifth and sec sixth condition. Fifth and sixth conditions though um simply restate the code requirements aren't required but we like to include them for information. Can I answer any questions?

Questions for Mr. Barley. Mr. Wellen, did you have I just have a comment that this has already went before zoning board of appeals. It's been a lot of discussion about this and I think it's a reasonable reasonable situation. I know we have still public comment. I'll I'll I'll restrain myself until that time. I do have a procedural question. Um do we need to read all the uh conditions or can we incorporate them by reference? I have to defer.

Well, uh I think as far as the conditions are concerned, they are in your agenda packet. So, if you make a proper reference to the conditions and the number of conditions uh referencing your agenda packet, I I would say that that would be sufficiently clear on the record of what the conditions being adopted are. Um, as mentioned by Mr. Bartley, it sounds like there's some decision-m in terms of whether all six would apply. Uh, so that should be clearly stated as part of any such motion incorporating them. Right. Thank you. Um, if there's no questions of staff, can we hear from the applicant?

Good evening, Kevin Hagen, Hagen Group. Uh, first off, I want to thank you guys for your time. I've been coming to these meetings here unfortunately for this for the last uh little bit and the time and tough issues and personal attacks that you guys have taken is is staggering. So, um, also like to thank city manager, uh, was out in the rain with him on Saturday, uh, to get, uh, to see firsthand what what we're up against as a city. Uh, it's it's bad out there. So, as you guys look through the orange book tonight, um, I hope that we can find some money uh, and maybe if the developments go through to to uh, find some money for that. So, with that said, um, sorry this has taken two and a half years to get here. Um, I think we're pretty up to date with what's going on, but again, we're going to keep the two houses that are there. Want to thank the neighborhood for going back and forth with us uh and coming up with we think is a fair solution for the neighborhood. Uh, we think that the two houses will be significantly uh improved uh with the the remodels that we have planned. Um, one thing that uh mayor the mayor said about uh keeping the water on site uh on 743 uh we are going to add some concrete for parking uh that will have a drain by the sidewalk which will take the water from the sidewalk back to the backyard which is a huge area of of of green space. Uh and the property at 765 we are actually going down in in coverage there. Uh so that will should help with the water runoff which I know is a big point for everybody right now. Uh specifically some of the neighbors in the past. So um I think uh we have tenants uh knocking down our door or potential tenants that are waiting to sign a lease. I talked to one of them today who's been uh following this uh since we started that. So uh we understand the procedure. We

respect that. Uh if we do happen to suspend the rules and vote tonight, we would we would appreciate that. but understand you guys if you don't want to. So, uh if you have any questions, I will do my best to answer and uh go from there. Questions for the applicant? So, no questions for the applicant. I do have a couple comments. Sure. Um one is that it's rare that everybody walks away happy

and you seem to have achieved that in conjunction with some of your neighbors. So, appreciate that. and uh and I voted against the previous conditional reasonzoning because of concerns about pressure on the neighborhood and also storm water and this addresses both of those. Um I think that what you're doing with the storm water management um is an important example and I hope a lot of people follow it because it's important especially in this location because you're uphill from places that flood really easily. Yeah. And as I mentioned earlier, every step that we take has to be in the right direction with storm water now and for it to all add up and you're you're taking a step in the right direction. I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. Yep. Uh my mom's toilets surged uh not too far from this location uh at 5:00 a.m. So, uh we're around we we experienced it firsthand. So, it's we agree with you. So, thank you.

Yep. Thanks. Okay. So, we have a public hearing. Um, I'll open the public hearing. If anybody would like to address this issue, who is in the room, please approach the podium. Um, seeing none. I will close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Questions, motions. Well, I'll ask a question. Uh, but of you actually. Yeah. You know, normally our our policy is to have a public hearing, then wait till the next meeting to go forward, but we've really examined this not that long ago uh pretty thoroughly within that neighborhood. And I know we have two new members who maybe didn't do that, but I would be I would propose that we just go ahead tonight and take a vote on this.

Yep. And my thought on that is that too is if anybody has questions that they would need more time to have answered, then I would prefer to not vote tonight. But it doesn't look like anybody has any questions. Um unless anybody has any questions. Rock and roll. Rock and roll. Okay. Um do we need to add this five and six? So

I see one through four on their sample. So, I have a motion which will factor in the conditions and the city attorney can stop me if I get anything wrong. Uh, so I move to adopt ordinance 1562, a conditional reszoning request from Hagen Realy, Inc. LLC to amend the zoning use district map of chapter 50 zoning of the code of ordinances to reszone three parcels totaling 087 acres located at 743 Gro Street PN33-20-2-07-313-6 755 Gro Street PN33-20-2-7-313-005 and 765 Growth Street PN33-20--2-07-313-004 from RM32 medium density single family residential district to RM32 city center multiple family district residential district conditioned upon the use of the existing three residential structures as single family rental units subject to the requirements and procedures for rental licensing for the following reasons. One, the resoning is consistent with the policies and uses proposed for that area in the city's comprehensive land use plan. Number two, the uses allowed under the proposed conditional resoning, specifically as licensed residential rental units, would be compatible with other zones and uses in the surrounding area. Number three, public services and facilities would not be significantly adversely impacted by a development or use allowed under the requested resoning. And number four, the uses proposed by the proposed conditional reszoning would be equally or better suited to the area than uses allowed under the current zoning of the land. With the zoning subject to the six conditions identified in the

recommendation section of the agenda item report, which are incorporated into this motion by reference. Is that adequate? Yes, that'll work, Mr. Mayor. That is my motion. Motion by Altman, second by Singh. Got there first. Uh any further discussion, Mr. Wellen, you had some comments earlier. No, I'm just in support of the community engagement and support of um the good solution.

Yep. Agreed. Anything else? Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Uh that motion carries and that reszone conditional resoning is approved. Thank you. Which brings us to item 6.1. Uh report on the planning commission's March 25th, 2026 public hearing and ongoing discussion of ordinance 1559 uh the diverse housing requirement. Mr. Bartley.

Uh thank you, Landon Bartley, your principal planner. Uh so the um council introduced and referred uh ordinance 1559 to the planning commission on February 19th of this year and at that time requested a brief report uh back once the planning commission had had a discussion. Uh the planning commission discussed this after a in-depth staff presentation uh had a really good discussion on uh March 25th uh their last meeting. Uh they did not take any action or make any recommendations. Um and uh myself and our community economic development director uh Heather Pope talked at length about um proposed fee and loo project uh program that'll be associated with the diverse unit um diverse housing requirement as part of this ordinance and also um about expanding the ability of applicants to transfer credits from areas outside of downtown. In general, um the like I mentioned, the planning commission did not make any recommendations, didn't take any action, and we'll continue discussing this at their meeting tomorrow night. I'm not sure if they'll take any action tomorrow evening as well, uh or wait until April 22nd. Uh but they could, and in which case, we would bring this back uh to the council for scheduling your own public hearing. In in general there was interest in um I I would say interest in uh considering a similar formula to what we had proposed initially which uh echoes Ann Arbor's formula as far as how the field new uh is determined. Um our original proposal had been uh for to look at a 50% AMI requirement as sort of the affordability uh baseline from which we calculate the gap uh affordability gap and that resulted in a fee in L of $170 square ft excuse me $170 per square foot uh when we reconsidered that as an

$87 per square foot or excuse me 80% AMI uh 80% being low to uh medium low low income uh that per square foot rate dropped from $170 to $87. Planning Commission seemed to generally uh think that a lower per square foot rate uh would be better. Um but also had discussed uh council member Will at the February 19th meeting had mentioned that he had had some interest in reducing the requirement altogether from 25% to something like 10%. The planning commission talked about that there was general interest in reducing the requirement. Uh but there's certainly some discussion about if the requirement is reduced should the per square foot I guess the fee and loo be raised accordingly or maybe look at the 50% AMI which would be $170 per square foot uh to adjust those numbers to sort of make up for the the fewer square feet that would be subject to the requirement. So that's an ongoing conversation uh that I'm sure will be discussed in great detail tomorrow night. We also uh talked about the transfer of diverse housing credits. Um right now the diverse housing uh if you want to transfer from a different uh location to the building that doesn't necessarily meet the diverse housing requirement, you can do so if the other building exceeds the requirement and is also located in the same area that in which the requirement applies, which is essentially downtown west of Collingwood Drive. Uh the planning commission discussed whether or not that uh area from which you can transfer credits should be expanded uh and generally agreed yes it should be. Um our staff original recommendation had been to look at the B2 district and the EV zone district. Um there was some discussion about possibly also including RM32 which is multif family residential district or RM54 university oriented multif family residential or others. Um, we had a discussion about it'd be nice to to understand where all these different zone districts are across the city. So,

in our uh packet for tomorrow evening's discussion, we have a bunch of individual zoning maps of all the different districts. Uh, so that should be a little easier to understand for the commission about what the impacts could be of of allowing a transfer from different area. Uh and finally, we had talked about a some sort of a coefficient or a ratio uh that we could apply to credits being transferred from outside of downtown that would sort of act as a disincentive uh in case that in case all the units were to be provided from out outside of downtown perhaps in a far-flung area that could lead to an unintended consequence of some sort of sprawl. Um, but the commission generally didn't find that changing the uh or having some sort of coefficient to change the how much each credit would be worth uh was really would kind of just complicate things more and wasn't really worth the trouble. So, we'll continue to have a conversation tomorrow evening. I expect it to be just as involved and uh and it was a really good discussion and we we expect more good discussion before they send a recommendation back to you. Uh again, I'm not sure if that'll be tomorrow evening or at the following meeting on the 22nd or beyond. Can I answer any questions about anything I've just said?

Questions or comments for Mr. Bartley? I just I have a request on your uh chart you you provided us with 25% and 10% evaluation of the Abbott the landmark the hub um although the hub as I recall we didn't require that was outside the area. So, but um could you also provide us 20 and 15 so that we we have the full range of what we might be considering here. Okay. Do that

and thanks for the staff report because I thought it was excellent. So, thank you. Comments, questions, council member Singh? Sure. Um so, I'll I don't know if I'll do this in order. One one piece that has also come up in conversations um on So I didn't hear you mention Fe Lou though

did the planning commission talk about that or did I zone out or something? Okay. Um and then is there a prospective expansion of like the Chesterfield Hills program that we had to purchase rental licenses? that is not contemplated under this ordinance. That has not been talked about yet, but is it possible to be included or inserted in the discussion? We'll certainly do that.

And can I ask for detail as far as do you have specifics of how you'd like that to be included in discussion as a outcome? Well, I don't know if it's a mechanism like or well, I guess it's a question to you staff if that would be a program in consideration for with a fee and loo program or is this another accommodation perspectively for a developer to think about. So the the rental buyback program essentially I think that where the fee and loo program could um could be relevant to that program is as far as the funds that come in um we expect that some funds would come in in some form into a fund that could be controlled in a certain way managed in a certain way dispersed in a certain way that would all sort of be need to be decided uh at some point as far as part of this ordinance

right um the the use of the funds could be uh for the Chesterfield buyback program if that were the interest of council or the planning commission or both. But that would be the discussion would be yeah what would be helpful is some of these ideas if we understand that for a fee and loop program things that have come up at council

that this could fall under within for a decision later. Um, I think that is an important context and it may I mean this is something I'm thinking about in real time. It actually may be important for us to know holistically. So when we talk to the community about what we're adopting with this new ordinance what we're able go to implement with the funds and the changes. So like that's you know not I know you have enough work but I mean that's the push and pull in terms of you know bringing the community along with us. Um and remind me and some of this you're going to have to remind me because unfortunately um I won't make any memory comments right now. I know the mayor has heard many of those when I talk to him oneon one. Anyway, um the remind me do we already have um um for Sorry, I'm looking at my notes in the wrong place. Do we already have um for height additional stories um for projects to include um affordable or commercial space? Do we already have that written?

Uh so there was a an ordinance amendment that was 1536 that was passed in late 2024 that provided an incentive uh of additional stories for u several different items mass timber lead uh or net zero buildings or affordable housing. Um, so that that could be an outcome of that ordinance where by providing affordable housing, you could have additional stories that would not follow the same um I guess the same process as without that incentive. We haven't seen them been be utilized yet.

And then do we have is it currently required um I don't I think the answer is no, but currently required that it has to be commercial space on the first floor. There is not a requirement right now, but if you don't have commercial space, it would change the process. And do we I know we've talked about parking requirements in the past. Um, has that been by project what we look at or is there a definition in our zoning currently for these larger developments?

Yeah, the parking requirements in general, I guess the ratio of uh parking spaces required per square foot is based on the land use. Um, however, a couple zone districts have special parking requirements. The B3 zone district, the downtown district has a prohibition on new parking unless it's waved by the planning commission and council. Uh, so essentially that that would kind of throw the the requirement out the window uh because you don't have not only do you not have a requirement, you have a prohibition. The developer would instead say we believe that we have a need based on XYZ data. Can we please have these spaces? uh and if you then approve or agree then you approve those spaces but it wouldn't be based on the parking ratios the requirements in the zoning ordinance.

Otherwise all of the zone districts then the RM32 uh for specific uses that would be cut in half because RM32 tends to be closer to downtown. The idea is that you may have these public parking facilities available and this would encourage use of the downtown parking system for RM32 spa or properties. Um, I guess that's sort of where the parking requirements come in.

Yeah, I I you know, listen, ever since I forget if it was the New York Times or another that did the Austin article about how um all they've been focused Austin, Texas, build build and rents have fallen by about $300. And now there's this pushpull where we're more of a we're much smaller community. We are Yes. a college town similar to Austin in that way. Um but there's scale that's different. Um but part of the recommendations is you know you get rid of parking requirements. Absolutely. Um and then it you know there's multiple benefits to that potentially more people leveraging the bus and mass transit carbon goes down etc. Um anyway I'm just tossing the full slate out here but if someone else has questions but I have some more notes here too. I don't want to occupy time. Go ahead.

You're fine. Are you done? Continue. Please continue.

Oh, okay. Um, let's see. I'm skipping around now. Um, I guess and you've you've heard these comments from me. Um, and it's funny, not funny, but timely with the age friendly recogn recognization. When I was running for office, I talked about how do we create a multigenerational community get that can live, thrive, and play, right? And um it's like how do we create our own utopia? And obviously there's a lot of leverage that we have uh through our zoning, but also um you know through tiffs and other tools or incentives. Um there's there is the I was talking to a community member the other day. You know, yes, developers want to buy or build student housing because that's how they make money. And I'm not against anyone making money, but I also want the community to get something out of the deal. And getting something out of the deal is not only a tax base that grows, okay? Not we don't want to give, what's the saying? Uh you know, throw the baby out with the bathwater. you know, we want our tax base to grow, but how do we, you know, continue to develop amenities that multi, you know, multiple generations want to spend downtown? Because right now there are few establishments that cater to families um or various generations. I I we've lost a number of storefronts that, you know, did cater more to that. So I know we this is this discussion has been primarily driven by diverse housing okay and expanding housing opportunities but I think because of the tiein with the student um market or I should say market rate housing um that there is this question of community amenities too and how that gets incorporated. So I don't

know that was kind of a long diet tribe there but I don't know if you have any reflections on does this actually get broader or do we have to phase this um beyond affordable housing

there there has been a discussion of um could the fee and or could the transfer credits be um I guess modified somehow by providing other community amenities, uh, additional green space or some sort of a I mean, that just came up, I guess. Uh, there there are many different things. It could be a a car share for residents, for example. Or or or different amenities. I think I listed them at one at one point. I'll certainly bring those back uh when this comes back to council. But I think that could be certainly part of the mix uh that you could introduce different amenities or different ways to meet this requirement by providing those amenities as long as you know what the amenities are, I guess. and what you what would you consider

I know what I like but you know I think you know it's a community conversation that I mean I know what I talk I I'm the leazison to the arts commission so you know we spend a lot of time um you know amongst that body and what we can do amongst the galleries and the space that we currently have downtown and how that can also be expanded um but you know there's of course I think a lot of people in Lancing it it's unfortunately Lancing the greater regional common. I mean, I unfortunately have too many, you know, tax chains that, you know, the the food scene in Mid Michigan is not one that is uh very well e recognized. I'll say that we have some fine establishments and some, you know, very traditional, but you know, we got work to do there. And how can we be creative? I know there's folks in the business community, too, that we've talked about doing. How do we get a um a studio standup where we can invite hospitality students and or graduates from our amazing hospitality program that can, you know, do popup, you know, for three months at a time for a chef, you know, wouldn't that be cool? Advertise around it. Anyway, I you don't you don't people don't need me to, you know, stand on a soap box. Uh I'm just trying to balance all these things that we talk about in these big talking points and what I hear from the community members and actually create policy that can drive a community we want and it just always and then here we have these huge costs, you know, just maintaining our infrastructure. We just have been talking about our floods. Okay, we just had a ballot uh for to help fund our parks and wreck go down huge. We got to, you know, keep our infrastructure up yet and yet it's hard harder than hell to get families go downtown

and then but we have people that want to build housing anyway. So, I'm trying to balance all those things. So, please, Mr. Mayor Prom. No, I I'm with you. I I really am. Especially when it comes to our downtowns being of use in a way that 100% of our residents can take advantage of it. And uh but I wanted to walk back a little bit. Um you know, I was a hard 25% on this via Lou thing. As we started talking and and we start doing things this the hypothetical going down with 10% 15% and all those types of things. And then the square footage, the like the the formula and how that works where where we win. Can you can you if I'm if I'm talking to a community member about how we can do that, can you please walk me through that please?

As far as how the I guess formula is calculated. Uh it's based on an affordability gap. And so we have you have a requirement which is currently 25% of your units need to be diverse housing. Uh so in order to calculate the fee and loo as proposed we're again I think I mentioned that we're essentially echoing Ann Arbor's not not copying but it's very similar uh we take a an area median income person uh or family at and so the area median income is the median income across the region typically or county sometimes but in in Ann Arbor's case they started with a 50% AMI very low income as sort of their hypothetical person and then they look at the sales records from the previous year and say how much did this actually cost for these houses? How much could this person have afforded? And the difference there is the affordability gap. So that then that is based essentially that that affordability gap is how we come up with this this number. So depending on the income of the hypothetical person between 50% 60% 80% something else that'll change how much they can afford uh the 80% AMI person or or household can afford more house will have a lower affordability gap so we'll have a smaller fee in L than it would then the affordability gap would be for a person of lower income. I I I wish I had a a way to do that in 10 words, but

and I know we talked about it. Uh and I'm, you know, I I still gota, you know, I'm here, I'm curious to hear what the plan commission comes up with and everything like that, but you know, I really want this to work and figure it out. Um so we can um so I can I should say me I can be in a situation where I can get very comfortable with the formula that we do have and it makes sense for um the city and makes sense for the community. So, but that's all I have. Thank you. Other comments, Mr. Whan.

So, um I appreciate all you've done. Your knowledge base is amazing. Your staff um and you really bring it down to the level I think most people can understand. My concern still is that we're not a I I don't want to call us a term. I would like to be more attractive for development in our community. And I think right now the um concerns are we've we've built the walls pretty high. And I think the ideals why we built those walls are fine. I don't have disagreements with that. But I think the combination of all that is we've made it very difficult to develop in our community and I do think there's some needs. I think there's a lot of opportunities. Um I know you're going back to planning tomorrow. I've made it public that I think a 10% is a good mark. I don't know where my fellow council members land on that. So, um, trying to figure out where we're going to go with this because I think even with people with great intentions, either somebody can do this project or they can't. And I'm not talking about one project. I'm talking about any project. And I do think there is some areas for growth. When I the west side, the different parts of the city, I think that we really need to um um St. Joe went from St. No to St. to St. Go. I think I think that there's some opportunities. I think we need to be careful of cities that grow so fast that they can't control it. I think that is a concern. But, um, I guess that's kind of where I'm at. I I think that we I think at some point timeliness is the issue. I don't we never want to be

forced into anything, but um passing the ball down the court doesn't always get us to where we want to go. Mr.

Yeah, I I thought I had said everything I was going to say, but I do want to respond to a couple of things here. the uh Chesterfield Hills um matter which if the public doesn't know that uh a development project removed some rental housing from that area and provided a fund hopefully to um allow more rental housing to be removed. And if uh I think we're going to we're going to be taking action I think or just took action in the consent agenda on um turning a piece of property in the middle of Chesterfield Hills into a park right across the street from that property are the only two rental houses in within uh Chesterfield Hills. But it wasn't a plan by the city. It was um it was something that the developer of the apartment complex on the other side of Michigan Avenue in that area uh presented to city council. Um, he had an agreement with a landlord and the landlord, I don't know if I call it, took ownership, but took ownership of some of the apartments within the project in exchange for removing the rental licenses on other other homes that they owned in that area. But it was it was presented to us, not something we demanded or had a program for. It's something that we should take a look at so that we can see what worked there and what didn't work there perhaps. Uh I know that for the longest period of time the neighborhood association there had I think $50,000 that had been deposited with them but it never translated as far

as I know into um an additional rental license being removed. We also took at one time a look at condemning rental licenses which uh we might want to talk about as well. Um that was a long time ago and we thought we could get rid of all the rental licenses in Red Cedar neighborhood for about $3.5 million but that nobody had enough money to get rid of the licenses in Bailey. So that that was sort of a given there. But those are the type of things that we should examine again as to uh developing policy and process to to um I guess uh help u provide for um the ability to expand low to moderate income housing within within our community. And I would I would suggest that at some point maybe we want to have at a discussion only meeting the capital the capital region uh housing partnership so that we can have them describe to us the the way there or the I guess the amount of um money necessary to develop that type of housing and what people can actually afford because there is sort of a entry level amount of a cost of a home um within what CAP CAP does uh that uh establishes uh how how how much a low to moderate income person can actually afford to to have in there to have a home that they live in and that's a a very reasonable thing for us to take a look at and decide to develop. There are communities um in in the country um I know Shaker

Heights has a a program that the city runs in conjunction with landlords who have agreed to work with them to put low to moderate income housing into duplexes and other housing within the community and then they subsidize that um uh that housing. And so we might want to look at something like that, you know, in terms of if we had money to help, right? Um, sorry not to interrupt you, but I'm vibing. I'm vibing.

I think that's what it's called. No, I think and I'm I'm I'm sort of piggybacking on what what you said because if the si if there's sufficient money that is put into a fund that fund, you know, right now we we haven't really designated how we would use that money and that this might be something that we could include. And then in the downtown area, the you know, the issue for the council has always been, you know, is it the chicken or the egg? And so is it the um is it businesses downtown that attract people to move downtown or is it putting the population into the downtown a diverse population then encourage the development of diverse businesses within the within the downtown area? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure there are people who do know that answer and and I would be interested in in uh having it um provided to us. And then uh I think that's it. I think that's um what uh you know I wanted to respond to, but I I'll just note that the Capellary Housing Partnership, you know, began as the East Lancing Housing and Neighborhood Services. It started right here, a group of neighborhoods that developed a program to bring low to moderate income housing into our community. So, it's been longstanding. It's an effort and I think it has been a priority and a policy of the city council to encourage that over the years and we should keep doing that.

I I have two questions here. Sorry, I was just trying to jump in. Um, one is, um, when you believe when in your presentation when you say outside the boundary, transfer credits outside the boundaries, is that the same as expanding the boundaries? Are those two different things? Um, I guess in that context I was talking about expanding the boundaries from which you could transfer credits in. There was also discussion about expanding or changing the boundaries in which the diverse housing requirement applies, right? But for for in my presentation I was talking about uh expanding the area from which transfer transfers could be made

credits could be okay and then um on the capital area. So we have so Ingam County has a millillage so while the city gets blamed for all the taxes on our tax bill there's other taxes collected mainly by the county but um does that fund the capital area housing? There's a whole series of grants that uh fund them. Where does that millillage money go to the county?

The county controls that although Cavalary Housing Partnership has been one of the providers, let's say. So the uh the county identifies houses that it's going to purchase. Then the rehab of the houses is uh Capital Area Housing Partnership. Uh that's you know one of the contracts that they operate under.

So I'm just c I'm curious on a couple of fronts. one, how many projects have they done in East Lancing? Um, two on affordable housing and then two is um it could also on this fee and Lou, it could be leverage dollars too. There may be anou with the county. So anyway, I'm I'm trying to multiply dollars so we can do more in this space. Um anyway, that those were my last two questions.

So I have a question and a couple of comments. Um a lot of the discussion has surrounded um the dispersement mechanism, right? Once we collect the fee from the fee in LU, how do we disperse it? Do we allocate it to a a fund that has a bunch of parameters including rental license buybacks for example or leveraging with um with other granting sources? And my question is before we adopt the fee and loo ordinance, do we need to specify the dispersement mechanism or can we do that separately? Maybe that's a question for the city attorney.

I'd be happy to address that. It it the question is answered in two parts, I think, or in two ways. Um, first, your ordinance would have a more general indication of where the funding is to be used. It would be limited to accomplishing the objectives of affordable housing under the ordinance. Um, and and we have some language that we put in there for that purpose. it does not drill down and specify the exact items on a list. Um, and there's a reason for that. The idea would be that you as city council after the fact through the course of time would, you know, initially identify where this money is going to be used through your budget process and going through and deciding what programs or what um uh uses to make of that money. That can shift and move over time as things change in the city and you want that flexibility. So the detail of exactly where the money goes is not going to be in the ordinance but it is going to be restricted to accomplishing the purposes. Your detail will come through the program that you actually establish identifying it and over time you're able to be flexible with that and adjust it as new opportunities arise and old opportunities are achieved. So this discussion is important but it can also play out over a longer period after the fee and loo ordinance is adopted. Well, here's my question. Sorry. Is do we want to keep it just to affordable housing, our fee and loop program?

And does buying up rental licenses accomplish like would that qualify if our purpose is affordable housing as versus, you know, incenting some of these other provisions that have come up in conversation that fall outside of housing.

Yeah, if I may. Yes. The answer is I I don't know if any particular idea on how to use the funding at this time would would would meet or not meet. If that's a concept uh to discuss buyback of rental licenses, I think we'd want to look at that and see if that does tie in in some way to achieving the purposes. The key is achieving the purposes of affordable and diverse housing in the community under your existing ordinances. Um because what you're saying in your ordinance is if you don't meet those purposes in the ordinance of providing it in your building then you can pay us the city and the city will use it to achieve those same purposes in another way. So if buybacking if buying back uh leases uh properties and so forth or buying them out uh is is determined to be a mechanism that achieves that somehow. I don't know sitting here today whether it does. I think we'd have to evaluate that and any other uses that you might come up with and that can be done during this process of working on the ordinance. I know it's more work uh as was mentioned, but you know, if you want to get an idea of what some of the things you're looking at doing ahead of time are uh and whether they're going to fall within that requirement, can certainly do that. uh you don't need to have, you know, you would actually want the program put into place shortly after the ordinance or even at the same time, but I doubt anybody's going to have a project that's ready to um use the the fee in Loo the day after the ordinance is adopted, but you might. So, the idea is to have that in place before anybody takes advantage of uh that opportunity that you'd be providing in the ordinance if you approve it. So, makes sense to look into it and evaluate it. If there are items, they they are it's legitimate to discuss them at this point in time and and vet

them out. Did you want to follow up? I'm thinking I got a question though. The the you know, referring this to planning is logical uh for them to weigh in on this because of the nature of the ordinance that we're we're we're dealing with. But did we refer this to housing? Because it seems that we should refer it to housing as well. Would we need council action to refer to housing?

It's been discussed.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to put on the housing commission agenda. Mr. Jopic, do we need a referral to do that? I don't think you absolutely need a referral, but it it would lend some substance to it and direction to the housing commission that you do indeed look for are look are looking for their feedback on it as opposed to them just sending it to you without being solicited for it. So, we could do that with a motion on this item tonight if we wanted.

Yes. So I just wanted to lend my support for the idea that if I think rental license buyback would be an important public policy goal and I would like to see I would support having the language in the fee inl ordinance ordinance 1559 uh be sufficiently broad to allow uh rental license buyback as a as a potential use of those funds. I we're going to have to do research on that because I'm curious for some of these homes if it'll meet an affordable housing threshold question in this community. That's what I I think is going to be hard. That's where my head went through Mr. Jopik's explanation on getting to the end of affordable housing. So anyway,

and that may be how we get there, right? but may also not be how we but yeah but I I mean this gets to what you adding definition though or you know stating that opinion that I will say that I do think it's an important piece if we are going to pass something on this fianl is defining the purpose and clear language enough where the community knows why you know it's not just because I've seen the comments from the community oh city council they can't manage a budget you know uh so I want it to be clear in terms of um what's possible and some of the details behind it.

Did the city manager have a comment? It's just a comment around the rental license buyback. In essence, you're buying a house. So, you're buying a house in order to take the rental license off the market. You can sell that house for whatever value. So, you could still be affordable. In essence, you're subsidizing the resale of that house to meet some of your affordable housing um goals for it is one format, but I mean that's the way okay of achieving affordable housing is to buy the house with the license or the license with the house and take it off that and so then it could meet the affordable housing goal by that mechanism. So maybe the language doesn't it's one method.

It's one method. You just said it. It's one method. It's one method. Could be others. Okay. I appreciate the referral to the housing commission. Um I I talked with those guys about getting more involved and that was a great example that we can get that done.

So when we're done with the discussion at some point we'll make a motion. If I forget then somebody else can help me remember. I have a couple other comments. Um, so I think there's a bunch of parameters with this ordinance that we could adjust at various levels and it's a very large space when you put all the parameters together. And so I'm going to throw sort of my hat in the ring in terms of some specific numbers. So I I would be comfortable with the 10% diverse housing requirement. That number came up before. Um, I don't know how to assess the fairness of the affordab affordability gap assessment because there's a parameter there that you can adjust all the way from 50 up to 80 and I don't know what's fair. I do want to echo a comment from one of our developers who presented recently advocating that we that whatever we do it should have some teeth in it but not be too draconian. And I don't know where that level falls. Um, I wish I could sort of supply more advice there, but that that may depend on more research or or discussion. In terms of the credit transfer thing, um, the idea I think it's a good idea. I think there are multiple goals you could achieve with that because the way you identified it here was in terms of zones, right, that are scattered throughout the city. And I get the logic there that for example in the B2 if you have more residential in the B2 then you make better use of parking right which makes perfect sense. I did want to uh sort of echo why we put the diverse housing requirement in place in the first place in 2016 2017. It was clearly focused on the idea of diversifying the downtown uh the demographics of downtown residents on the theory that retail follows residential. So you you invite a a broader range of people to live there and then the the amenities that arise in

response to that are good good for everybody in the whole city. And uh I still think that's a really important goal given the proximity of the downtown to MSU because there's always going to be the drive to build market rate housing in the downtown. And if we, you know, if that continues, then the downtown will become less diverse. And so I think that's that's a pretty important goal. At the same time, I understand that the downtown is the size of a postage champ and there's not a whole lot of room to develop there anymore. And so uh expanding the region from which you can import credits um makes sense to me. So that suggests that you could have a zoning a zoning based solution but also a geographical based solution. And uh my preference at the moment is leaning toward a geographical based solution to try to get more density near to the downtown diverse density near to the downtown. walkable. And so just sort of throwing out a candidate boundary uh might be south of south of Sageno and east of Harrison as an area that sort of broadly defined is reasonably walkable to the downtown as an area where you could transfer credits from. That would so that would be one suggestion. Um the planning commission chair did make reference to the idea of making it a onetoone transfer to keep it simple and I guess I would echo that. Um I understand the idea of having a ratio to make it more attractive to build in the downtown versus nearby. But the the geographical bounding sort of addresses that issue, right? Um, so

I wanted to take this sort of opportunity to put some specific parameters that I think would be reasonable on the table for the the planning commission's consideration if they're interested and and for the consideration of others who might be listening. Can Mr. Meadows? Yeah, please.

I I wasn't aware we were going to uh sort of give our idea on that. So, I'm not sold on the 10%. I'll just say that. Um, you know, I want the percentage to have a meaning and I'm not convinced at this point in time that 10% actually does that. It's a dramatic reduction of the number that we have, but I would be interested in knowing how other communities set their percentage and what those percentages are. Uh, and you know, frankly, if it looks like 10% is the right way to go, then you know, I'm good with that. But I want it to be something that makes a difference and provides more low to moderate income housing within the community uh and doesn't just become something that somebody has to do. I'm um I'm in agreement with the mayor in terms of Sagena being the uh the limit to the north and but I'm I'm I think we need to take a look anyway or have a discussion about moving it uh a little further west than just Harrison uh because I think Chesterfield Hills area as well as Red Cedar should be you know considered as well. So, um, the geographic, uh, limits of what we decide to do here are important to me. Um, I'm with you in the sense that we started out looking at, uh, downtown, but we looked at downtown in terms of what supports the retail in the downtown, what kind of diversity we'd like to see in the downtown area. And I actually think when you think about the downtown certainly to to Birchham we're talking about that same uh impact in the downtown area but I think we can go all the way to Sageno and accomplish that as

well. So I'm in agreement with one I want to see a lot more before I would uh weigh in on the percentage that we could uh reduce. And although I I did have one developer tell me, forget forget the fee and loo. Nobody's ever going to want to do that anyway. I think that it's a valuable thing for us to have on the books. And uh as long as it's not $5,000 a unit, as was uh originally provided to us and it looks like the research that you did certainly shows, I think a reasonable way of doing this. Uh, and yeah, it's it's a lot of money for a developer to come up with, but we're giving them a break by doing that. And we're putting the burden on ourselves to actually make um low to moderate income housing more available within our community. Um, I think that's a a trade has to be a good trade and um uh having it a low number doesn't really accomplish anything for us. So that's my comments.

Mr. Bartley. Uh just a couple things real quick to respond. Um first off, uh we do have some analysis in the packet about the other communities. Uh the CED staff especially has done a lot of research and has been talking to a lot of communities about how they come up with the number about how they what how they manage and disperse the money and we'll we'll focus on that more next time. Um but I also just wanted to get ask a clarifying question. You mentioned uh Chesterfield Hills and Red Cedar. Are you mentioning those as areas from which you could transfer credits or areas that would be subject to down or diverse housing requirement? I was thinking that that's a possibility for a transfer of credits because it's not I would think contiguous to what we've been looking at. Thank you.

Does anybody else want to weigh in with uh specific parameters or other comments generally on this issue? I think it's been a productive discussion. No, I'm in I'm in agreement mostly with what Mark just said in regards to, you know, 10% seems. So, uh, but again, as as we go with more information and hear from plan commission, Mike,

yeah, I would say um, a lot of the things we've already talked about like the 10 15% and you know, part of this is these are a set of tools and levers. So, it's hard to do a comparison without almost like a matrix of giving us those tradeoffs. And uh I'm trying to think of the other parameters. I I know we've mentioned transfer of credits. I mean, you know, I was driving I forget it used to be maybe a total gas station next to the trying to remember the sports den for it was a Mexican restaurant. And then I'm dating myself a little bit. Cliff, I see you. Um, I'm like, let's build like some apartments there, affordable housing. I don't know who owns it. I don't know anything. But, um, I think about that section of Grand River as well. And when we think about expanding, I don't know how the neighborhoods would feel about that, but I'm looking that way. And because guess what? That's not very long to walk. That can still be walkable from downtown out to Hagadorn. So, um, and my last comments on this, um, I understand both as staff and probably our commissions, including our planning commission, that there may be some uncertainty. I will tell you this, city council is a part-time gig. I am looking for the expertise both from the planning commission and staff to help drive us. you can debate and provide us facts and data to contest whatever we may cook up up here. Um, I just really want to encourage folks to lean in because I need you and the planning commission to lean in here based on some of the discussions here.

Any further discussion on this issue? All right. So, I'll make a motion to uh refer Ordinance 1559 to the housing commission. Second. Second by Meadows. Any discussion of that motion. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. The motion carries and that referral is is made. So, is that Yes, please. Lee, do you have everything you need? Okay. Sure.

Good question. Okay, clear as mod, right? Yeah. All right. So, that brings us to item 6.2, consideration of resolution 2026-26, opposing Michigan House Bills 5529 to 5532 and 5581 to 5585 regarding local municipal zoning authority. Mr. Bartley,

thank you. um land Bley, principal planner. Uh several bills have been introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives uh that have the effect of um among many things uh essentially preempting local governments from uh certain zoning uh rules related to housing um specifically related to maximum lot size uh allowing accessory dwelling units or duplexes on u many or almost every lot. um certain square footage requirements, uh changing setback requirements, um prohibiting enforcement of minimum uh square footage requirements, etc. Prohibiting regulations uh specific to duplexes or accessory dwelling units. Uh from a staff perspective, um preeemption of zoning is a less than ideal move. Um zoning is is local for a reason. And so when we see state bills introduced that would remove lo local zoning authority, we tend to uh respond poorly, I should say respond very well but negatively towards the the bills. Uh so the Michigan Association of Planning is very aware of uh my personal feelings on this uh which is uh not interested in seeing these p pass. The mun Michigan municipal league for what it's worth has developed the MI home program which is instead a package of bills that would incentivize uh or or reward communities who are adopting best practices doing it right versus um bringing a hammer down essentially in all communities in the state by preempting their local authority. So, uh I as well as uh the city manager and city attorney prepared this item for you. Um, and we're interested in uh the council considering whether to uh oppose these Michigan bills.

Questions, comments?

Well, I'll make a comment. The uh the committee I sit on with the MML voted unanimously to oppose these bills and had quite a presentation on it. It looks like uh these originated out of Grand Rapids u because uh two of the Grand Rapids legislators seem to be the primary sponsors of these bills and u it was pitched originally to the legislature as some kind of affordable housing uh promotion. Um but in a community like East Lancing, I think it would have the opposite effect. uh it would essentially undermine our existing rental license uh requirements and it would um you know it's one thing for you to build a a little house in the backyard although this was I think a maximum of 12,200 square ft or something like that and uh having mom and dad live there but then when mom and dad pass what do you do with that house in the backyard we already know here what that will happen and I doubt very much if it would be populated by Lord to moderate income individuals. So, um there's nothing about these bills that I think lends them to anything that we're trying to accomplish in our community and it clearly on a local government uh matter undermines the ability of local government to control and that's undermining the ability of the population who votes for city councils and votes for legislation within our community to control their own communities. So, I very strongly support the idea of us passing this resolution.

Further comments? No, I agree. I talked with staff. I'm 100% behind you on that and why. Um, and I'm ready to move on it as well. Anything further? I have one quick question. I didn't click through all these bills. Is there one that changes the stairwell um requirements on multi-units? It would have been Representative Wooden. I think he's out of Grand Rapids, which I think is actually a good thing though because it I don't believe that's part of these bills.

Attorney Java, can you believe it's okay? Listen, the punch line is it it undermines, you know, the local control on these decisions. Now, you know, I'm sure there's going to be some deal that comes out of this package that will end up passing. So, that's my two cents. I'm ready to make a motion. Do it, please. I move to adopt resolution 2026-26, a resolution opposing Michigan House bills 5529-5532 and 5581-5585 regarding local municipal zoning authority.

Motion by Whan, second by second, second by Griggsby. Any further discussion that motion? All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? That motion carries and that resolution is adopted. Thank you. Which brings us to item 6.3 um which is to consider the adoption of policy resolution 2026-24 and accompanying supporting native landscapes interpretive guidance for ordinance 1558 retiring the annual no mo enforcement pause and replacing it with a permanent year-round compliance framework. Mr. Walls

that's long. Sorry. Uh Cliff Walls, DPW environmental. Uh what's before you is an outcome of uh your comments in January when the ordinance itself was updated. This is the nuisance grass ordinance. Um natives were defined in there and explicitly um you know defined to not be able to be interpreted as weeds. Basically allowing native grasses, native flowers outright. It was never really something that was um not allowable under the ordinance, but there was a lot of people who had confusion the way it was written and that uncertainty might as well be a codified barrier. Um and the council requested that staff return with an interpretive guidance of how to actually implement this on the ground, not just for property owners, but for enforcement staff because PACE is going to have to make a lot of decisions, you know, uh presumably about this. And so there's four there's one attachment as part of this but there's four coordinated um separate documents. One is the interpretive policy document that is essentially um just the statement of what the policies um and the the interpretation of the ordinance is. One is a resident facing FAQ, something you'd put online, sorry. Uh something you'd put on the website, print out, send in the mail, and then uh a pace enforcement guide, which I can envisioned as something they could use as training. Um and then a field reference that they could use, just a single page. You can laminate it, throw it in the truck, and have a decision tree on there. some images of reference, you know, compliant versus non-compliant um landscapes. So, um largely what this was trying to

accomplish is to ensure that people have the flexibility to do with what they wish their on their yards in a way that is ecologically beneficial. Um but that cannot be that that ordinance update and the policy interpretation could not be used to justify true neglect. And so rather than requiring PACE or even residents to be experts on native plants and you know botanical identification, uh the basic tenant is just visible stewardship. And um I know I I put a lot of this in to the AR. Sorry, I don't want to keep repeating myself if you already know all this, but there's quite a lot here and happy to answer any questions and clarify any of the approaches.

Questions for Mr. Walls. Mr. Whan, I would just want to applaud your work on this. Um, I was very impressed with your presentation, not only tonight, but especially the written documentation, and it really just makes a lot of sense to me. I appreciate seemed like you've contacted all the right stakeholders and it seems very very thorough. So I don't have questions but I do also appreciate the pictures. I think it really um gives me a good grasp of exactly what this does. Thank you. And we did u work with pace and had them check it and that was their primary comment too was that the pictures are going to be everything to them.

Other comments? I I I agree. I thank you for all the work and everything like that. I I speaking of growing, did you grow when you came back here last time? Because when you came in, I didn't recognize you at first. I've had a beard for quite a long time. Okay.

Um, one comment, it sounds like there's general support. Um, one thing we've been kind of doing in the background that hasn't been publicized yet because we didn't want to jump the gun was before May having an event at the library, um, like a a Q&A, not only for us as staff to share these updates, share these resources, make sure people have an opportunity to engage with us, um, but then also have contacted, um, the experts from MSU on just being available to present on the resources available at extension at uh you know potentially the fish and wildlife the federal level um and just having a a group of people there who can kind of take help people take the next step um and one thing I want to highlight like this is the regulatory floor the next step will be creating kind of you know here's here's what you can do here's the possibilities this is purposefully not best practiceoriented It's more what can you do and still be within the confines of the ordinance, but there's a lot more opportunity for education, engagement, promotion beyond what this was designed to do.

Mr. Reos, I'll make a motion if that's what we're ready to do. Sure. I'll move uh to adopt policy resolution 2026-24 and accompanying supporting native landscapes interpretive guidance for ordinance 1558 and retire uh the annual NOMO may enforcement pause in favor of the permanent yearround compliance framework established by ordinance 1558. Motion by Meadows. Second.

Second by Griggsby. I do want to say just a couple of things because I was on the I was liazison to COE when this sort of started to come up and I remember a resident showing up at a meeting um talking about a conflict you'd have with PACE um about a couple of volunteers in his front yard and that generated this whole discussion that made the whole problem look intractable and somehow you solved it. So congratulations. The other thing that seemed to me it was going to be intractable was was what the off-ramp was going to be for Numo May and you solved that too. Um, this is an extraordinarily thorough document and it's extraordinarily clear and just a great piece of work. And as I read it and looked at the pictures, I thought of form-based codes in the planning context which are all based on pictures and that's sufficient to be that's sufficiently rigorous to allow for enforcement and sort of picks up on that on that theme. I don't know if that was the intention, but there's sort of a real parallel track there. So, I just think this is a great piece of work. So, thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Any further discussion or comment? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? That motion carries. And that resolution is adopted. Nice work, Cliff. Um, next item on the agenda uh concerns a closed session. Is there a motion?

I always do this. I don't have it in front of me. Sure. I move uh move uh the council enters into closed session for consideration or I'm sorry, consideration of entering. Okay. I move the council moves into close session for the purpose of consulting with the city attorneys pursuant to MCL 15.268 26A sub1 sub E regarding trial and settlement strategy in connection with the pending litigation and University Place Associates Condominium Association versus City of East Lancing, Ingam County Circuit Court case number 25-4268-CB for the reason that an open meeting could have a detrimental financial effect on the litigating or settlement position of the city. Motion by Singh. Second.

Second by Whan. Roll call vote, please. Council member Whan. Yes. Council member Meadows. Yes. Council member Singh. Yes. Mayor Pro. Tim Griggsby. Yes. Mayor Alman. Yes. We are adjourned to close session. I'll just make one comment before we leave, which is there's no bombing going on and a ceasefire for two weeks was declared by the president. What a surprise, you know.

We are back in open session. Uh which brings us to item number eight. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So moved. Moved by Singh. Second by Meadows. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed? None opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you all. Is this also