Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lansing City Council regular business meeting of May 26 2026. The meeting will come to order. Could we have the roll call please?

Councilmember Whalen.

Here.

Council Member Meadows. Here. Council Member Singh. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby. Here. Mayor Altman.

Here. I will move approval of the agenda as presented. Is there a second? Second. Okay, motion by Altman, second by Meadows.

Is there going to be a consideration of an amendment to the agenda?

Yes, that was going to be my next motion. I apologize.

No problem. So I will now move to amend the agenda. to add item 5.4. Under the business agenda to enter into closed session to discuss and consult with the city attorney regarding privileged and confidential attorney client legal correspondence exempt from disclosure by state law under MCL 1 5.243. Sub one sub G as allowed under subsection eight sub one sub H of the Open Meetings Act. And to also add item 5.5, stating that upon return to open session, City Council may take action regarding matters discussed in closed session. So that is my amendment to the agenda. Is there a second for the amendment? Amendment by Altman, second by Meadows. This amendment requires unanimous consent. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. That motion passes. The agenda is amended. So the motion now is on the agenda as amended. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. The amended agenda is approved. Are there any motions concerning approval of the minutes of previous meetings?

I move to approve.

Motion by Grigsby to approve the regular council meeting minutes of 12th May, 2026. Second. The regular council special meeting minutes of 21st May, 2026. And the city council discussion only meeting minutes of 19th May, 2026. Motion by Grigsby, second by? Second. Second by Whelan. Any corrections to any of those minutes? Seeing none, the motion is on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, those minutes are approved. Okay, next item is communications. All written communications received by council are posted on the online agenda packet. Communications from the audience. Nathan Takaki.

Thank you very much. I deliver this on behalf of my wife, Abigail. She is a crisis advocate for the MSU Center for Survivors and was called in to assist with someone in need immediately prior to this, but I feel strongly enough about this to share on her behalf. Abigail used to work for a city government in a college town that proudly branded itself as liberal and progressive. She reported to a powerful department head who, in turn, reported directly to the mayor. Eventually, she went to Human Resources to report ongoing gender discrimination and sexism in her workplace. Just like what happened here in East Lansing, the city responded by hiring an outside attorney to conduct an independent investigation. During her interview, she described repeated exposure to racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks by her supervisor and male coworkers. She explained how she faced retaliation after reporting misconduct to HR and how her qualifications and professional worth were constantly undermined. She documented delayed raises, unequal treatment and promotions, hostile behavior, verbal abuse, intimidation, exclusion from meetings and communications and repeated efforts to obstruct her ability to do her job. She described being called neurotic, crazy and so far gone. She and I can describe the anxiety, panic attacks, sleeplessness and severe stress that followed. But they all could not simply take a woman at her word, even when she had documentation, so the attorneys hired by the city to protect the city also interviewed her counterparts. Half of whom were the very men directly benefiting from the discrimination and behavior that she had reported. And so the danger meter returned back to zero and the investigation concluded that based on the preponderance of the evidence, her allegations were unfounded. So forgive me if we do not find much comfort when Mayor Altman publicly announced that the harassment and discrimination complaints against the city manager here were also deemed unfounded. The phrase means very little to us because we have lived through exactly how those investigations work. We have to say the tone of the announcement was strange. It felt like the solemn discussion of serious allegations involving a public employee and more like someone excited to have won their case. The reaction was unsettling because regardless of the outcome of any investigation, allegations of discrimination and harassment inside the city government should never be treated with glee. We've been thinking since last Wednesday about whether releasing this report actually makes things better for anyone other than Robert Bellarmine. The cardinal rule when supporting anyone who has experienced sexual discrimination is to believe them and to help preserve their autonomy. Discrimination already takes away a person's sense of control and agency, and any response should be aimed to restore that, not further diminishment. The data underscore why this matters. False allegations are extremely rare, found only in two to maybe 8% of cases. Research consistently shows that fear of retaliation silences 85% of victims before they even file a formal complaint. From this perspective, the council's primary responsibility should be to ensure policy that will empower employees to make informed decisions about whether and how to come forward. Instead, you release the report without the knowledge or consent of the employee affected and reinforce the position of the most powerful employee in the city. It raises a difficult and unavoidable question. When employees are being mistreated, how would the conduct of this council lead them to reasonably conclude that they will be believed? This is coupled with the City Attorney's proposed changes to City Ordinance 1489, stating that the Human Rights Commission will no longer be permitted to review complaints made by City employees. If the Council believed that the investigation was comprehensive and conclusive, why did it later ask additional victims to come forward? And if additional victims may exist, doesn't that suggest the investigation was incomplete? How can employees realistically feel safe reporting discrimination or participating in investigations involving senior leadership when those individuals hold substantial power over their careers, and what safeguards against retaliation actually exist? If the city truly believes the internal processes are effective and trustworthy, why is it now moving to limit the authority of the Human Rights Commission and reduce independent oversight rather than strengthen it? When Lonnie Smith's case receives due process, when Mason Wood's case receives due process, when Isaiah Kirby's family receives due process, and when Erika Jejec Hernandez's case receives due process, then and only then can we ensure that due process is being applied consistently for all parties, including City Manager Bellarmine. The standards should be the same for everyone without exception. Punch up, not down.

Thank you. Rebecca Kaysen.

Good evening.

My name is Rebecca Kaysen. I come here as a private citizen, not on behalf of any commissions, organizations, or campaigns I am associated with. Tonight, we're being told that the Human Rights Commission is the problem. That's some Darvo shit right there. For those of you who don't know what Darvo is, that is something that's talked about a lot in domestic violence spaces. Deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender. All of a sudden, you guys are the victim right now. So let's be very clear about how we got here. We're not here because of a rogue commission. We're here because of the actions, particularly the failures, of city leadership. It started when the police chief chose to put a suspended officer back on the streets before the end of his suspension. The officer then pepper sprayed two innocent young men, Lonnie and Mason. The chief had proof they were innocent, she knew it, and yet three weeks later the department put out a press release portraying them as criminals. Then the chief went on television and said that minorities are coming to East Lansing to commit crimes. Not only were those comments hurtful and inflammatory, but the city manager himself acknowledged that they were racist. Yet, despite that acknowledgement, Jen Brown remained in her position without any accountability or at least anything meaningful. At any point in the process, the city could have chosen honesty. The city could have apologized. The city could have acknowledged harm. The city could have worked towards repair. Instead, the city doubled down and then tripled down. And so let's be honest about something else. The Human Rights Commission did not go looking for this fight. That complaint should have gone before the Police Oversight Commission, but months ago, this same body stripped them of their authority. So when Lonnie and Mason had nowhere else to turn, the complaint came to the HRC. And when it did, the city refused to engage in good faith. Instead of transparency, they sent attorneys to intimidate volunteer commissioners who are serving this community. Instead of accountability, they obstructed the process at every turn. And despite all that, the HRC was able to get enough evidence to find in favor of Lonnie and Mason. So now, instead of this body reflecting on why this happened and trying to make things right, the council is attempting to gut the authority of the very commission that dared to hold the city accountable. That is not reform. That is retaliation. Yet again, I'm going to remind Councilmember Mark Meadows of something he said on the campaign trail. There's no going back on DEI. Gutting the Human Rights Commission is exactly that. You cannot claim to support civil rights, equity, and inclusion while dismantling one of the few bodies willing to stand up when the city fails its residents and guests. Tonight is not a test of the Human Rights Commission. It is a test whether this council believes accountability should exist at all, especially when it is uncomfortable, politically inconvenient, or directed at city leadership. The residents of East Lansing are watching. The residents of the region are watching. we all know exactly how we got there. So I'm gonna ask each of you, how do you wanna be known in the history of this city? Because your vote tonight will define your legacy.

Thank you. James McCurtis Jr. Good evening.

First, I want to say publicly, I know we said it at the statement. Oh, first, I'm James McCurtis, President, NAACP. We said this publicly in a statement. I want to say it again. My thoughts and prayers go to Mr. Mealock and hope that he has a speedy recovery. In a couple of city council meetings, it was Councilman Mark Meadows kept asking the question about Isaiah Kirby, like, where did he go wrong? What happened with him? It's inappropriate questions, but whatever. The thing is, is that Isaiah Kirby isn't here to answer those questions. He hasn't lived to tell this story. So instead of asking those questions, because Isaiah Kirby has been killed, I came up with some questions that you can ask. First question, why is East Lansing looking to reduce the budget for LAPOC and HRC? Another question you should ask, why did the city remove power from LAPOC and HRC? Why did the HRC report find the East Lansing Police Department to use excessive force more than, I believe, 83% of the time when they encountered black and brown people? Another question to ponder, why did police pepper spray two young black men who were peacefully leaving a restaurant in downtown East Lansing? Why does the police department use excessive force on black and brown people? Yes, I repeated that question. Number six, another question to ask, why did police shoot and kill Isaiah Kirby after he was no longer a threat to the community? And when an officer said to go to a non-lethal force, they continued to shoot and kill. And the last, another question they should ask, why is Chief Jen Brown still the police chief? Another question, why did East Lansing Police Department act as judge, jury, and executioner?

Thank you, Amanda Morgan.

Amanda Morgan. I am here as a community member. First of all, I want to start with the city of East Lansing occupies the ancestral, traditional and contemporary lands of Anishinaabe, Three Fires Confederacy of the Ojibwe, Ottawa and Potawatomi peoples land seated at 1819 Treaty of Saginaw. I say that because I do value land acknowledgments, especially in East Lansing. There's a long history here that started with indigenous people. Ironically, we're not in line with the Treaty of Saginaw because a part of it we had to have farmland. We're long from that in East Lansing. There's a lot not right with this town. I just start there because I think if I do come and speak in this community, I'm going to make sure that's said every time that we take time to remember where the origins of this town is. I am here just to actively listen to the citizens once again who are concerned about what is going on between the city council, the city attorneys, and the police departments. I've learned a lot about the Human Rights Coalition, the HRC Commission. I learned that it was started in 1969 and that it had a lot to do with the red lighting in this town in East Lansing. And that I'm not surprised today that HRC is on the chopping block because it's doing some social justice that the city's not accustomed to. I don't know if it's because you all are personally, you know, you are invested in making wrong decisions. Or if you're just really stuck in a bureaucratic system that just sterilizes what's happening in this day and age. Mayor Altman, I really appreciate when you talk about trees and the importance of trees around here. But I'd also like to just remind you that people are also important. Black and brown bodies are going to be important. It is important how we talk to women of color. how we treat them on spaces, especially on city council. I do remember watching how Dana Watson was treated by the city council. And I just, I have a hard time trusting that you actually care about the people here. But just keep listening, because they're gonna keep talking and they're gonna keep showing up. You can use rules and order to silence the problem, but it's not gonna go away. Bureaucracy is not the answer this time.

Power and control is not the answer this time.

Thinking you know better than the people who are growing in this room is not the way to go. You know what it is? Active listening. The one thing none of these policies or procedures are doing. Teaching you how to actively listen. You know what else would help? Actual de-escalation tools, real ones that actually de-escalate a situation without using guns. I don't own a gun. Because I have the confidence to know that I can almost deescalate every situation without one. Now, does that mean I'm going to be set up for some jerk to come and shoot me randomly? I don't know. I know I've had my tires have nails in them since I've been a commissioner, which I'm not here for today. I've had seven nails in my tires. You know what I did? I got a warranty. so that I can keep driving to do the task. I'm really here to just remind you again that these individuals here are talking and they're speaking up for a reason and they're not going away and you're getting some bad advice. And so, we're gonna continue to push people and to encourage people to do the right things and we're gonna continue to grow our numbers. So I hope you take the time to listen. And bureaucracy loves to make rules. People will find a way around them. I'm gonna take the rest of my time in silence for all the individuals who have been harmed by police in the last month.

Thank you. Thank you. Chris Root.

My name is Chris Root. I'm a resident of East Lansing. I'm a member of the Police Oversight Commission. I'm here as an individual. I noticed that there is not a packet of written communications this evening, so I do want to make sure that people have the opportunity to know that the Use of Force Committee did send a memo to the council last week, which I anticipated would be in the written communications. It is about the $6,000 that the committee and the commission asks that the council add back to the fiscal year 2027 budget. It was removed from the commission budget on the understanding that it hadn't been spent for a similar purpose the previous year so it was taken out and then that rationale was realized to be inaccurate. So the city manager said he wasn't putting it back in but you all could. So we are counting on you all tonight taking the effort to pass an amendment to put the $6,000 back. The reason is that it's not just $6,000. It is the difference between there being an annual report about use of force incidents in the city for 2026, or there not being such a report. That is what that money is for so that we can hire somebody to do a summary and statistical report of use of force instances. It's incredibly important to have an annual perspective and it is incredibly important to do it every year so you can see trends and there isn't a loss of data partway through. Please, add that $6,000 back. Very briefly, I also want to speak to the HRC amendments being on tonight's agenda with the plan to have a second reading next Tuesday, which is usually, second reading is usually the vote. As you can probably imagine, knowing that I'm a member of the Oversight Commission, This feels like deja vu. We were told that about three dozen amendments to the LEPOC ordinance were necessary because of provisions of the collective bargaining agreement that the council had approved. The council was given a memo identifying which sections of the collective bargaining agreement required particular amendments in the ordinance. The community was not given that document. We fought for, I don't remember, six weeks, four weeks, two months, I don't remember exactly, to be able to get a copy of that memo so that we could study it. The commission came back to you saying, we see that these amendments are required by the CBA, and we see that there's some others that we believe are not. What we're seeing tonight is the memo about the HRC says there are federal laws, there's state laws, there's charter provisions, there's council rules, there's human resources policies that justify these amendments. That paragraph and that bunch of amendments does not prepare this city for a discussion of what y'all are, what is being proposed. I know you all didn't write it. But it got written and I think it is crucial that there be a serious conversation which members of the community participate in about what the importance of the HRC is, what powers it has had, why historically it has had them, and if there really is some law that has changed that requires that there be a change, let's talk about it. If not, we really need to have a serious discussion about what we need in this community and there needs to be time for that engagement. So please do not vote on it next week.

You have 30 seconds remaining. Thank you. Thank you, Sara Recco.

Good evening. I am an East Lansing resident and I am president of the East Lansing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. I am here as an individual and I am here to comment on the proposed amendments involving the Human Rights Commission. I urge the council to delay this and to take additional time and I'm very concerned about this proposal. You may think you're responding to legal concerns of the moment, but recognize that these amendments deliberately reduce the role and authority of this commission, and it is part of a pattern of recent actions in our city. The city government's approach to the Human Rights Commission has been adversarial rather than constructive, and I have seen this play out as well in my context and work as a commission chair. I urge the council to recognize and support its boards and commissions rather than undermining them. I'm sure you're all familiar with the City of East Lansing organizational chart. The city council is at the top of that chart. The city manager, who is responsible for administration, answers to the council, not the other way around. Meanwhile, a separate line of authority extends directly from the city council to the boards and commissions. On multiple occasions, I've sat with Council Member Meadows when we have interviewed prospective candidates for the Parks and Recreation Commission. And I've heard him describe the boards and commissions as the City Council's eyes and ears. I really appreciate that way of putting it. I think it's very apt. Commission members are close to the issues we work on and we are often talking to people who may never show up to a council meeting or write in. Listening to boards and commissions can help you as the council avoid bad decisions. We can help you make good decisions that are responsive to our city. For example, last year, the city manager proposed a Parks and Recreation millage to replace the general fund dollars to parks. This was a hasty and poorly thought out proposal. The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously opposed this proposal last May. We wrote a letter to council explaining why it was a bad idea. I spoke to council in opposition. Unfortunately, the majority of council did not listen to us. They listened to the city manager instead. The manager was wrong. That millage was placed on the November ballot where it failed spectacularly, 61% of voters opposed. That was an unforced error that led residents to think the council would just go back to residents for more tax dollars rather than taking serious efforts to get finances in order in advance. Decisions like that millage proposal can undermine trust in city government and that is exactly what it did. Furthermore, the city manager has not changed his approach to budgeting. Once again, last minute changes to parks and recreation budget were proposed after our commission voted on the budget for council. He has not learned. I hope you will learn from the mistake of the 2025 parks millage as you prepare to go to voters in the future to renew the income tax in a couple of years. The council should take heed and listen in order to rebuild trust if you want that proposal to succeed. This council needs its eyes and ears from boards and commissions now more than ever for guidance on decisions involving public finance and public services, on justice and human rights, and on police use of force. Do not deny yourselves your eyes and ears with hasty and poorly thought out proposals. Take time for thoughtful consideration. Do not deny the Human Rights Commission at this time. Please.

Thank you. Carla Forrest Hewitt.

Good evening.

I'm here tonight to demand that the council assess the current circumstances of the East Lansing city government through the lens of rigorous social reimagination. Ruha Benjamin calls on us to see that institutional structures are of human design and therefore limited to our sociological imagination. With that said, a flawed governing structure that minimizes feedback and insulates decision makers from transparent actions for accountability is bound to human error and prejudice. The current circumstances we are under are not destined or inevitable. They are directly related to decisions that are made by those who have power in our city. Many of us are here tonight to reclaim what a future for the city of East Lansing looks like. For us, the looming danger of excessive force when interacting with a police officer as a person of color is not a distant possibility. We have witnessed the disparities in treatment across race and the escalation of violence and whether or not you believe the data shows it. Racial bias does not exist Racial bias does exist and policing is not exempt. Chuck Grisby, while serving on the HRC in 2021, stated that quantitative statistics on police stops clearly shows a bias towards stopping African-American men. He called the numbers a horror show and even went on to warn council that we won't stop bothering you about these issues, including officers, traumatizing communities. Racism is real and has real-life consequences for us all. We are not offering up hate or retribution, and we are not distressed without cause. We are asking, challenging, and demanding inclusive, transparent change. We are asking for better. We all deserve better leadership. Mayor Altman, I am calling you in to reevaluate the choices you have made so far and the words that you have chosen to speak. Can you do an objective audit? We are witnessing an undeniable collapse in the city's leadership that is dismembering moral and civil rights safeguards. These safeguards were hard fought for and won. The escalation of police violence has continued under your watch, which is directly related to the increase in litigation costs. With the supposed budget deficits, and choice to spend additional money on policing while all this is transpiring is a clear indication of callous indifference. This is a clear breakdown of this institution of municipal government, which creates an increased risk of human error each day. How can those directly affected by your leadership decisions be called on to work in a hostile environment. How can they operate under your indifference to the suffering of the community? The Human Rights Commission and the East Lansing Police Oversight Commission are essential to maintaining a system of checks and balances. Dismantling and defunding them is not the move. They are here to protect civil rights and to give voice and due process, a phrase many of our leadership like to use. You are removing the guardrails and embracing the climate that exists at the national level. It is clear from your stance and the decisions made that the voices of those harmed do not matter to you. Reconciliation is a concept that you do not understand. The excuse of litigation inflames our hearts and makes us know what you value, money and not the community. Maria Nkaba teaches us that hope is a discipline. We are disciplined. We will not stand for this corruption of values and morality. We call for accountability and not business as usual. Reducing public comment, introducing a sergeant at arms to this space is a clear threat to our collective voices. It shows a clear lack of understanding of what matters to the community, especially when you introduce police at every avenue. What is it that you fear? Is it the voice of the people? Then you should not lead. Do not pass the ordinances defunding and crippling the HRC and LAPOC. Rescind your call to introduce sergeant at arms and reduce public comment. Carry out transparent corrective action when harm happens under city leadership and do not align yourself with aggressive litigation. We are all members of the same community and we demand that you acknowledge that we belong here too. Thank you.

Thank you. Kath Edsel.

DIFFICULT FOLLOWING THAT BRILLIANT STATEMENT BY CARLA. SHE ALSO GAVE YOU A PRETTY SPECIFIC LIST OF DEMANDS FOR THOSE OF YOU LOOKING FOR THINGS TO ACT ON. IN 1962, ONLY EIGHT YEARS AFTER THE BROWN DECISION, 87% OF WHITE AMERICANS BELIEVED BLACK AND WHITE CHILDREN HAD EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES. A YEAR LATER, BEFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 67% OF WHITE AMERICANS BELIEVE BLACK PEOPLE HAD ALL THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS WHITE PEOPLE. The idea that racism does not exist or is over is not a new idea. White people have historically denied its existence because without deniability they might have to admit their achievements were not earned in a fair race and that they might have to do something, anything. Vermont's community, though not the community you care about, Mr. Altman, because you report to only those who want clean streets and a balanced budget, have come to you and demanded accountability and this body has replied, we must follow process. What you refuse to see is that process has always been created to maintain white male wealth and power. Or as Audre Lorde said, the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. What you refuse to see is that process has always been I'm sorry. The Miller-Candfold memo is a perfect example of process that is created to come to the best outcome for the white male establishment. First, the city chose who to do the investigation, and the city's main goal is not to expose itself to liability, but to defend against that possibility. In fact, the report concludes that this was the goal by stating, the concerns raised by Zydeck do not, in our view, present significant legal exposure for the city at this time. To that end, the investigation finds against the complainant based in part on that there were no direct witnesses to the reported conduct, yet multiple witnesses confirmed behaviors which Bellman denied when he said he doesn't yell or scream. Testimony implicates that he lied, but his denial supersedes her claims. The glibness and smugness that Mr. Altman exuded as he stated, it's a relief for me to finally make this statement to the public that these claims were unfounded was disgusting as it re-victimized a woman and an employee of the city. Furthermore, claiming that I look forward to continuing to the work with the city manager as he leads us through the city brought back memories of Anita Hill testifying against Clarence Thomas only to have 11 Democrats support his nomination. Your comments were not only disgusting, but sent a chill down the spine of every female employee who has had to deal with the city manager's petulant, obnoxious, and condescending behavior, behavior that is confirmed in the opportunities at the end of the report by leadership training requirements for a man who promised these same behaviors would end with his hiring by the city. This is a classic abuser behavior. I promised to stop, and yet they don't. However, based on council comments, no effort has been made to consider the climate assessment or to meet informally with staff where they are provided anonymity. Instead, you wash your hands clean by encouraging more women to stop forward only to be gaslit by the investigators, the city manager, and the mayor. Prior to his departure from council, Mayor Brookover requested an independent investigation following the pepper spraying of Lonnie and Mason and the chief's racist remarks. At an ensuing council meeting, council member Watson followed with a very specific motion to hire an independent investigator. So who did the city hire? The city hired Michelle Crockett, who is a partner in the Honigman firm. The first line of introduction to this attorney's webpage is that she is a labor and employment attorney who specializes in defending private and public sector entities against various employment-related claims. Again, the process this body initiated is meant to protect this body against the claims that the police department is causing the community harm. The process to independently investigate the killing of Isaiah is even worse. I gave you the statistics last week. Less than 1% on police shootings end with charges against the officer. I expect no different here. And what I expect is a mayor who will excitedly pee himself when the Michigan State Police refuse to charge any of the involved officers, and he'll see that as vindication. Refusing to see that the police investigating the police has never led to change or accountability because it was never meant to lead to change or accountability is white supremacy. Add to that qualified immunity, and police were never supposed to be held accountable as long as they do the work of the white and the powerful. Clearly, process is not the solution unless you are white and male and control the strings, which is exactly why alternative bodies have been created to bring justice for those where process fails. The city is currently facing multiple civil rights violations, claims, and lawsuits, why this council is being told to rewrite the law that created the Human Rights Commission. White men, especially our city manager, our city attorney, the mayor, cannot stand to have their authority challenged, and instead of fixing the problems, they change the rules. Instead of taking our recommendations and use of force and de-escalation, they have been dismantling ELIPOC and are now instead working to prevent civil rights violations. They are dismantling a commission that has started in the 60s because threatening the commissions didn't work as they hoped. How many more pages of the current federal administration playbook pages are you willing to follow before the rest of you wake up to what's happening? The city manager and city attorney are following project 2025 East Lansing Edition. Thank you for your comments.

Your time has expired. Robin Etcheson.

Due process. Due process, 17 bullet holes. Is that due process? Perhaps for some, perhaps not for others. Due process, Mr. Melock, first of all, let me address the elephant in the room about the assault on Mr. Melock. First of all, Mr. Melock was deprived of his due process. He was unable to confront his accuser in a court of law. Why? 17 bullet holes. You've heard from the people. You've heard from people of East Lansing, their discontent. You've heard from the people in Lansing, their discontent. You've heard from the students of MSU, their discontent. You've heard from citizens of the surrounding area, their discontent. Some of these people voted for you. And I'm sure at this time, some of these people are questioning themselves as to, did they make the right decision? And will they vote for you again? This is the question I want to pose to you. Will they vote for you again? We're in a bad place here. But we need to move forward. And what are you going to do? How are you going to move forward? What is your plan to move forward? Due process. 17 bullet holes. Was that due process? Is that what due process looks like to some of you, some of us? Not to me. And here again, I hope that you have all viewed the body cam footage, the other private footage of the officer-involved shooting. And we've all come, I've viewed it and I will continue to view it time and time again, frame by frame, until I get a clear understanding and a full understanding and hopefully an unbiased understanding of what took place and why it took place. I understand deadly force. and that I understand at daily force at times this need to be used. I have three police officers in my family. We've talked about it. We will continue to talk about it. Two are retired. One is still an active police officer in a major metropolitan community. Due process, 17 bullet holes. I'll never forget it. I'll never let you forget it. transparency and accountability. All I've gotten in the times that I've been here in East Lansing trying to function is words, lip service as far as transparency and accountability. But the actions that I've seen taking place on this city council is quite contrary to their commitment to transparency and accountability. I'm fully persuaded that if transparency and accountability would have been accepted wholeheartedly by this council, reinforced by this council and the police chief, that this incident would not have resulted in 17 bullet holes and an individual dead. An individual deprived of their due process that they were not able to be arrested, charged, and judged by a jury of their peers. Due process. East Lansing has a gun violence problem. And the perpetrators of the gun violence problems is the police department, ELPD. But I'm not blaming the ELPD fully. What I'm blaming is the problems with the leadership, the leadership of the ELPD and the complicity of that lack of leadership by the city council. And I'm going to end with this. But I have more. I'll be back.

You have 30 seconds remaining.

This is to you, Councilmember Chuck Grisby. I emailed you. You made an invitation. Last time I was here, that someone could reach out to you and sit down and have a conversation with you. I emailed you. I have not had a response. I don't know if you didn't get it or not, but I will make this formally to you personally. You can contact me. I will respond. You can find me. And I'm not acting as a commissioner on the LAPOC commission now, but I'm acting. You can find me. Just look us up. Look me up on that website. Let us have a conversation.

Thank you, Karen Hone.

Good evening, members of council. You all may be tired of seeing me standing here at this podium, and believe me, I too am tired of standing here at this podium week after week, month after month. I have tried asking nicely. I have tried appealing to humanity. I have tried appealing to your common sense. I have tried appealing to your legacy. I have tried shaming you, and yet nothing seems to get through. In fact, it seems that rather than showing a willingness to listen, with an open mind and to work together to find solutions to the issues we bring before you, you choose to double down on your agenda of silencing the voices of marginalized communities, protecting racist policies and practices, and upholding white male supremacy. I have served on the East Lansing Human Rights Commission for eight years, sometimes as a regular commissioner and as chair and as vice chair. For the first six years, although we may not have always seen eye to eye, the Human Rights Commission maintained a functional working relationship with the council and city leadership, rooted in mutual respect with the goal of working together to ensure that all people, and particularly those from protected classes, felt a sense of safety and belonging in the East Lansing community. In the last two years, that relationship has become adversarial and even toxic. Since we voted unanimously last November to investigate a complaint of racially biased policing, the Human Rights Commission has been bullied, misled, threatened, and intimidated in order to get us to drop our investigation. When none of those tactics worked, the city chose instead to rewrite an ordinance that was written in the 1960s when the Human Relations Commission was first established to address racial disparities and redlining in housing. Dr. Robert L. Green sat on the first Human Relations Commission, which is now the Human Rights Commission. those of you that don't know the history dr robert l green and his wife letty were the first black family to secure a mortgage and purchase a house in east lansing in 1964. since that time he has been honored by having his first home become a historical marker and having pinecrest elementary where i went as a child renamed the robert l green elementary school that's where his kids attended and that's the neighborhood he lived in On a personal note, my own father, now deceased, worked for Dr. Green at MSU's Center for Urban Affairs and worked alongside him to fight for housing equality in East Lansing. To rewrite our human rights ordinance without any input from the community or the Human Rights Commission is unfathomable and a slap in the face to the legacy of civil rights pioneer Dr. Green and to anyone who cares about equity and justice in East Lansing. How can you even consider exempting the entire city of East Lansing, including all city departments, all employees, the city council, all boards and commissions, and any other representatives of the city from your own human rights ordinance? This would mean that if someone believes they have been discriminated against by any of the above entities, they would have no local resource to pursue justice. What message does this send to residents and guests of our city? I implore you to please slow the process down, take it off the June 2nd agenda, and work together with your Human Rights Commission, the Department of DEI, local civil rights advocates, the NAACP, and the multitude of community members who have shown up week after week and month after month to demonstrate their commitment to human rights in our city, and update the ordinance in a fair and measured way that maintains the ability of individuals to file complaints against the city as they have been able to for the last 60 years, thank you.

Thank you. I have one remaining slip, which is for Hans Rentrop. I was going to call that during the hearing. Are there any other members of the public who would care to address Council during public comment? Please state your name for the record.

Hello, Council. Nathan Isidorek. I'm a Glencairn resident, 411 Marshall Street. I was on the fence about coming here today, just because I wasn't sure how much of my voice would be heard, and whether or not it would resonate with anybody. And so, before coming tonight, I asked my wife, because we have our son and he's off at rehearsals, and I would usually take him. And I said, hey, should I go to rehearsals or should I go speak to council? And she took a moment. She thought about it. And she said, well, I myself would never feel comfortable coming in front of people, a city council, and speaking. I have my opinions. I have my thoughts. But for me, it's just not something I would do. It's not my personality. It's not. the way I would take care of things. She'd rather be passive and complacent with what's going on and just deal with it rather than speak her mind. And she said, Nathan, you have a voice and you're good at using it. And I think you should go up there and you should voice your frustrations. you should talk about how you feel as though the city is aimless right now. They don't know what the hell is going on. They have a staff member who had the courage to come up here and speak her mind about a condition and a situation that she was in that made her feel uncomfortable at her place of employment. And this happened, what, six months ago? Robert, how long was it? And she had to come up here to bring light to that, to show the public what they deal with as employees. And it doesn't matter who you're working for and what their temperament is, there's a level of professional leadership that needs to happen. And I don't think we're getting that with our city manager currently. IT'S NOT JUST THAT. IT'S THE FAILED PARK MILLAGE. IT'S EVERYTHING EVERYBODY ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM HAS TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO REPEAT IT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HEARD. IT KEEPS COMING UP. I LOOK AT THE AGENDA, NONE OF THIS STUFF'S EVEN ON THE AGENDA. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING ORDINANCES AND ZONING COMPLIANCE ORDINANCES. AND YET, THE FIRST 45 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT BECAUSE MR. BELLMAN IS STILL HERE. And I think all these people are asking, hey, can we rip off the Band-Aid and start anew? And you guys have the power to do that. And by sitting here, like everybody else has said, and keeping it status quo isn't helping anybody out. It's not helping us rebuild as a city. So please, read the temperature, read the room. Use your power and make a decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to address?

Thank you.

The council.

My name is Kayla Gomez and I too would rather be at home with my kids having dinner. Um, but here I am again, just, I just want to say, please delay the vote on the HRC talk with the commissioners. This is a big deal. And I want to remind you, you are the head of our city. You make the decisions. The city has been very clear. We need Jen Brown gone, and at this point, Bellarmine too. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council?

Hi there. My name's Antonio Gomez. This, what can only be described as assault on the people's power is quite unsettling to see. I guess fascism and corruption thrive when good people do nothing, and right now I don't see any of you sitting here being good people. Hope you can prove me wrong tonight. Though I'd be surprised with Altman or Meadows. Carrie, you know, hope you can show people here that you actually support women. Chuck, you know, I can really only see this as one way if you go through with this, and that is that even Custard has his natives, so that's terrible. You, I don't know much about you, but hope you can prove me wrong about how I feel about police officers as a whole, former or not. You know, this just seems to be a common theme that we're falling into countrywide, that we're letting things that should be important slip away. I guess I'll leave this on one thing. It's like, history is a crazy thing. There were Nazis who thought they were good people.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to address the council? Please state your name for the record.

Good evening. My name is Adam DeLay and I am a resident of East Lansing. I'm vice chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission for all the good that it does me. I, for those of you who know me or have heard me speak before, you know that I am a smart ass and I am sarcastic and I joke about even serious things. But tonight I have none of that for you. Tonight, to paraphrase Malcolm X, with the few minutes that I have, I'd like to talk right down to earth in a language that everybody here can easily understand. Fire this man! It's that easy. That is what we want. That is what so many of us, among other things, are here tonight to talk about. And I hope that this special closed session that you are going to have, I'm pretty good at reading subtext, is going to be discussing that. Last week I heard, I saw several council members come out of the closed session and with a look of concern and giving comments of concern, three out of four of you. And I heard what you were saying, if you have problems, speak up. We need you to speak up. Again, I'd like to read the subtext on that as we don't want to pay him $180,000 next year if we fire him. So please speak up so that we can fire him with cause because you all know you don't need a reason to fire this man. It's right in his contract. Ask George Lohanis. And so while I understand no one wants to pay the man $180,000, don't put that burden on city employees. I don't want to pay them, but I want them gone. And I don't want any of these people to feel like they have to speak up in order to goad you into doing the right thing. I will say this. I appreciate those council members who have showed concern. I do not know how it is you could read this report, look out into the community and say, oh, what a relief it is. Or say, he has my support. We're going to move East Lansing forward. We're going to make East Lansing great again. So let me ask you this, Mayor Altman. You, when you ran in 2023, one of the things that's still on your website, it says big problems right now with the stability of city government. We all act like Ron Bacon was some dictator. And you ran and said, there's so many people who are resigning, who are leaving, and I'm gonna make East Lansing stable. I'm gonna bring stability back to city government. So let me ask you this. Can you look me in the eye? Can you look these individuals in the eye? Can you look these city employees that you profess to care so much about in the eye and say that the things that you have done and the things that you have said over the past several weeks have made this city more stable? Blink once for yes. See, I said I wasn't gonna be a smart ass. I know. Councilmember Grigsby, one of the things that I hear you talk a lot about is the work, that you are here to do the work, and I believe that. And I have seen the frustration that you have exhibited when you talk about being hamstrung by bureaucracy, and I know that's frustrating. This is not that situation. This is easy as can be. If you're looking for the work, there it sits. It's right there. Councilmember Whalen, I heard you talk about, you know, concerns over limiting public comment from five minutes to three and that it would have a chilling effect if we didn't lower it because some folks may not feel like sticking around that long. I ask you this, if you are not going to take action following this complaint and then say, please everyone make a complaint, That to me is a much more dangerous chilling effect. And I also heard you talk a few meetings ago about some people's humanity, their humanness. And I ask you to consider that as well as you go into closed session this evening. I hope that you come out with a four to one vote, because I mean, come on. And I'll last say this, I am not one to impugn someone's character publicly, but if we wonder why it is the mayor is so eager to say, there's no problem here, I am relieved, ask any of these council members, staff, Which council member do you see coming in and out of City Hall and in and out of the city manager's office most often? One city manager said, I don't think Eric will vote to terminate because he would lose his puppet. So I will accuse you, sir, of putting your personal politics and policy above that of the well-being of city employees, above the well-being of these residents. And I hope you resign. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to address the council?

Good evening. My name is Nell Kunmich. I'm a resident of East Lansing. And I hadn't intended to speak this evening, but I must say something. And I will make it personal. Mayor Pro Tem, we worked together a number of years ago. on a draft of an ordinance that needed to be cleaned up because there was way too much room in it for inappropriate treatment by the police of anyone in our city. And you worked with me and a whole group of people. It wasn't just the two of us. It was a group of people. It was part of the community. And we came up with a proposal. And I to this day cannot, I today can't tell you whether that was adopted in its in all of our recommendations, but I know most of our recommendations were in fact accepted. We had a wonderful opportunity to do that, and I'm disturbed to hear that there is a motion to change our Human Rights Commission without any input from the Human Rights Commission, without any discussion with the community, and I know that Two of you have either served in the legislature as legislative staff and know what transparency is about. And I believe the other three of you who haven't know what transparency is about. People get angry. People want to be heard. But when they don't get any kind of a response, when they aren't allowed to be engaged in the process, it stops feeling like democracy and it starts feeling like autocracy. And I never thought I would feel that way in my community. And it's feeling less and less democratic as things are moving forward. We can't be afraid of criticism. We have to take criticism. We all get it. And when we put ourselves out there as elected officials, we get criticism. And some of it might be unfair. Some of it probably isn't unfair. But we're going to get criticism because we were elected to make tough decisions and to lead, but we are also elected to listen and to engage our constituents. And when you can't do that, then what you're doing is making decisions without any kind of input in a democracy, and that doesn't work. And I would beg you It's only on that right now that I'm making that comment. But on the Human Rights Commission, I think it's an important commission. And I think it's terribly important that if you're going to change its structure and you're going to change its authority after many, many, many years, I think that you owe it to the community. and to the members of that commission to have public discussion in detail about what you're doing and why and accept feedback and accept proposed amendments from the public I hope you will consider that thank you thank you is there anyone else who would like to address the council please state your name for the record good evening Kelly Ellsworth etchison

What does it look like to roll back DEI? Rolling back DEI in a meaningful way probably would not look like a single dramatic vote abolishing diversity programs overnight. It would more likely happen through a series of administrative, budgetary, and policy changes. Based on current city discussions and recent actions, some of the clear signs would include narrowing the authority of oversight bodies tied to equity or policing, reduce commission budgets. This would be called dismantling protections and weakening representation for marginalized groups. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council? Please state your name for the record.

Tashmika Torok. I'd also like to add to the public record that Robert Bellman is a serial perpetrator of workplace harassment and sexual harassment. You failed to fire him and every survivor and every person who loves them are forced to give public comment in front of him because of you. And that is really fucked up, honestly. THREE DEMANDS, DELAY THE VOTE ON THE HRC ORDINANCE, FIRE JEN BROWN, FIRE ROBERT BELLMAN, AND I SUPPORT ALL THE DEMANDS OF THE COALITION FOR JUSTICE. TONIGHT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AND EVERYONE LISTENING THAT THE EAST LANSING CITY COUNCIL IS NOT HEARING THESE REQUESTS AND DEMANDS FOR THE FIRST TIME. SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS INHERITED THESE ISSUES, BUT YOU ALSO INHERITED THE LEARNINGS AND THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS IF YOU CARED TO READ THEM. Some of you have been a part of making and breaking promises for a long time. Some of you have claimed to be part of the solution for a long time. No one serving as a council member can be excused because the city has known about the issues of racial disparities since as early as 2016. And if you're a community member or a commissioner who expects more from the city of East Lansing and its council members, it is likely due to the years and years of public commitments to do better. Commitments and promises that have not come to fruition. I want you to know that I found all of this information using the internet and my free will over the course of two days, all of which was sourced from either news articles or your own fucking website. And before you ask again for anyone's help, I did not send you this information because you have wasted enough of black people's time pretending you don't know what the fuck is going on. You should be required to do the same labor I did to write this public comment. You should show more respect to the many, many community members I read about in articles about meetings, panels, events, reports, and forums where they shared how it felt to live in a community where they are targeted by the police, the people who have supported the Human Rights Commission and helped establish LEPOC. You should have some respect, but you don't. So out of respect for those who came before me and those who I stand beside now, I have some receipts that I'd like to review with you. In 2016, ELPD Police Chief Jeffrey Murphy said the following during a discussion about bias and de-escalation techniques. Every call we go to is a de-escalation of some sort. ELPD officers carry an ask baton, a collapsible baton, pepper spray, and a taser. These provide ways to restrain a person who may be attacking an officer without the level of danger that comes with firing a gun. Also in 2016, Sergeant James Campbell organized a community forum where Chief Murphy promised more transparency in 2016. Sergeant Campbell said at the end of the night, we've got a lot of game tape to review to make ourselves better and that's what we're going to do. There's a recording of that event available on the City of East Lansing's website. In 2017, the ELPD under Chief Sparks released a new policy and procedure that was a reaffirmation of our commitment to being unbiased and equitable. In 53.6, the section about review and assessment, it says the chief of police shall direct an annual review that includes complaints or concerns from citizens or commissioners, considerations of the previous year's accusations of racial profiling, review of the department's training policies. I reviewed all of ELPD annual reports for 2014, 2016, through 2019. I did a word search for complaints, concerns, racial profiling, and bias-based policing. I found nothing, not a single mention. However, I did discover that in 2017, the ELPD created an anti-bias council, cutely called ABC, to explore any bias-related activity reported to the department and to educate officers on the issues of the communities within the community. Communities within the community. I only found one ELPD officer's name listed as having an active role. where are these annual reviews where is the lpd's anti-bias council what are they up to these days i have to wonder if alex hosey and his family is aware of this institutional betrayal for those of you who may not recall alex hosey was a elh east lansing high school senior who wrote an essay in 2018 called why i sit THAT RECEIVED LOCAL AND NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION AND SPURRED THE CITY OF EAST LANSING TO WRITE AN APOLOGY, A RESOLUTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE, APOLOGIZE FOR, AND CONDEMN RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, WHICH SAYS THE CITY MANAGER, THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION, AND THE EAST LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT SHALL COMMENCE PLANNING FOR AN ANNUAL COMMUNITY FORUM WHERE WE CAN DISCUSS PRESENT INCIDENTS OF RACISM. WHEN WAS THE LAST FORUM HELD? Your community has repeatedly asked you to host a town hall. You have the mechanism. Why hasn't it happened?

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council?

Hello, my name is Simone Peraza. I asked, I do sit on LEPOC. I'm here as a private citizen, resident of East Lansing. I asked AI for a recap of what's been going on because it's easy to be caught in the last two weeks, any moment in time over the past nine months. So retroactive data released by ELPD shows that out of 468 use of force cases from 2017 to 2020, 184 black people were subjected to force, that's 39.3% of all cases, while white people were subjected to force 179 times, that's 38.2% of cases, despite whites outnumbering blacks in East Lansing by more than 11 to one. In 2025, let's fast forward, there was a more than 50% increase in use of force incidents, 198 incidents in 2025 compared to 131 the year before. This is the highest total in the four years of data that's been collected. Enter the 2025 Welcome Week crisis. Controversy exploded during MSU's Welcome Week in 2025 with the accusations of excessive force becoming highly publicized. Proposed changes to the oversight ordinance introduced in early August drew criticism for potentially allowing the police department to self-select which misconduct allegations it investigates internally. A central incident involved two black men being pepper sprayed and charged with misdemeanors, charges that prosecutors later requested be dismissed. In response to data and conduct concerns, the East Lansing Human Rights Commission, the Police Oversight Commission, and the NAACP all called for Police Chief Jennifer Brown to resign. Chief Brown's response to the racial disparity data drew condemnation. She stated that a disproportionate number of minorities come to East Lansing to commit crimes and as police officers we are simply responding to those crimes. Enter the simultaneous collapse of oversight mechanisms. Even as use of force spiked, accountability structures were being dismantled. An ordinance passed on October 17th, 2025, removed the requirement to include officer names in use of force reports, amending rules that had been in place since 2021. The ordinance cited confidentiality concerns despite officer names having been included in reports for four years. The Commission lost investigatory powers and was required to keep more information confidential. Commissioners are no longer allowed to use police employees' names in reports or in their official capacity. Detailed narratives specific to individual incidents previously included in monthly reports were reduced to the same generic few lines that provide no incident-specific details during the last two months of 2025. AI concluded with the broader picture. ELPD data shows persistent and severe racial disparities in use of force that predate formal oversight, a sharp spike in incidents in 2025, and a troubling simultaneous rollback of the transparency and accountability mechanisms that were created specifically to address these problems. Thank you, AI, for putting it so succinctly. I'll also ask you to please delay the HRC vote I will ask you to reinstate the $6,000 that was removed from ELIPOC's budget to be used for 2025 data analysis, for data analysis, which you know ELIPOC has been trying to get from the city. And I say the city because ELPD, including the chief, does nothing without approval and backing from the city's top leadership. The people have been asking for six months for city leaders to fire the police chief after being ignored for half a year. The year with the highest rates of use of force ever recorded by EO, people have pivoted to demand city leadership now also fire the city manager. Through process of elimination, it seems the only people left to hold accountable for not firing the chief and now for not firing the city manager is our very own mayor and city council members. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to address the council? Seeing none, do we have any callers?

There is one caller on the line. Caller with the last name Brewer, you are now free to address the council.

Thank you so much. My name is Fonda Brewer. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I am speaking tonight as a woman, in fact, as a Black woman, and as a mother, and as someone who deeply loves this community. I am not here representing any elected office, board, or organization. I am here speaking from my heart. I grew up in East Lansing in the early 70s. In fact, I attended middle school at Hannah, where your meeting is taking place tonight, and then went on to graduate from East Lansing High in 1978. And while East Lansing has evolved over the years into a more diverse and vibrant community, I also remember a time when even with all of the imperfections, there was still an expectation of respect, dignity, and humanity toward one another. Today, many people in this city are hurting. I have watched these council meetings. I have listened to parents of black and brown children stand before you trembling with fear, asking one simple thing, will my child be safe here? Think about that. Parents should not have to wonder whether their children's skin color could change the outcome of an encounter. No mother should have to rehearse survival instructions before her child walks out the front door. No family should have to fear that a routine interaction could become a life changing tragedy. If that does not touch every heart of this council, then we have lost something far greater than public trust. Change is no longer optional, it is required. And diversity cannot simply be a word printed in brochures or spoken during campaigns. Diversity is action. Diversity is accountability. Diversity is empathy before authority. It is the ability to pause before reacting and ask, how would I want my son treated? How would I want my daughter treated? How would I want my mother or father or my neighbor treated? That is the work today. And yes, it is hard work. but you did not run for office to only govern when things are comfortable. Leadership is not tested during applauses. Leadership is tested during moments like this, when people are demanding courage, honesty, and change. Tonight, I challenge this council to do more than acknowledge pain, but to build from it. Create meaningful pathways for healing. Open the doors wider for diverse voices and perspectives. Examine policies, training, culture, and accountability with honesty. Bring community members to the table who see life a little differently than you do. Listen, not defensively, but intentionally. Because lives are depending on the very decisions you are making moving forward. We cannot rewrite yesterday, but we can absolutely have the power to shape tomorrow. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, the time is always right to do what is right. Well, East Lansing, the time is right. Do not allow these moments to define this city in darkness. Let them become the reason this city chose light. Let this be the moment East Lansing decided that every person, every race, every background, every child deserves to feel safe, seen, valued, and protected. The future of this city must be bright for all people. And the pen to write that future is sitting in your hands. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more callers?

There are no callers remaining on the line.

So that brings us to communications from council members. Council Member Singh.

Sure. Um, just a couple items. Um, I know we've, it's come up during public comment on the demand list, uh, from the citizens for justice and just want to give a brief update on a couple of these items as I understand things of today. Um, one or items two, three, four and six in particular, Two, my understanding is we were, the meeting with the city manager as well as the group did take place today. I know that was something Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby asked on the record last week during council and that was scheduled and hopefully happened today. Two, or three and four, the police policy written on extensive anti-racism training and ELPD employees. I know, follow up on some of the training partners, again, this was, Council did mobilize training dollars last fall, of which I believe one training partner that was executed training or implemented training with ELPD included Joe Smaro, which was one of the recommended trainers among others. So I think we should, again, dig more deeply in terms of how we can work with both the police department and LCC and other partners, not only who we can bring in in terms of experts, but how we can customize training that meets our community needs. So more to come to that. Rewriting police policy regarding de-escalation and use of force. I look forward to having more detailed conversations on specific language, but I know I've had some preliminary conversations beyond what I said on record last week with ELPD in front of us. Following up with both our city attorneys as well as some of the folks involved with Citizens for Justice to talk in more detail on those changes that we may be able to mobilize on that front. And then on the number six, which talks about the funding around LEPOC and HRC, you know, we have that on the agenda later today, so I look forward to that agenda item and hopeful on amendments restoring some of those dollars. That is all this evening.

Thank you. Mr. Grigsby.

I don't have anything to report. I just want to thank Council Member Singh for meeting with this group and really acknowledging some of the different things that she spoke to, as well as the city manager, from what I understand, he didn't meet with that group. So thank you for that. uh the gentleman that said he reached out to me i did not get your email so please i didn't catch your name but please uh reach out to me again or give me a call um i did not get your request to sit down and talk with me and i will save the rest of my comments for the agenda thank you council member meadows

Just very briefly, I signed the resolution to acknowledge, apologize for, and condemn racial discrimination in East Lansing, which talked about our history and hopefully our future back in 2018 when I was mayor during that time frame. And my memory is that that first year, because this was passed in February of 2018, that the city did host a forum for the community relating to racial discrimination before June, which was required by this resolution. And my memory is also that the following year the HRC did sponsor and hold a community forum on racial discrimination. I want to say that I wish I had paid more attention following those two years because the following year I resigned from council and was re-elected in 2023. And I should have been paying more attention to this. So I don't know that this has been complied with. Subsequently, I think the person who brought this to our attention this evening I went back and read it and pulled it up. I just want you to know that I'll be pushing to have this an annual event from this point forward. And I won't forget to make sure that it happens. So it's a very important opportunity. You can call it a town hall. I guess you can call it a community forum as well, but I believe that it's necessary, that it's an important aspect of dealing with racial discrimination in this community to give everybody an opportunity, not just at this microphone, but as a community to discuss what is obviously a very important issue for our community. So again, I apologize for sort of forgetting about this over the last few years.

Thank you. Mr. Whalen.

Thank you. A few things. Mindful of the holiday weekend we just were able to enjoy and thankful for the many city staff that did not have a holiday weekend, that they had to work and serve the community that weekend. We appreciate that so we can enjoy time with our friends and family while people are out there protecting us and serving as they go. Fire Department, Public Works, many people are out there, the Police Department, protecting us and watching out for us as we enjoy our time with our family. I DID WANT TO MENTION SOMETHING SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, BUT THERE WASN'T THE RIGHT TIME. THE CRISTA AWARDS WERE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, AND ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AWARDED THE CRISTA AWARD WAS JIM HAGEN. HE SADLY PASSED AWAY THIS YEAR. ALSO MANY OTHER CRISTA AWARD RECIPIENTS. I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND HOW THEY'VE GIVEN TO OUR COMMUNITY. and how they've invested in so many ways selflessly. And there's so many different examples of people in our community that have served and given and provided to make our city what it is right now.

Thank you. With that, the city manager's report. Mr. Bellman.

Sure. My comments I would like to make tonight, I want to direct to the city's workforce.

I'm sorry if any of you have felt that I have not been the leader you needed me to be.

Each day I strive for the city to deliver services at the highest level possible. But I can do better, and I will do better. I've taken your feedback to heart. Your comments and concerns have not fallen on deaf ears, and I will make positive changes going forward. I care about you, the residents we serve, and our community. Thank you.

Thank you. City Attorney's report.

No report this evening. Thank you.

That brings us to the consent agenda. Mr. Bellman.

FOR TONIGHT'S CONSENT AGENDA, 3.1 IS APPROVE THE FOLLOWING APPOINTMENTS OR REAPPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS. CHARLES HESSMAN TO THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY, LDFA, FOR A FULL TERM ENDING JUNE 30, 2030. 3.2 IS APPROVE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR AN AS NEEDED ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH ROE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMPANY IN AN AMOUNT OF $40,000 for the design of the Safe Routes to School project and authorized the city manager to sign. Approve a resolution recognizing June 2026 as Pride Month in the city of East Lansing. 3.4 is approve the Local Development Finance Authority, LDFA, fiscal year 27, FY27 budget in the amount of $977,000 $740. 3.5 is approve ordinance 1571, an ordinance to amend ordinance 1466, an ordinance amending chapter two, article five, division nine of the code of the city of East Lansing titled University Student Commission. 3.6, approve a fourth amendment to the lease agreement with Margaret F. Metzger, Kristen E. Metzger, and the Fabian Enterprises LLC for a portion of Bailey Street parking lot and authorize the city manager to sign. 3.7 is approve a change order with Lopez Construction for FY26 CDBG Bailey Street project in an amount of $22,000 for a total approved contract amount of $129,268 and authorized city manager to sign.

Is there any council member who would like an item or items removed from the consent agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? Move by Meadows.

Second.

Second by Grigsby. Any discussion of the consent agenda? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. That brings us to the first of three public hearings. Item 4.1 is a public hearing by city council to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1568 and amendment to chapter 50 of the city code to rezone 1049 Crescentwood Road from R2 medium density single-family residential to see community facilities for a new public park. Mr. Bartley.

Thank you, Mayor. Landon Bartley, principal planner. Yes, this request originates from staff. The house at 1049 Crescentwood, this is at the corner of Crescentwood and Kensington in Chesterfield Hills, was heavily damaged by fire in November 2023 and again in January 2024. The owners offered the property to the city for use as a public park, which the city accepted. And so in order to align the zoning of this property with that of other parks in the city, we proposed to change the zoning, excuse me, from R2 to C, community facilities, which is the zoning of most parks in the city. The Planning Commission hosted a public hearing on April 8th and unanimously voted to recommend approval by City Council of this proposed rezoning. We have received one letter opposed to the rezoning, otherwise we haven't received any comments. Tonight's step is the public hearing by Council. Typically, Council does not vote on the same evening as the public hearing, but if you are so inclined to do so tonight, a sample motion is in your packet. Can I answer any questions?

Questions for staff? Okay, this is a public hearing, so Mr. Greensby.

Is the naming of this been talked about at all, or the name of the park hasn't been talked about, discussed?

My understanding is that it's intended to be Lucia Angaro Fox Park, named after, I believe, the mother of the previous owner. I believe that's the relation.

Any further questions? Okay, so this is a public hearing. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would care to address this particular issue?

Hello, thank you. Adam DeLay, Vice Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, though I'm just here speaking as myself this evening. This is a fantastic opportunity and something that I have been very excited about for this particular pocket park that we are proposing because it checks a lot of different boxes. For example, you have trying to gain more green space has been something that has been part of the Parks and Recreation Commission's master plan for many years. And also it creates an opportunity to look at what we can do in terms of green infrastructure. So one of the things that has been discussed here is maybe perhaps doing a rain garden This is a neighborhood that has issues with flooding and with storm water issues. And seeing as we are experiencing more and more very heavy, severe rains, I think it does provide a unique opportunity to sort of test and implement that kind of green infrastructure. Another thing that I think ties into this is if you look at on the map, that particular park, it's sort of kind of a weird intersection where you have sort of a triangular island. And I did read the one email from the resident that was opposed and their concern was that, well, I don't know about having a pocket park with children that might be walking through here. And, you know, with that intersection there, and I'm sure you all have, you know, recalled listening to the concerns of residents. right on Kensington, which this is Kensington and Crescentwood. And so I think it also creates an opportunity to look at ways to perhaps maybe fill in that area, right, where you have this sort of weird intersection on the map, or trying to maybe work with our public works department to refigure that intersection and also, yet again, expand green spaces. Now, that will take a lot of work to do, and there is a cost associated with that. Luckily, the cost that would go towards that would be our Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Fund. It would not be a part of our operating budget that the council is considering cutting by $400,000 this evening. And so I ask that you take a look, and obviously seeing what we can do to make those things a reality. Another piece of that in terms of how we make that a reality, whether it's through the income tax dollars we get into our capital improvement fund, may be to have to consider grant opportunities. Now, I don't know if that's something that would be SUBJECTED TO A NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST FUND GRANT. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT SOME GRANTS. AND I KNOW, I KNOW THE CITY REALLY VALUES ITS GRANT WRITERS AND STAFF. MR. DELAY, COULD YOU ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, PLEASE? I AM ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL, MR. MAYOR. I LOOKED OVER HERE AND JUST WANTED TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR, ESPECIALLY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, FOR THE DEEP RESPECT AND COMMITMENT THAT IT HAS for its grant writing staff. And I know that that is something that you would be relieved to hear from a member of the public. So with the time that I have left, I just want to again encourage you to support this proposal this evening. I also am very glad to hear we're going to have the first park named after a woman in the city of East Lansing. I do think that naming is very important. For example, I was one of the individuals that worked to rename Pinecrest Elementary after Dr. Robert L. Green and His home that he purchased is my neighbor's house, and that historical marker is right across the street. So I definitely like to see progress on those sorts of things. And I also want to make sure that our actions around what we do with this park reflect the things that we do to name. So for example, with the case of Dr. Robert L. Green, We wouldn't want to, I don't know, gut the very commission that he sat on and that was so instrumental in the 1960s. So, again, I think that what seemingly is an innocuous agenda item really does tie into a lot of the different issues that we've been talking about here this evening. And I appreciate your time and your consideration of these various issues. Again, I'm very happy to be a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, very proud about the work that the staff for the department has done on this issue, on this particular parcel, and I just really want to extend my appreciation to them and to all of you. Thank you very much for your time this evening.

Is there anyone else who would like to address the council? If you could state your name for the record.

I'm Cliff Hacah, Sue, my wife, and I have lived essentially across the street from this property since 1982, and I endorse the idea of it being a park. I do have some empathy with the individual who apparently wrote and said this would be kind of dangerous. It would, whereas Eininger Park, which is behind us, is sunken down. You don't have very much potential for a child chasing after a ball out into the street. And Kensington has been a problem lately. I don't know why it didn't seem like a problem for the first 20 years we were there, but it does now in terms of people racing through there. So I'd simply like to say that I hope that wouldn't just be this be a quick one off. I do think there's some potential to solve two of the problems, the two problems in the community. Let me also say quickly, I don't think we should put another house there. We're a historic district and a brand new house there would be, I just think, an eyesore no matter how nice it was. But I think there's two problems in the area. One is Kensington and the traffic going through there. And the other is Duplex, two doors down from us, which is directly across from this house, which has been problematic. We did have one incident a couple years ago where a late night party had the police call. Somehow they found out who called and they confronted the woman in her house across the street and the next week her house was up for sale and she left. So this kind of rental property right in the middle of all residential, I have thought from time to time that maybe this new park could be connected to a little island that sits between Kensington and Crescentwood. If we could buy the duplex, tear it down, you could extend it right into Eininger Park. Now, I know that's a huge financial thing and people will quickly say, well, that's too much money. While I cannot make any assurances here, I have talked to a reasonable number of people in the neighborhood and to get something like that to happen, I believe there are residents, including ourselves, that would be prepared to contribute financially in a substantial way to that. So I would hope this just wouldn't be blown off because I think the two issues Kensington and the rental could be addressed with a maybe a little broader look at this and I hope someone would take the time to do that and somebody wants to talk to me about that I'm always around. Thank you very much for your time and thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address counsel on this issue during this hearing? Any callers? All right, seeing no further people interested in commenting, I'm going to close the public hearing. Questions? Any further questions for staff at this point? Mr. Whalen, did you have a

Yes, a few a few points. First of all, I want to actually, for the staff, I want to say thank you for all the work you've done in this. And I've got a few statements after we get done asking the questions of the staff. Okay, questions from over here.

I'm not seeing any Mr. Meadows.

I've just got a couple of comments, that's all. Go ahead. First of all, I'll just say there's no innocuous items on any agenda. Everything is very important and affects the life of everybody in this community. So we take them all very seriously. This particular property I don't know if other members of that neighborhood would remember, but when we approved the apartment complex that is directly across from Kensington on Michigan Avenue, part of that agreement was to remove some of the rental properties from the neighborhood. And the developer provided not only the conversion of some of the properties that were on Michigan Avenue, made a contribution to the neighborhood association in order to maybe acquire these two properties that sat in the center of the community. Obviously that didn't happen. and would like to find out a little more information about what happened after that and whether that money is still available because it may affect the ability as suggested by the speakers at the microphone to acquire that property and make it part of an existing park. So those are my comments. Mr. Whelan.

Yes, so I talked to quite a few neighbors in this neighborhood over the years. Got several good connections. First of all, I want to acknowledge the sacrifice of the family of Lucia Fox. I think it's fantastic to celebrate her memory by having a place where children can play and people can relax and enjoy. So that is a huge financial sacrifice for them. to donate this to the city. Also I want to acknowledge the patience of the neighborhood because this was a burned out building for a long, long time. And I know that there was a lot of process that had to happen. And I remember talking about patience for them and I really appreciate their patience of seeing a burned out building in the center of a beautiful neighborhood. Also acknowledge my concern for parks from homes that it did cost quite a bit of money to tear down, and also that means less revenue as far as taxes, but I think this is a fabulous, it'll be wonderful for this neighborhood, and I fully support it.

I have a question. How does the planning for the park design and the road design and so forth unfold from here on out?

I honestly... I'd have to refer to the park staff, and we don't have one here tonight.

Okay, but the planning hasn't been done yet, has it?

My understanding is no. Okay. I can check on that and find out and let you guys know.

So we're just, at this point, what we're doing tonight is rezoning this property as the next step in a process toward ultimately building a park there? Correct. Yeah, okay. Any further questions? So I don't know if anybody is interested in waiting.

I'd like to make a motion if we could.

Yeah, I would entertain a motion.

I'd like to move that city council adopt ordinance 1568, an amendment to charter 50 of the city code to rezone 1049 Crescentwood Road from R2, which is medium density single family residential, to C, community facilities, for a new public park.

Moved by Whalen, second by? Second. Singh, any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and that ordinance 1568 is adopted. That brings us to item 4.2, a public hearing by city council to receive comments on proposed ordinance 1567, an amendment to division eight, building height overlay district of the East Lansing zoning ordinance to allow council to approve a building height exceeding 160 feet when doing so is necessitated solely by the use of specific construction materials including but not limited to mass timber does not result in additional floors or units and is subject to the review and approval of city council under the special use procedures of section 50-94 mr bartley

Thank you.

Landon Bartley, principal planner.

So this potential amendment to the zoning ordinance originated after a variance request by a project that has since been withdrawn to construct a building that exceeded 160 feet, which is the maximum allowable under any circumstances in the city of East Lansing under current ordinance. And that has to be approved, the height over eight stories approved by council. but council would not be able to approve over 160 feet because that's the top, that's where you can cap out. The applicant was saying, hey, we have 167 feet only because of the floor-to-floor ceiling or requirements for mass timber and we wanted to build a mass timber building. They went to the Zoning Board of Appeals to ask for a variance to allow additional height if approved up to 160 feet, but were not able to get that variance. And so considering this, I guess that scenario, we wanted to give the Planning Commission and City Council the flexibility, if a similar project is proposed in the future, that it would exceed that 160 feet only because of its construction materials, which could be mass timber or something else, and not leading to additional floors or additional units, so essentially just inching up that building because of that floor-to-floor height, for example. We wanted to give the council that flexibility, and that's the purpose of this ordinance. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this and unanimously recommended adoption. We did discuss whether or not the vote right now, as it is, developer were to ask City Council Planning Commission for height above those eight stories it currently requires special use approval with a supermajority vote and so the Planning Commission discussed whether or not they'd recommend to change that supermajority requirement but didn't go as far to recommend that so but they did recommend adoption of the ordinance as currently proposed I think that's it for my report. Tonight's a public hearing. Again, if you're so inclined to act tonight, I did include a sample motion for you. Otherwise, can I answer any questions?

Questions for staff? I actually do have a question. Do we require, would this ordinance require any sort of certification from the developer that that extra height is really needed? Or do they just, do we take their word for it? Or does it matter?

Generally, we take their word for it. I typically defer to our building official as to whether or not he agrees with them. And if he didn't, we'd certainly include that in the, I guess I would include that in the request if it came to council, if this ordinance were to be passed.

Is that worth including in the ordinance? That the decision about the need for the extra height is at the discretion of the building official?

I think that would be a wise move.

Would the city attorney have any comments on that?

Yes, well, it becomes a matter of the information that is brought before council at the time that special use is requested, and if there is enough information to satisfy council that it's needed, that is up to the property owner developer to provide that information. Staff, of course, through building official, whomever, can assist. the property owner with trying to get enough information but if you find yourself at a meeting where you don't have sufficient evidence or materials to make yourselves feel comfortable that that fact has been proven that it's needed and and it will be of the required materials then you can ask for more information and postpone the matter So it's really a judgment call on whether you have enough information within reason. What is reasonable, of course, is something I talk about often with you. So there has to be a decent basis for it. Sometimes during, as you know, while staff reviews matters, they may feel that they're not sure that there's enough information, but the property owner or developer feels that there is. And so they'll come before council and make their case and tell you why they feel like there's enough. perhaps they could rely on experts for that information as well, or the city could also, if necessary, bring in experts to assist with that. All sorts of options open to make sure you have what you need, very similar to a lot of decisions you make in these types of discretionary decisions.

But we could if we wanted add a provision to the ordinance that would allow the building official to make the decision about whether the need was actually there. Could we?

Well, I'm not sure if you're talking over about making this decision, this approval and administrative approval decision.

No, what I'm talking about is allowing the building official or maybe requiring the building official to certify that the extra height is needed given the building materials?

You certainly could. I mean, that's within your discretion to add that to the ordinance, but there are other areas of the ordinance where you rely on city staff for all sorts of verification that information is provided adequately. So I guess my only concern would be why would you do it for this one and not all the others? And it kind of begs that question. Thank you.

Just a follow-up question to you, Mayor, is what do you mean needed? Like structurally needed to withstand that building material or aesthetically?

No, I had in mind structurally. So this issue came up with a previous project where they said, given the materials we're using, we can't make 160 feet. With the number of stories were allowed because the thickness between floors has to go up given our building material. And so what I was looking for was the possibility that the building official would have the option to agree and say yes. they need the extra height because the floors have to be thicker. Now, I don't want to make a big deal out of this because who would want to build a taller building just because they can, right? If it doesn't give them more floors and stories. So I'm not sure that it's really all that central, but it came to mind. And so I raised the question.

Yes. Yes. I had exactly the same question. So I think it is important to know who would determine that the building materials require additional feet, not just the developer. And that what is the standard that we're going to utilize to determine that council is going to rely on to determine that the additional height is necessary. So it seems like there's a qualified professional that could provide that type of information to the city. Certainly, the building official is a qualified official as well. But they basically advise us. But in order to make the request, it seems like there's more than just the developer saying, we needed some extra height on this one. So, um, that was a question I had also, it would seem that to the extent that we need, you know, a little more tightening on this, um, that we should ask the city attorney to provide some language that maybe we could add to the ordinance.

So any further questions or comments before we, uh, Mr. Whalen, Steve, Mr. Jopik.

I do have one, and of course, being a lawyer, I can't say for sure that I'm right about this, but the language in here says the standard is that the extra height is necessitated solely due to the use of certain construction materials. That being the construction materials that they're saying requires them to construct in a certain way that will be higher, yet the same number of floors. That might not just be a building question, a building construction question. It may be an engineering or structural expert type question as well. So I'd hate to tie the hands of what you get in terms of information on that. So if we were to add language, I think it should be written somewhat broadly to enable city staff when it's taking these through the process to gain that information and also the owner to be able to provide it. But to not tie your hands or tie anyone's hands to just the building director. Now, Mr. Bartley may tell me you don't know what you're talking about, Steve, and I fully accept that. because I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me, based on some other projects I've seen, you're talking about the structure itself as well, and its stability, and that may be engineering, may be architectural, I don't know. So that's why I make that comment.

Mr. Whalen. So I have no issues with that. I just know that this is not the first time a mass timber building's been built. There's been several towns. They've been incredibly successful. And I think they're aesthetically incredibly beautiful. I'm a natural wood person. I don't think we would need to reinvent the wheel on this because I think they're already, I think that information's already somewhere. Obviously I'm not the expert on it, but I think that I do applaud the innovation of some of these new projects that are being talked about. So I think if this is a mere situation where somebody doing the research and then a building professional would say yes, this is, Is this reasonable that we have to have it this much higher as compared to going back to the drawing board again about the whole new project? So that would be my concern as more that if it's already a standard out there, it's clearly a check saying yes, this is needed. And I would think that would be a pretty quick answer. Mr. Bartley, or is that, that's kind of outside your wheelhouse?

I mean, I guess to our attorney's point, I'd probably defer in that case to the building official and engineers.

Okay, if there's no more questions right now, let's go ahead and open the public hearing on this matter. So I will open the public hearing. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address this matter during the public hearing?

Good evening, my name is Adam DeLay and I'm a resident of East Lansing. While I do not have a strong opinion in support or against this specific ordinance, because we are talking about the process to approve a building height exceeding 160 feet when doing so is necessitated solely by the use of specific construction materials such as mass timber, I would like to talk a bit about what mass timber is and the issues surrounding it. I will be reading a portion of a 2023 report from the Congressional Research Services entitled Mass Timber, Overview and Issues for Congress. Mass timber is a class of engineered wood products made into structural pieces of much larger sizes and more diverse shapes that can be made with lumber alone. Mass timber is a substitute for conventional mineral building materials, e.g. steel, concrete, due to its size and physical properties. Mass timber also sequesters carbon and may result in less greenhouse gas production during manufacturing than mineral materials. These characteristics have raised the possibility that mass timber could replace conventional materials in the commercial building sector and could generate associated co-benefits, such as reducing the sector's carbon footprint, potentially on a large scale. Development of mass timber products has the potential to change the role of wood in the US construction industry. Traditionally, most structures built with wood have been in the residential sector using light frame wood construction. Walls, roofs, and other structural assemblies made of nailed dimensional lumber and engineered wood, epitomized by familiar single family housing construction. Buildings built with mass timber products can be larger and more complex than buildings made using light frame wood construction. Because mass timber can be used to build tall wood buildings, defined as buildings that are six stories or more in height, mass timber can penetrate the commercial building sector. Mass timber and tall wood buildings may have some disadvantages over conventional construction methods or may face barriers to adoption. Because mass timber is an emerging technology with minimal market share, researchers identify high costs, unfamiliarity with the construction community, and unresolved questions about performance as potential disadvantages compared with conventional construction. In some cases, it is unclear whether these issues are intrinsic to mass timber itself or would change if mass timber were more widely used. Recent changes to model building codes may reduce barriers to increased construction of tall wood buildings. However, in general, mass timber and tall wood buildings comprise a small portion of the U.S. building economy. As of March 2023, 1,753 mass timber projects have been constructed or were in design in the United States. For context, 5.9 million commercial buildings were constructed in 2019 alone. Mass timber's potential to replace mineral materials has generated interest from those seeking to reduce the building sector's environmental impacts. mass timber products may improve on the GHG-related characteristics of mineral materials in two ways. Mass timber sequesters carbon and mass timber generates relatively lower GHG emissions in production compared with mineral materials. Proponents of mass timber also have forecast a number of possible upstream benefits of mass timber to production and manufacturing, particularly if mass timber construction were adopted on a broad scale. These benefits stem from mass timber's potential to grow woods role in the construction industry and from mass timbers and in turn potentially drive increased demand for timber. Mass timber has therefore become part of a broader conversation about the role of timber markets in driving the extent, composition, health, and management of forests. The federal government funds research and provides financial and technical assistance to facilitate wood product innovation, including development and deployment of mass timber and tall wood buildings. This is generally, but not exclusively, done through the Forest Service's state and private forestry and research development mission areas, although some authorities also relate to management of FS and Bureau of Land Management federal forests. Notable programs include the Wood Innovations Grants Program in the SPF Mission Area and the Forest Product Laboratory in the R&D Mission Area. However, numerous other programs and authorities may apply. And so I appreciate your time for me to talk a little bit about mass timber over the course of five minutes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue?

Hello again. I just wanted to say in 2016 when Mark Meadows was told that African Americans don't come to East Lansing because it isn't safe for them, he said, and I quote, I think we have a whole lot of work to do and this is just the beginning of work we need to do. And quickly, I just want to say thank you so much for acknowledging the lack of community forums and committing to remembering them in the future. This is actually the city manager's responsibility, and so it should continue regardless of- Ms.

Dwarf, do you have any comments to make concerning the public hearing?

I do, and like Grigsby has said, if you would let me finish, I'll get to it. Thank you.

Thank you.

I do not have a problem with this ordinance, but I do have a question as to why we were having these public hearings instead of adding the problem of racial disparities to the agenda. This is not good governance. Why are we discussing business matters when members of the community are less safe than others while being patrons of East Lansing businesses? In 2020, the ELPD told the community that they were changing tactics, evolving towards a community policing model that focused on keeping crowds moving, decreased arrests and use of force. At the same time, it became clear that the HRC didn't have as much power as they needed. Meadows said that a lot of community members have conveyed that they felt the drafted ordinance 1463 was insufficient in terms of how we should be looking at this. This is interesting to me because when the conversation was brought to then city council member in 2019, Mayor Altman had this to say. Why create a new board instead of giving the additional authority named in the ordinance to the Human Relations Commission, which is already receiving an annual report of complaints against police? That's a great question. Why not give the HRC additional authority? My follow-up question is will you continue to support Chief Jen Brown in her refusal to provide the relevant data requested by the HRC, LEPOC, and even your own paid consultants? Going back to 2020, ELPD announced that they would be tracking demographics on all officer-initiated contacts including race, sex, and reason for contact on every interaction that an East Lansing police officer initiates without a dispatch call for service. Seems like good news. Well, hold on, because while East Lansing Info was writing that article, news broke that the ELPD had assaulted 19-year-old Uyimana Casito. Thank you. A detail that ELPD represented sailed to mention during a meeting that happened four days earlier. This assault happened while he was frequenting one of East Lansing businesses. HRC Commissioner and Edgewood United Church Pastor Liz Miller sent this statement at that time. Today's news is deeply disturbing. It underscores the importance of having a strong public safety oversight commission in East Lansing that not only reviews cases after they happen, but ensures we have policies and procedures in place so that this type of violence does not happen in the first place. We cannot continue to do business as usual while community members are left vulnerable to civil rights violations. At that time, the HRC Commission immediately demanded that the body cam footage be released. Commissioner, current Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Grigsby agreed that trust of the police is now in question. This is when it was shared in the media that no complaints submitted by the public have ever been sustained by police investigators. Not a single one. At that time, Grigsby came to this very podium to say again, he did not think the process was sensitive to the public. Sort of like having this public hearing when we all want to talk about the racial disparities. Mayor Breyer at the time believed that racism and bias were serious problems, so she asked police to start collecting demographic data on all police-initiated interactions. She wanted this data because six years ago, the city was prepared to create a citizen's public safety oversight board to hear complaints against police. That was six years ago. At that time, Council Member Grigsby sounded a lot like my friend Nadia Sellers, the mother of Lonnie Smith, who with Mason Woods, whose mother was here tonight, were pepper sprayed by the ELPD in an excessive use of force during Welcome Week in September of 2025, again, while patronizing an East Lansing business. Council Member Grigsby said, it seems like the council and people involved feel like this has all been resolved. It is definitely not resolved. He said it was necessary to seek more understanding of what we don't understand. The unions are protecting these policies and procedures that have basically terrorized communities. You have 30 seconds remaining. He said, I refuse to be a part of this and not have anything done. Have no one accountable to this. I refuse to be a part of this and not have anything done. Have no one accountable to this. That's not all. While serving on the Human Rights Commission, now Mayor Pro Tem Grigsby told council that the release quantitative statistics on police stops clearly showed a bias towards stopping African-American men calling the numbers a horror show. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this public hearing? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Further questions for staff about this issue? I guess I would like to suggest, well, so first a question. Are there any projects in the offing that would be affected by this ordinance that we know of? In other words, is there a timing issue?

No, we have no applications that are closed right now.

So I have to say, I would prefer to have some language in here about who determines whether the additional height is necessitated. Because right now, it's a completely passive construction. We don't know who determines that. And I don't know if it's going to be a big deal, but I would like to avoid any loopholes or unintended consequences by leaving that open. And if the answer is that we can't do that and it just has to be up to discretion of the council, then that's fine. But I guess that's the direction I would prefer to have from the city attorney.

Yes, thank you. What I could try to write in is a provision that includes as part of the review that a a qualified building official or other consultant be used to verify the necessity of the additional height and issue a report to council. That would leave it as the city council's decision still, but provide the opportunity for you to have the necessary resource and expertise to advise you on whether it's actually necessary.

I think that would meet my needs. Same from Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Meadows.

Yeah, I think that that language would be appropriate. I worry that should we turn down a particular request that, you know, we need appropriate information to defend that decision. And this would give us... the ability to approve or deny based on the information that's provided to us. We wouldn't necessarily turn down the project, but might turn down the additional height.

Okay, so unless there's a motion, then this will carry over to our next business meeting, which would be a week from today. Is that workable? for the changes? Sure. Okay.

All right. I can make that happen.

Okay.

Or not?

Well, I would like an opportunity to run it by staff and work on the draft and I'll do my best.

Is there anything stopping us from skipping a week or skipping a business meeting to bring this back?

You'd have to make a motion for it to not come back at your next regular meeting. Okay. Otherwise, it would automatically come back as a carryover item.

Yep. All right. So if you know the dates.

I would guess that it's the 21st is the next business meeting after the 7th, right?

I think so. No, wait, 16th.

Pardon me? I'm sorry, June 2nd and June 16th. Oh, that's right.

June 16th. So I'll move that this item be carried over to June 16th business meeting of the city council.

Okay, motion by Meadows to postpone this item to the June 16th. Right. uh meeting is there a second second second by singh um any discussion of that motion um let the record reflect that um the mayor pro tem is temporarily outside of the room but i think we can vote without him uh all those in favor say aye aye aye any opposed thank you was that a no vote or was that just concerned about the delay delay okay got it so the motion is three to one in favor with whale and opposed and so the motion carries and that will appear on our june 16th uh meeting agenda all right thanks everybody Item 4.3 is a public hearing to receive comments on a request from Michael Mudry on behalf of Fort Crape Sake for special use approval to serve alcohol for on-site consumption at 601 East Grand River Avenue. The property is zoned at B3 City Center Commercial. Ms. Whitney?

So the applicant is here requesting a special use permit for on-site alcohol service in conjunction with their restaurant. The applicant currently operates a restaurant on MAC Avenue, but they are looking to relocate that to 601 East Grand River, which is the former Taco Bell. their current operation does not include alcohol service so they are looking to add that with their relocation they're not looking to do any exterior work to the building or any changes to the site in general they are proposing a total of 90 occupants 82 are proposed to be customers and eight employees they the proposed layout that was submitted includes a total of 60 seats for those occupants and they have proposed hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 22nd, and they did not receive any public comments, and they voted to recommend approval at that meeting. On April 23rd, the DDA also reviewed the application and recommended approval to council as well. In the time since this has been submitted, we have not received any public comments regarding the application. The applicant and some of their team is here if you have questions for them. I know that they have requested if council is comfortable to possibly approve the item or take action tonight, which staff would feel comfortable with based on the nature of the application that it's only interior changes, so.

Questions for staff?

The applicant's here. I just have a quick question. So nothing's been in there since Taco Bell, right?

Yeah, no, it's been vacant.

It's been a vacant building. Every time someone drives down Grand River, you see that vacant building. So I just want to make a point of that. I appreciate what you're doing.

Could we hear from the applicant, please?

Good evening, Hans Rundtrop, I can see now in Rundtrop, I'm representing the applicant on this application. He is also here, Mr. Meder is here tonight as well as his architect to address any questions council may have for him. As stated, for crepe's sake, is he can move to the old Taco Bell and add a liquor license for which the special land use permit is required. As Ms. Whitney correctly pointed out, Planning Commission reviewed this on April 22nd. I was here for that and unanimously approved it. I understand the DDA also unanimously approved it. We think this will be a great location for Crepe's sake. I just want to emphasize that the service of alcohol is going to be complimentary and not a focus, as the hour suggests. The main business model is still food service and not alcohol, but it's in the market. It's going to be competitive and bring the alcohol along with it. Other than that, we agree with everything in the planning department's report. Just one quick clarification, the actual seating occupancy is gonna be 78 customers and 12 employees, so that may adjust your seating capacity a little bit, but overall, the 90 still remains the same. My understanding has been approvals. There are no concerns by parking, fire, building, engineering. We already have received approval from the Machine Liquor Control Commission, so you are the last step in the process for the approval of the license. As Ms. Wisney correctly pointed out, we would kindly ask if you would entertain that motion. That would be greatly appreciated. Other than that, if there's any questions, I'm happy to try to entertain them. Questions for the applicant?

Mr. Whalen. So is it wine, spirits, beer, just kind of variety, or what's kind of the target?

It will be a Class C liquor license, so it will include wine and spirits and beer, all beer, wine, spirits, yes.

But also, I know you've got food and... Correct. Is there still a requirement of percentage sales between... No. Not anymore? No.

Okay, thank you. Any further questions?

I'll just, if I can make a comment, I haven't thought about having a beer with my sweet crepes, but, you know, I'm going to give it a shot.

Mr. Mudry, is there anything you'd like to add?

My wife and I, my wife went to middle school here. She grew up in East Lansing. I'm from Grand Rapids. We lived in Atlanta for a long time and made the decision in 2017 to move back here with our four kids. And shortly thereafter, I wanted to kind of be part of the community. There's a variety of ways to do it. We decided we wanted to open something in and of the community. We purchased for Crepe's sake in downtown Lansing and actually signed a lease to open a second location in East Lansing in March of 2020, which, as everyone knows, is not the best timing. So unfortunately, we had to shut down the downtown Lansing location, but it got us where we wanted to, which was in the heart of East Lansing. And now we've simply outgrown our location. Saw this Taco Bell location for so long and finally realized that it's the perfect spot for us and it's mostly going to be like mimosas and glasses of wine. I don't foresee this being anything significant but we think it complements the experience and you know we really pride ourselves on being something in and of the community and we think this is the next step for us. So thank you all.

Questions? I have a procedural question before we move to the hearing. The Planning Commission adopted a motion that's three pages. Do we have to read that into the record or can we move to adopt the motion adopted by the Planning Commission on pages 13 to 15 of the agenda item report?

So there is a portion of the, um, of the motion that you, that you would have to read. Um, it's not the entirety of the planning commission's motion, but there are some, um, aspects after running by with the city attorney that they, um, instructed us to put in there for you to address as the council.

Okay. Well, we can address that when the time comes. This is a public hearing?

This is a public hearing?

Yes. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who would like to address this issue?

Good evening. My name is Adam DeLay and I'm an East Lansing resident. And who said filibustering was just for the United States Senate? I would like to support this proposal, but also just want to highlight, I think, a couple of things from the staff report that I just really, truly believe should be settled out here over the duration of, let's say, four minutes and 33 seconds. As noted in the staff report, The purpose of the B3 district is to provide for a wide range of commercial and high density residential land uses designed to serve the residents and shoppers of East Lansing City Center. And the proposed restaurant will help diversify the offerings in this area of downtown. As a customer, I can attest. The only other restaurant in the 400, 500, and 600 even blocks of East Grand River Avenue, which, for those who don't know, is located between Charles Street and Collingwood Drive, with an active license for on-site alcohol, is the Peanut Barrel, which I am also quite a fan. A special use approval was granted for on-site alcohol service at Pizza Wallace, located at 523 East Grand River Avenue in 2025, but the restaurant has not yet opened. In regard to parking, always an issue in East Lansing, so much so that we would be willing to do eminent domain to keep a slab of parking lot instead of build affordable housing. The parking department has stated that there is adequate parking available in the downtown system for patrons of this restaurant to use. There's pedestrian access from the Division Street garage and the Bailey parking lot, which are three and two minute walks from the site respectively. Public bike parking hoops are available along Grand River Avenue in front of the building. The engineering department has stated that they do not have any concerns regarding traffic or access, which isn't that great news. Concerns from adjacent property owners, I believe which is, one of which is Insomnia Cookies, where once upon a time I used to deliver cookies, have not been received at this point. And lastly, the planning commission, voted unanimously to recommend approval to city council based on the findings included within the motion that is attached to the staff report, which, as I was mentioned, is a fairly long motion. The planning department also routed a copy of the proposal to the fire, building, and not to be outdone, the engineering departments. No concerns about the project have been received.

Isn't that great news?

No concerns. No concerns in the city of East Lansing this evening. The DDA, which for those who may not know is the Downtown Development Authority, They reviewed the application. I believe it was at their April 23rd, 2026 meeting. And they also, in addition to the Planning Commission, voted unanimously, that means everybody, to recommend approval to this very body. And so I say to you, over the course of the next, let's say, 35 seconds, that given all of these positives... You have 30 seconds remaining. Thank you. And the fact that no one has voiced any opposition whatsoever to this, I know that you will do what you always do, which is listen to those who have come before you with suggestions and who have taken votes, really heed what it is they are saying to you and vote the way that you believe is in your heart on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue?

My name is Tashmika Torok. Six years ago, the city of East Lansing had evidence that African American men were being stopped two to four times more than their counterparts. I have no issue against this ordinance. I love mimosas and crepes. However, we know that these stops happen while black people are driving through the city, attending events, or frequenting local businesses. Grigsby once warned council, we will not stop bothering you about these issues, including officers traumatizing communities. I'd really like to know where is that energy now that you have the power to address these issues in a tangible way. Former council member Greg declared, we are not just over police, we are over ordinance. At that time, Mark Meadows called for revising the city's disorderly conduct ordinance. Did you update the ordinance or have you set a trap? More business, less protection for citizens. The LPD police chief at that time promised various actions, including finding out more about how disciplinary action is or isn't working, reviewing video footage of all instances of use of force, having the chief review all complaints filed by the public before assigning them to an investigator, and looking into why these two complaints were not connected before this late date. More promises from a city government and a police department that Kath Edsel said is bent on hurting people of color. Also in 2020, Mayor Ruth Beyer said, as council expressed at its last meeting, we were not aware of the complaints against this officer until now. That is our fault. We will never be in that position again. Beyer intends to examine this matter closely. She said, I've asked for all reports, data, and video footage pertaining to complaints against this officer and all other complaints of excessive force. Once again, I apologize for assuming that our current practices of diversity training and de-escalation were sufficient. We clearly have a lot to do so that people of color feel heard, safe, protected, and welcome in East Lansing. In July 2021, that's five years ago, LEPOC is created because the East Lansing City Council is committed to the goal of racial equity. The commission will give priority to addressing racial inequities as well as use of force in policing. These issues have not been addressed, and y'all are subverting the efforts of LEPOC and the HRC. In 2023, LEPOC presented the city of East Lansing with its first annual report. The presentation was just over 40 minutes long and included several recommendations that would improve data collection. In 2022, 93 of 167 reported use of force incidents came against black individuals. I know you know this. I've heard other people read the statistic. This makes up 56% of times force was used against individuals despite only 12% of East Lansing residents being black. In comparison, 36% of the incidents were against white individuals who make up 71% of East Lansing's population. Again, that was four years ago. In January 2024, the Michigan State Police released a report on racial disparities in traffic stops. The report suggests that agency stops conducted during daylight hours were more likely to involve African American and Hispanic drivers in nine of 30 state police posts, including Lansing, Grand Rapids, Monroe, and Flint. The results from this report suggest that racial and ethnic disparities in MSP traffic stop behavior existed when we consider stops across the entire state of Michigan. However, a deeper dive into the data revealed that the disparities were constrained to a handful of MSP posts. Want to guess where they were? Daylight stops were more likely to involve African-American drivers in Lansing, Monroe, Tri-City, Flint, Lakeview, and Houghton Lake posts. In October of that same year, a sociologist hired by ELIPOC submits a report that there has been a surge of racial disparities in the ELPD's use of force. About 83% of individuals ELPD used force interacting with were non-white in 2025, compared to about 54% in 2024, 68% in 2023, and 67% in 2022. He wrote his report based on the publicly available data. Why? He was not given access to the data that he requested that would help him understand the racial disparities. Police Chief Jen Brown fails up again. You have everything you need to protect the people of East Lansing.

You have 30 seconds remaining.

from the racial disparities in the ALPD's use of force. You have the lessons learned from past leaders. You have the lessons shared from community members. You have the support of the Human Rights Commission and the East Lansing Independent Police Oversight Commission and the members of the community who continue to show up in service of a safe community for all people who live, work, and visit the city of East Lansing. You need to do better.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address this particular issue?

Good evening. I too love crepes and mimosas. I do. So I'm very excited about this and I'm looking forward to visiting your restaurant. You know who else would have maybe liked crepes and mimosas? Isaiah Kirby. he won't get to enjoy them. There were two things that came up in the meeting today that we had with Robert Bellman that are sticking with me. And one of them was the defense of Jen Brown's comments. And that defense went something like, she simply was repeating what Todd Haywood said to her. And that really pissed me off because A week later at the LAPOC meeting on a Wednesday night, I read her comments back to her and verbatim from the article and I asked her, did you say this? And she said yes. And I asked, do you stand by those words that a disproportionate number of minorities are coming into our community and committing crimes? And she said yes. So we are now six months from when she said that seven months went from when she said that and this, the city manager and presumably council and the city attorney is operating under this idea that somehow she didn't really say or mean those things when in fact she not only repeated them back to me at LAPOC, but many members of that commission questioned her on it and she continued to defend it. Dana Watson came to the microphone because she was sort of in between leaving council and leaving the commission and went into a great deal of discussion about how harmful those words were. And from city employees, It was shared with me that the only thing she took away was that she had used the word minority because one commissioner had mentioned that minority can be seen as offensive. That's the only thing she took away as being problematic with her statement. So I say this tonight because, again, I love crepes and mimosas. I say this tonight because we continue to play this game of telephone where people understand the information and it doesn't get moved to the correct bodies and we have parts of this whole body that are not working with the same information. Another thing that we discussed today that I discussed that I brought forward is issues around use of force that the commission has worked on redeveloping the use of force policy three years ago after a panel of national experts was brought in and so forth and the police chief then and the current police chief both said no thank you to those changes, several of which may very well have saved Isaiah Kirby's life. I shared that there's a complaint currently that really bothers me because the investigation was done by a sergeant who has been with this department for many, many years. And he talked about how the police showing up in their fully marked cars and their uniforms and showing their weapons were all de-escalation techniques. This is in the complaint investigation. It is an incredible, incredible lack of understanding of what de-escalation is.

De-escalation is not, I'm going to force you to de-escalate.

That is not de-escalation. De-escalation is about police officers learning to de-escalate themselves so that the situation is deescalated. And that a sergeant in this department does not understand those concepts. And a police chief in a separate incident shows her pepper spray and claims that's a deescalation technique. is a profound lack of understanding of what de-escalation is and a root cause to the problems that Tashmika just talked about with use of force in our community. Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to address the council on these issues? Seeing none, I'm going to declare the public hearing closed. Any further questions for Mr. Meadows.

I just want to make sure that the parking issue here has been fully examined. If we were to approve, I'm not sure whether it's still pending, but the redevelopment on the Bailey lot, do we still have sufficient parking so that this can operate in a profitable manner?

Yeah, I believe, I didn't talk to the parking department about that specifically, but the comments that I got from them was that there was ample parking between those two facilities that are right there. So I anticipate that, yes, there would still be parking for people coming and going.

And there's public parking actually directly behind the building, too. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Whalen, do you have a... I guess my question is procedurally. We have the motion, but then each one of the items and after that talks about the reason. Is that something you would help us with, or is that something we need to include all those things? I'm a little bit concerned about the process.

Yeah, so the motion that we put in the packet starts at the bottom of page nine of the staff report, or page 10 of the PDF. And it includes findings that are required to be made for approval that the city attorney has asked for them to be spelled out. Many of the findings have been made and included in the planning commission's motion. So those ones are referenced at the beginning, but then there are a number more that the city attorney advised that we should elaborate on with the council's motion. So in the blue, following some of the references to ordinance sections are suggestions from staff of reasonings that you might use. But if you have questions or need additional information, I can absolutely help with that.

So there's nine different, go ahead. Sorry, if I may add, if I could just add to that a little bit.

So the Planning Commission made a long set of findings on all of the elements, I believe, and went through all of them. There were a few here, I think four in particular, that in reviewing what the Planning Commission did, there were additional reasons to support the findings, which are stated in blue here, that were not findings made by the Planning Commission. So I hope that helps you understand. The rest of the Planning Commission's findings are all incorporated by reference through a single sentence at the start, which says if you adopt this motion, you're adopting the findings made by the Planning Commission. So you're pulling all of those findings in and making four additional findings in two through five, and number one is just kind of all encapsulating. So that's the explanation there, and the conditions are your conditions, so they're spelled out following those findings. Oh, and I apologize, there is another finding that is a correction from the Planning Commission. There was an error found, I'm not sure by who, but it's so the finding for number six, which is planning commission finding number nine, is being corrected. I know it's a little confusing, but it's really to enhance the findings, to correct one finding, and then to make your conditions, and so they can be incorporated into the special use permit memorandum that gets recorded.

So this is confusing. And my question is, would it suffice if we read the Planning Commission motion without the additional findings? Or do you think that there is a serious possibility of a court challenge that we should avoid that?

You know, based on what we've heard so far, it doesn't appear as though anybody's objecting to this matter. So if you're, aside from the correction.

Which is the, could you spell out the correction, please?

If you look at page 11 of the PDF, it is, it indicates, in addition, the city council adopts the correction of Planning Commission's finding number nine. Okay.

yeah it's on page 11 of the staff report it's so there's one through five and then that one is labeled as number six okay page 11 of the staff report where's the correction so it's in the middle of the page of page 11 of the staff report where it says in addition the city council adopts the correction of Planning Commission's finding number nine related to section 50-94 sub a sub 8 to read as follows okay so if I read the Planning Commission motion substituting

finding number nine with the one on page 11. That would effectively correct.

You're gonna use the...

I'm gonna use the Planning Commission motion. Okay. And I'm gonna substitute...

So if I'm understanding correctly, then you would read under motion and then findings that first paragraph that references the planning commission motion and then the correction and then any conditions if I'm understanding.

What I was going to do was read the Planning Commission motion that starts on page 13, unnumbered. So it's the one after the last page of the staff report. And I was going to substitute, in place of number nine, I was going to substitute the text, from page 11 of the staff report where it says finding under the correction I was going to read that new paragraph in place of number nine is that

If that's what council would like to do, the draft motion incorporates the Planning Commission motion in one fell swoop without reading the whole thing. OK. If you look at page 10 of the report, which I think is at 11 of the packet. Yeah, it's 11 of the PDF. OK. So, if you look there.

Okay, I see it.

Yeah. Yep, all right, I get it. And if you're not satisfied with numbers one through five, that is up to council. Those were just recommended enhancements of the planning commission's findings. Got it, okay. So, if you wanna leave those out, you certainly could. That is up to council.

No, I was missing the motion on pages nine through 12. So, that's the one I need to read. Okay, I appreciate the clarification. So, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion. I think I do got my ducks in a row. Yeah, well, if I don't have my ducks in a row, then somebody please holler. So I appreciate this, the patience. So I move to approve a special use permit request from Michael Mudry on behalf of For Crepe Sake East Lansing LLC, including site plan approval and the associated liquor license. at 601 East Grand River Avenue for renovation of the existing building for a restaurant to include onsite alcohol service. Findings, this decision is based on the findings and determinations as to each standard applicable to this special use permit proposal. under Section 50-93, 50-94 , and 50-94 , that were recommended to City Council by the Planning Commission at the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on April 22nd, 2026. with reference to and reliance on the applicant's application, plan submissions, public testimony, city staff analysis and review, and other submissions relative to its proposed development. The City Council adopts the findings made by the Planning Commission in its approval recommendation dated April 22, 2026, With the additional findings below, number one, section 50-94 sub A sub one requires the proposed use to be consistent with the purpose of the special use purpose division of the zoning ordinance, which is identified in section 50-91 as being twofold, first to provide greater flexibility in the placement of certain kinds of uses when because of their unique characteristics these uses are such that they can be compatible with and complementary to the uses now permitted in the zone provided that appropriate safeguards are imposed second to provide an adequate review and tighter control of certain uses which have a marked effect on the surrounding area due to their unusual design or operational characteristics or the amount of traffic they generate. The proposed use meets this requirement for the reasons set forth in the remainder of this motion. With reference to the standard in section 50-94 sub a sub two, the site plan submitted to city council under this application meets the requirements for site plan approval as specified in sections 50-36 and 50-38 of the city zoning ordinance because The property was previously subject to a site plan approval and this applicant is not proposing any site changes. Number three, section 50-94 sub a sub three requires the proposed size, height, architectural character and placement of the new structures on the site to be reasonably compatible with the existing or anticipated buildings or on adjacent properties. The proposed use meets this requirement because the applicant is not proposing any new structures on site. Number four, section 50-94 sub A sub four requires the streets and access facilities serving the site to safely accommodate the expected traffic generated by the proposed use and the proposed use to not cause excessive traffic congestion or delays, obstruct access to adjacent properties or imperil the safety of motorists, pedestrians or bicyclists. The proposed use meets this requirement because there is available nearby parking that is adequate for additional patrons of the proposed business and there are bike parking spaces adjacent to the site. Number five, section 50-94 sub A sub five requires that the proposed use shall not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties by generating excessive noise, vibration, light, glare, odors, or any other form of pollution or nuisances. The proposed use meets this requirement because the hours of operation include a closing time of 8 p.m., reducing the likelihood of late night disturbances at this business. The business is not proposing any use of the outside space for live or amplified music. In addition, the City Council adopts the correction of Planning Commission's finding number 9 related to section 50-94 sub a sub 8 to read as follows. 6. Finding 9 section 50-94 sub a sub 8 requires that the proposed use will be located with direct access to and frontage on a major street as designated in the major street plan. or within an area designated for adaptive reuse in the city center element of the comprehensive plan. The proposed use meets this requirement because both Grand River Avenue and the portion of Bailey Street directly north of Grand River Avenue are designated as major streets. Approval conditions pursuant to zoning ordinance 50-36 and MCL 125.3504 , The above approvals are subject to compliance with the following conditions of approval, which the City Council finds to be reasonable and necessary to ensure that the plan conforms to all applicable requirements and to otherwise comply with the requirements applicable to approval conditions under Section 50-36 and MCL 125.3504 . Number one, approval is in accordance with the plans provided by the applicant and per testimony, subject to revisions as required. Number two, all required permits shall be obtained from the Department of Planning, Building and Development for all interior renovations, as well as for exterior signs in accordance with chapter 32 of the city code titled signs. Number three, the project shall be designated and developed in accordance with all applicable state and local statutes, codes and regulations. number four this approval approval shall take effect upon the filing of an executed memorandum of special use permit with the ingham county register of deeds per section 50-96 of the city code number five the hours of operation shall be limited to between the hours of 8 a.m and 8 p.m monday through sunday number six alcohol service will be complementary to the sale of food number seven the occupancy of the restaurant shall not exceed 90 persons that is my motion motion by Altman second by Meadows any further discussion of the motion I just want to say thank you for preparing it so carefully I was missing it before so I'm glad if you helped me find it and so everything's good any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that motion carries and that special use is approved good luck with the project IT'S A RECORD FOR NOW. JUST WAIT. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM 5.1, CONSIDERATION OF THE FY2027 BUDGET TAX RATE AND FEE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION. OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER. IS THE GREEN LIGHT ON?

Is the other one?

Okay, there we go. It was kind of glowing from the light behind me. Tonight I have the budget resolution for fiscal year 2027. As discussed at the public hearing, several changes were modified from the original preliminary document presented to council, but no changes have been made from the public hearing to the document this evening. So there's.

Questions for staff? Do we have any motions? Mike, turn on your mic.

I'll move that we approve the FY2027 budget, tax rate, and fee schedule resolution as identified in the agenda this evening.

Motion by Meadows, second by Whelan. Any discussion?

I do have a couple of amendments that I'd like to propose. I'll move that we add $6,000 to the budget line for the East Lansing Independent Police Oversight Commission for independent review and report of police data to be used in the preparation of LAPOC's annual report. And to add $2,000 to the line item relating to the Human Rights Commission for Mediation Services.

Motion by Meadows. Second.

Second by Singh. Would you care to address your motion, Mr. Meadows?

Yeah, I think this, for one thing, it was, I think, an oversight by the, when the city manager had indicated that items that were not spent last year were removed from the budget for LAPOC. that in fact that $6,000 was utilized by the commission. And it's an important element, as was testified earlier this evening, in actually providing the public information that it has a right to receive. As to the HRC, I believe that the mediation services, the ability to provide mediation services to resolve issues within the community is very important. We need to have some amount of money available. And I'll just note that, of course, if there is other money necessary to perform these services, it can be requested. The city council has the ability to amend the budget at any time, as long as we have the money to do it. And so I think it would be a very good idea to have this as the initial amount of money available to both of these commissions.

Further discussion, Mr. Grigsby. I think Wayne was first. Mr. Whalen.

So the mediation, if the HRC is possibly headed in the direction that I think that we're discussing, I'm just questioning the $2,000. Is that enough in regards to having it as a line item? Because for me, it sounds like $2,000 is a little bit I see it as an initial amount.

This was I think the amount that was in the budget last year and so that we're restoring that amount if we approve this and like I say if it becomes I think and it could be more of a An amount of money, a greater amount of money is necessary. We can just simply amend the budget to add that at a later time when the evidence, the request for contractual services actually comes to us. We have to approve the contract anyway. So at that point in time, we could amend the budget to make sure that it's paid for.

further comments so the six thousand dollars um it stayed in the in the motion for independent review i thought that was for compiling stats or that that's what i heard earlier was for compiling stats and for their their report

Dr. Cedric Herro is engaged by the city to review the data ELPD provides to LEPOC and to interpret that data for the annual report.

And it was spent last year or it wasn't spent last year? It was. So that was kind of a, okay, thanks.

Is the motion sufficiently specific to give direction on both the issues?

I do. Audrey, are you good?

Yep, that's sufficient for me.

Okay. Any further discussion on the amendment? So we're voting on the amendment to add $6,000 to the LEPOC budget and $2,000 to the HRC budget. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, that amendment is adopted. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we are voting on the main motion as amended, which is to adopt the fiscal 27 budget tax rate and fee schedule resolution as identified in the attached schedule and as modified by the amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? None opposed. So that motion carries, and the budget tax rate and fee schedule as amended are adopted.

Mayor, may I?

Please.

I just want to say thank you so much for all the work all the city staff did on this. I know it's created a huge amount of work for all the directors and yourself, and I really appreciate the systematic process and the systematic display that made it a very, very difficult situation understandable.

And I actually did have a comment, which I neglected to make during the motion, but I'm going to make it now. Just a couple of general comments about the budget process. So thank you for reminding me about that. So this budget, I think, represents some important progress. We took some steps toward full cost recovery, and there might be more work to do on that front. I think we also took some steps toward a more accurate picture of what we spend. I think there are some risks. We have lost, by developing a more accurate picture of what we spend, we have lost a buffer for when bad things happen. Before we could have just sort of absorbed that in the existing budget. But now we will have to sort of directly come and consume fund balance. I'm a little, I'm particularly concerned about the possibly unfunded mandates. If the state requires us to decertify our election equipment and buy new election equipment but then doesn't pay for it, then we have to pay for it out of fund balance. And that's not something we can now absorb elsewhere in the budget. We're not out of the woods. There are a couple of problem trends represented in this budget. One is that we are increasing our infrastructure debt by a little bit. We took $250,000 away from sidewalks. And the vacancy factor that we use to account more accurately for vacancies needs to shrink in the future. We need to fill positions. But then if we fill positions, those costs are gonna go up. So those two things both point in the direction of an increasing deficit. But still, I think we made progress here. And I also wanna thank the departments and finance staff and the city manager for his direction. CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS BUDGET, AND I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANKS TO THE FINANCIAL HEALTH TEAM, WHICH CONTINUES THEIR WORK. THEY'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF THEIR WORK, AND I THINK WE ALL PROBABLY LOOK FORWARD TO ACTING ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN THEY COME FORWARD, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE TO COME ON THE BUDGET FRONT IN THE COMING YEAR. So any further comments? All right, that brings us to item 5.2, consideration of the City of East Lansing Community Development Block Grant 2026 to 2030 Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2027 Annual Action Plan. Good evening, Council.

Mr. Prefontaine. Nicholas Prefontaine, Community Economic Development Specialist. As you may recall, last regular council meeting, we had a public hearing on the 2026-2030 consolidated plan, as well as the fiscal year 27 annual action plan. That includes the fiscal year 27 CDBG budget. We finalized both plans, and I'm here to answer any questions if you have any.

Any questions for Mr. Prefontaine?

I'm ready to make a motion on this. Please. OK. I move to approve the City of East Lansing's 26-2030 Community Development Block Grant CDBG Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2027 Annual Action Plan and authorize submission of the plans to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Motion by Grigsby, second by Meadows. Any discussion of the motion? just proud to be able to approve on this okay any other questions or comments okay seeing none all those in favor of the motion say aye aye any opposed motion carries and the CDBG consolidated plan and annual action plan are approved thank you thank you Item 5.3, introduction of ordinance number 1578, amending chapter two, administration, article five, boards and commissions. Division 6, Human Relations Commission and Chapter 22, Human Relations, Article 2, Civil Rights. Refer to Human Rights Commission for its review and refer to the June 2nd, 2026 regular session for consideration and possible adoption.

Mr. Jopik.

Sure, thank you Mr. Mayor, City Council. Just try to go through an overview of this item. First of all, tonight is the first time this is before City Council for introduction at this public meeting. It is the introduction of the ordinance here and for your consideration of whether you want to refer it to the Human Relations Commission for its input and feedback on the draft ordinance. And then at a future meeting, the ordinance would return to council for further consideration in terms of whether or not to adopt the ordinance at that future time. Tonight is not the time at which this ordinance would be or could be adopted by city council. That's the process at this point and so we're at the very beginning stage of the introduction of the ordinance if you so choose to do so. In the agenda packet is not only the draft of the revisions to the ordinance, the amendments that would be made to the chapter two and chapter 22 of the city code, but also a summary of the law and reasons for the changes under consideration to provide that information. to you of course and to the public and hope with the discussion especially as it's referred to the HRC for further consideration and and and comments back to you a few things that The ordinance does not do, it does not take away or in any way affect any person's right to file a complaint with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. That's the state commission that is set up by the Constitution to handle the same types of complaints for civil rights violations or under very similar statutory provisions protecting for accommodations and employment and services and so forth. The Civil Rights Commission that's established at the state is empowered and funded by the state and its job is to investigate such complaints and make decisions about violations and also decide what to do about them. whether to issue requirements for compliance or damages or other aspects of how to handle those complaints. Very similar to what is in your current ordinance in terms of the relief that could be granted under your current Chapter 22 ordinance, which we'll talk about in a minute. think that's important to remember that it does not take away that right from any person whether they're a member of the public or a an employee of the city or whatnot anybody or a visitor who feels like their civil rights have been violated they all have that right to go to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission that's been established for that purpose You have your local Human Rights Commission. A lot of cities do have those, quite a few. And there's no statute authorizing it to occur. You do it under your basic Home Rule City authority under the Home Rule Cities Act and the authorization that's been given to you in there under your general powers. But those general powers are limited by the state constitution and state laws that have been established. So there is some level of limitation on how far the city can go in terms of the ordinances it adopts and how far it could go with its boards and commissions. With this ordinance, the ordinance, I'll just go through it briefly to identify the general areas that are addressed. In the chapter two of the city's ordinance, It identifies the purpose in Section 2-361. In there, you can see a change that calls for a member of the Human Rights Commission to now, if possible, have a member who has some experience in mediation. and can help with that process in terms of serving on the commission itself and having familiarity with how mediations operate. That'll come into play later on in the ordinance as you have seen in the draft here under chapter 22. But let me move down to section 2-362, which is the duties. You can see in there that the current ordinance has assigned 10 duties to the Human Relations Commission, or also called the Human Rights Commission. As you can see, those terms are used interchangeably in the ordinance. But 2-362 identifies 10 duties of the commission. This draft does not affect nine of those duties. Those duties are unchanged, they continue. The Human Rights Commission is very important in terms of all 10 of the duties. The changes here only affect subsection eight, one of the subset of duties that is provided. And it doesn't get rid of it, it modifies it. So it doesn't even, it doesn't go to the extent of taking away number eight, which is, would be changed to provide for the reception and review of complaints alleging a violation of chapter 22. and hold hearings and make determinations and whether or not to have those complaints mediated. And as you mentioned earlier, you just adopted a budget to provide at least an initial budget to allow for those mediations or to refer it to federal or state administrative agencies Or, of course, I didn't even mention that in addition to the state agencies that have been set up by the Constitution or through the Constitution, that state commission is in place. In addition to that, everybody still has their rights to file in federal or state courts. to enforce their civil rights so that is not affected of course by this ordinance and remains in place so I think that's important there are other venues to go to at all times and those are always available and we see that with some of the a couple of the complaints currently being handled by the HRC They are in front of the HRC, in front of the state commission, and also in front of the federal court. So they're in three locations being reviewed by three different areas of the government. There are some minor clarifications to one of the definitions. I'll just continue through that. As you can see, there are different areas, like I mentioned earlier, employment, civil rights violations under 2233. No changes to that except one of the subsections regarding city contracts is shown here as deleted, but it is I believe verbatim, it's moved later in the ordinance into an area that addresses those city contracts. So it's not eliminated, it's just moved. Otherwise, the employment section of civil rights, the civil rights that are provided in the ordinance are not changed. They are not changed. Housing, that's the second prong of civil rights that are protected under our ordinance. And again, you see no changes here. Public accommodations or services, Public accommodations not changed at all. One reference to public services when it comes to city services, those are matters that would be referred to the State Civil Rights Commission as I'll talk about later in a later amendment. This change of adding some terms to the definition of public services there to be consistent with a later change addressing that. The duty to accommodate persons with disabilities, very important, and it refers to it being handled in a manner and to the extent required by law, which is more consistent, we believe, with state law on persons with disabilities, federal law as well. False crime reporting is adjusted based upon a court decision in late 2024, finding that this section was in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution and could not stand. So it was found to be unlawful. We've modified it in a manner that we believe makes it lawful and consistent with that court decision. the complaint process, 22-38. Now this is the heart of most of the changes, as you can see. And it is put together in a manner that provides for the HRC to continue handling complaints but providing a more detailed process by which that is done, number one, so that there is a step-by-step process when a complaint is reviewed, how it's handled. It's all laid out into this section, which is part of the packet for everybody to see, so I won't go into the details unless you have any questions other than to say it's provided in a manner that spells things out procedurally in a more clear and defined manner. Now, one of the areas that is a substantive alteration of the HRC's duties, this is the section that relates to whether the HRC can exercise powers like a judge to decide a case between of whether or not there is a violation of the city's ordinance and impose a penalty or a sanction, civil sanctions such as damages, restitution, injunctive relief where it orders parties to not do something anymore or to change the way they do things, to act in a certain way. Those provisions in the ordinance, the concern there as stated in the summary of the law, the concern is that those are judicial powers. This council does not have judicial powers. I don't think I have to tell anybody in the room that there is a separation of powers, not just in the US government, but in our state government. You have the judicial branch, the executive branch, and the administrative branch. So here we have powers that are entering into the judicial branch and the state constitution and what the state is allowed to do versus what the city is allowed to do and authorized to do by law. To exercise judicial powers is questionable from a legal standpoint and concerning. And so the idea here is to not take away the powers of the Human Rights Commission to review complaints and to accept complaints and to evaluate complaints that are made and hear from both sides and take action relative to them, it's what action the Human Rights Commission can take. What action can they take? What can they do? Can they go the full extent of imposing civil damages and order one party to pay another party money, like a judge does, or as is proposed in this draft, does the Human Rights Commission help the parties, work the matter out through mediation and go through a process of mediation with a qualified mediator and come to a result and not drop it there, not just drop it in mediation. If the parties are able to work it out, the HRC would still be involved in terms of whatever agreement comes into place to resolve the matter between the parties. If the parties want, the city can sign on to that mediation agreement, that settlement agreement, and become a party to it, and be a party that is able to bring it to court to enforce the terms of that agreement that the parties have reached if they violate it. And that's the idea here. to adjust how far the Human Rights Commission is able to go. Is it able to go into that arena of making judicial type decisions or is it just going to be making decisions that relate to mediation and assisting the parties in gaining compliance with civil rights? helping to enable residents to voice their complaint at a local level and provide a place that is funded. As mentioned, the city funds the mediation and assists them in that way and help them enforce their civil rights if that agreement is not followed up on. And it also enables, if that doesn't work out, for the Human Rights Commission to assist the complainant in filing a complaint with the State Civil Rights Commission. So again, not just going through the motions and dropping it, it's taking it through a process to a certain point, and if it doesn't resolve the matter or get the fix needed, then getting the complainant to the right place for further action, either in the Michigan Civil Rights Commission or in a court of their choosing, federal or state, to file their claims, depending on what they are. That's also an option as well. So that's the idea here for how section two Sorry, 2-38 is amended and modified in this introduced ordinance. And it also includes provisions regarding city contracts to have a process for those to be handled through the city. There are contracts that the city would enter into, and it maintains that ability to enforce the contracts as contracts. and it provides if there is a complaint filed but another complaint filed in say the Civil Rights Commission at the state level or a court that the complaint at the local level would be held in abeyance pending the outcome of that court case or that state Civil Rights Commission And lastly, I'm sorry, not lastly, there is a provision regarding complaints involving city officials, employees, or city or city council for those to be handled at the state level. This is in part due to city charter provisions that provide for city complaints against city employees to be handled at the state level. matters of discipline and sanctions and whatnot involving employees. If there are issues where an employee has a complaint or an issue about their activities and how they act, it is up to, under our charter, to the city manager to handle those matters, or the individual can file with the state, again, with the state civil rights commission. And the idea here is to be in conformance with that city charter provision because it says that it goes to the city manager, not to city council. And so for city council to exercise authority, handing it off to the Human Rights Commission, which is a commission of council, is a delegation of authority that one might argue the city council doesn't have, and we want to be careful of that. and making sure you don't overstep that or have any arguments that that occurred. We'd of course do our best to defend against that, and there may be ways to do that, but this is proposed as a concept to address that, any conflict that may exist there. And lastly, we've included a provision for appeals, which wasn't in the ordinance previously of any determination, which is a real important due process, right? So with that I'll turn it over to any questions. I sensed you wanted a full layout of everything and I hope I provided that to you and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you for that overview. Questions for the city attorney? Mr. Grigsby?

I have a question. Currently the proposed motion has this back on the agenda at our next business meeting, which is just a week away, basically. Is there any reason that this has to be considered on the 7th as opposed to later in the month of June?

Again, I believe that your current rules, that calls for it to come back at the next meeting unless you decide you want it to come back at a later date. That's up to you. But you would need to make a motion to move it to a future date.

Mr. Griggs.

Thanks. I had a list of questions that you pretty much addressed. And I just was trying to get a lot of the why and just try to understand the procedural part and what that means. And so that was helpful. This absolutely needs to go to the HRC for them to look at and review. I think within that, are they going to have an opportunity to have someone with legal background to kind of walk them through this? Do we have that set up for them? Because I would imagine a lot of the language, a lot of the information here that they would have a lot of questions in regards to specifics to some of the state laws and some of the different procedural things that are changing in this proposed amendment. So I'm just curious to how that is gonna work to give them the tools to be able to look at this and really weigh in in a way that gives them the opportunity to have impact on what possibly the final version may look like.

Mr. Bellman?

Just to clarify, the HRC has a special meeting tomorrow. They did amend their agenda to put this ordinance on it so they can talk about it at their meeting.

I didn't know if Gopi was okay go ahead yes we are we have Gopi attorney Gopi Patel from our office stands ready to attend that meeting tomorrow evening and to make a similar presentation to the Human Rights Commission and go through the ordinance with them and answer their questions. They have the summary that's been provided in the packet, the public packet today, that hopefully helps with some understanding of some of the law that is involved here and some of the areas that it goes into. So that is in place to provide them that. They are a commission of the city council. You created them. We are the attorneys for the city and we are there to provide them advice and information and answers to those questions. If it gets into areas that involve our provision of legal services, counseling or legal advice in areas that are typically confidential and privileged attorney client communications might be necessary to discuss those in a closed session based on a legal memo, which we could certainly provide to them and get back with them if that is the outcome of the meeting, that there are items that we need to maybe write a more detailed memo to them. That's a possibility. We would be asking to go into closed session for that with them to make sure we have a robust and frank discussion with them in those regards. So we're there to assist in the service, and we do want to talk. We want to talk. We want to explain where council is at, how we got to where we are, and whatnot.

yeah um that's good i think that's a big step um i do know from my experience on that commission that they're very hesitant to do closed sessions and so i just would hope that they would have the opportunity as much as possible to be able to kind of have this publicly processed in a way that they can kind of get away with as much as they can in the public format and whatever that is required to be in closed session is something that is absolutely essential if we can get away with doing this as publicly as possible. I know that they uh feel well i shouldn't say i know but my understanding is that i believe they really um do not want to do anything outside of the public's purview and that's important to them so i just know this process is important so if that is the case i'm not quite sure of the timelines with of what council member Meadows mentioned is gonna work. Unless we have a specific reason to kind of get this turned around so quickly per what we've talked about, I don't wanna rush this. I wanna give them, and the community an opportunity to really break this down and dissect this in a way that they feel informed and understand how to advocate for themselves in a way that hopefully gets them to a place where they can accept any possible changes.

We will follow counsel's direction on that, certainly.

Any further discussions, Councilmember Singh?

Yeah, I just want to echo a couple of things. One is you know, agree this feels like a tight turnaround. I notice our last meeting in June is June 16th. You know, lending additional time for the commission to take a detailed look at what's presented. I do think the public legal analysis provided and what you presented, I listened to every word. But I also read it. I do think it does pose some important questions in terms of checks and balances and can we investigate ourselves versus how do we empower our commissions to still be through their mediation as well as helping complainants file with a potential state body and or educational you know pieces to support them and perhaps pursuing avenues through the courts even you know what is that you know balance and very interested to hear what the Commission considers on that front so I just want to echo what the prior speakers on council mentioned and just wanted to point out there is a later later meeting in June that may provide some time

additional questions or comments i imagine if we wanted to pick a so currently the motion refers to refers the ordinance to june 2nd 2026 presumably somebody could just change that date in the motion right if they wanted to pick a different date so does anyone have a motion

Let me pull up the right tab here. Yes, the motion. I'll move to introduce ordinance number 1578, amending chapter two, administration, article five, boards and commissions, division six, human relations commission, and chapter 22, human relations. Article two, civil rights refer to the human rights commission for its review and refer to the June 16th, 2026 regular session for consideration and possible adoption.

Motion by Singh second by Meadows. Um, any council members saying, would you care to address your motion?

I would just restate my prior comments, so I don't want to necessarily take time. Looking forward to hearing the Human Rights Commissioner's thoughts on the proposed language and lending more time through June 16th to hear about that and their thoughts around some of the changes.

Further questions? Mr. Meadows? I don't have any questions. I just want to note how important this commission is. And it was created to provide operational ability for what was, I think, if not the first, one of the first civil rights ordinances passed by a city in the entire nation. So we, you know, I know that In 1965, by a policy resolution, the council declared its devotion to civil rights. And on April 8, 1968, we passed the Fair Housing Ordinance, which I think was also one of the first in the nation passed by a city council. And in 1972, in March of 73, we extended all of our civil rights to sexual orientation and later expanded that when LGBTQ became a more common reference to that. We have a history of supporting civil rights for everyone in this community, even with a lot of the issues that we are dealing with today. And this commission has been an important arm in our fight for civil rights over the years. I don't believe we're diminishing that authority through this ordinance, but I'm very, very interested in hearing the HRC's response to all of it. Okay.

Further comments? Mr. Whalen, anything?

Okay.

So the motion is to introduce 1578 to refer to the HRC and to refer to June 16th for consideration of possible adoption. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion carries and ordinance 1578 is introduced and referred. That brings us to the new item 5.4. I will make a motion. which is to enter into a closed session to discuss and consult with a city attorney regarding privileged and confidential attorney-client legal correspondence exempt from disclosure by state law under MCL 15.243 sub one sub G as allowed under subsection eight sub one sub H of the Open Meetings Act. That is my motion. support motion by Altman second by Meadows any discussion a roll call vote please councilmember Whalen yes councilmember Meadows yes councilmember Singh yes mayor Pro Tem Grigsby yes mayor Altman yes we are adjourned to closed session We are returned to open session. Is there a motion? So we are on item 5.4, which is no we are back in open session we don't need a vote 5.5 5.5 yes thank you sir item 5.5 which says that upon return to open session city council may take action regarding matters discussed in closed session are there any motions yes i will make a motion

Make a motion to authorize Mayor Altman and the city attorney to proceed in a manner recommended by the city attorney in closed session and attorney client legal memo dated May 26, 2026 to retain the services of Thrawn Law Firm as independent legal counsel and to place the city manager on paid administrative leave effectively at 12 PM tomorrow and until initial questions are identified and closed session are answered. And to direct the city manager to appoint acting city manager no later than 12 p.m. tomorrow, May 22nd, 2026. Second. Motion by Grigsby.

Tomorrow is May 27th.

Yes, that's what I said.

OK, sorry. Motion by Grigsby, second by Singh. Is there some confusion about something?

No, no. I was just pointing at Kerry. I wasn't sure you were going to say anything.

OK, so motion by Grigsby, second by Singh.

Any discussion of the motion?

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries and that motion is adopted. That brings us to item six, adjournment. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Second. Moved by Singh to adjourn. Seconded by Whalen. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned.

Thank you all.