Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lansing City Council regular business meeting of Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026. It is 6 30 PM. A meeting will come to order. Could we have the roll call please?

Uh, I moved to excuse council member Meadows absence on grounds of illness. second motion by Altman second by Grigsby all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that absence is excused is there a motion to approve the agenda moved by Singh second by Whalen any discussion of the agenda Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Agenda is approved. Is there a motion concerning the minutes of previous meetings?

Motion by Grigsby to approve the minutes of the regular council meeting of 8 September 2026, the special regular council meeting of 8 September 2026, the special regular council meeting of 9 September 2026, and the city council discussion only meeting of 15 September 2026. Motion by Grigsby, second by Singh. Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, the vote is on the minutes as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Those minutes are approved. Communications, all written communications received by council are posted on the online agenda packet. We get them in real time

I have one other slip from Brandon Green. I will call that during the hearing a little bit later. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the council? Please.

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

Is anyone else interested in addressing the council?

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

Thank you, are there any further callers? Further callers, okay. That concludes communications from the audience, which brings us to communications from Council, Council Member Whalen.

Yes, thank you. I just want to announce that we do have our community conversation here on Thursday at 5.30 at the Grand Traverse Pie Company. I encourage community members to come out and have a conversation. We join with Council Member Singh. and we would be delighted to interact with you in not so formal ways, just to reconnect with you going forward here as we go into the busy season of business and making sure that we have firsthand conversations in regards to what's important to you, positive or negative. Appreciate that.

Yes, and I am going to try to mention a few things that came up during public comment. One comment regarding the song contest from last weekend. I am a liaison to the Arts Commission, and I want to give a shout out to our chair, Allie, CR toe and it was her idea about bringing the song competition to the city of East Lansing and so I think it's appropriate to give her a shout out as well or as well as Heather Mangiano who is the staff support to the Commission so Secondly, on the suicide prevention, I know we applied for a federal grant, I believe, and that was rejected to help supply fencing

For my part, I want to just comment briefly first on the issue of city attorneys. City attorney is a critical function, and I think when people consider the cost of billable hours, they might also want to consider the cost of not having accurate and timely legal advice. I think the cost of that is much greater. And we have just and exactly the attorneys here that we need to have here. If one of our attorneys is a specialist in zoning law, then we need that person here on nights where we have complicated zoning issues because we might not have questions, but we might. And if we do, we need thos

Thank you. That brings us to the consent agenda, Ms. Irwin. Okay.

Thank you. Would anyone like an item removed from the consent agenda to the business agenda? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? Motion by Grigsby second by Singh any discussion with the consent agenda Just clarification the item with the bond That it's still in process.

It's not committing you to certain projects. And just to follow up on that, the vote on that bond will be a separate vote? Correct. At some point in the future. OK. And then I just had a comment that the grant in item 3.2 is a grant from the state to install two level 3 EV chargers at the DPW site to help power our new and, with any luck, growing electric fleet. So that's a great. Yes, please.

Has there been a change to the barrier that we were going to do by Trowbridge and the Red Cedar neighborhood?

I'm chasing down hearsay and rumor that I heard rumor. Yeah, yet to be confirmed. So if the neighborhood no longer wants that barrier, and the state dollars are going to be purposed towards Evie and I don't if I'm sharing bad information, please correct me.

Helpful. So it is true the neighborhood no longer wants the original purpose of the funds.

Any further comments or questions about the consent agenda? Okay. Seeing none, the motion is on the consent agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Consent agenda is approved. That brings us to item 4.1, a public hearing to receive comments on an appeal of a tree removal violation at 2982 Coleman Road. I'll welcome our staff first to the table. We'll get a background from them, and we'll hear from the appellant, and then we will have the public hearing.

Okay. Further questions? I have I have one question. So in the if the process had been followed, one of the things presumably the Planning Commission could have done is try to mitigate edge effects, right? So that the destruction wouldn't then carry over to neighboring properties. That would be one of the points that they could have worked through. That correct? OK. If there are no questions, more questions for staff, I'd like to invite the appellant to the microphone to please make a presentation.

No, that's fine. So please take your time, the appellant.

And we appreciate your efforts to be concise. Thank you.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the appellant? I do have one question, sir.

Any further questions for the appellant? Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions for staff?

I was going to suggest that we hold the public hearing first. I should have done that earlier. So let me open the public hearing and invite anybody who would like to address the council on this issue to please come forward. Please.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ISSUE? DO WE HAVE ANY CALLERS? OKAY. SO I WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. MAYOR PROTEM, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY.

NO, I'M KIND OF WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WHALEN Trying to find a way to do this as a teachable And as you know from what I think I understand there the communication there was Was not as clear and I think the intent I'm getting wasn't an intent I think to disregard our ordinances or the rules in relation to the outcome and I know we have policy I know we have a Things in place for a reason here. I just I I'm struggling with I in this vacuum of this particular situation as defined being the remedy. And again, as Councilmember Whalen said, we're a little bit new to this in regards to making sure that

Just to be clear, you said the appellant wrote something about tree work along the property line. That was sort of the operative phrase, and this was tree removal across the whole property, which is a very different thing.

And tree work along the property line. That's correct.

My reaction to this is that you know a six-figure fine does it's steep it's real but 26 trees and the inches of is significant as well I will say whether it should be part of this equation or not and this quasi-judicial process we're embarking upon is you know if we were putting affordable housing in there Guess what? I would probably feel more forgiving about some of the trees that we lost. And I think in the last hearing in a similar issue, we were able to get to a middle ground of replacing some of the trees in the easement. that's a long way of saying that's my two cents like I would love

More details. Yeah, that's a big... That's fair, because I'm starting to get uncomfortable with how this is set up, like, in our ordinance. You know, it's one thing if it's a formula, and then we're just reviewing the formula, but as we're reviewing these case-by-case scenarios, it feels... I don't know. I'm starting to get uncomfortable with how this is set up. Anyway, I don't know if others have further comments, because I heard at least two individuals that sounded like they were looking for another path, another option.

I haven't really thoroughly looked at his solutions or alternatives to really give you that direction in relation to that. So that's kind of where I'm at. And so I wouldn't want to make a decision tonight about this until I was able to at least absorb a lot more in a way that could go in that direction as far as kind of what is amenable and what makes sense.

So it doesn't matter that there were fewer on that property? What am I missing?

All right. So I have a couple of comments. One, I think, is do we care whether this happens again? That's a question I think we all need to ask ourselves. Do we care whether there is going to be future unauthorized tree removals? Because if all you have to do is come in and say, I'm responsible and you get a deal, then it's going to happen again. We all need to be aware of that. The other point I want to make is that the size of the fine reflects the scope of the destruction. It's not just the removal of the trees. It's the destruction of a landscape and a habitat and effects on neighboring pr

Okay, so I'm going to move that we postpone further consideration of this item until our October 6th meeting. Motion by Altman, second by Whelan. Any discussion?

You're delaying it? I couldn't, you mumbled.

My motion was to postpone further consideration of this item until our October 6th meeting.

Okay. So, in the meantime, what is that mean? Sorry. Uh, in the meantime, I guess, so what are, what is the process? So when we get to the six, how, what is happening in between?

I would suggest that if council members have questions, uh, that they would like to ask staff to address between now and then, um, please communicate with staff ideally with via the city manager discussion of the motion to postpone. I'll have conversations with the city manager. Any further discussion? Nope. OK, the motion is to postpone further consideration until October 6 meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? This item is postponed till October 6. That brings us to item 5.1, consideration of a contract with Absolute Solar for construction of a solar array at the DPW State R

I move approval of the contract with Absolute Solar in the amount of $677,523 for the design, furnishing, and installation of a ground-mounted solar photovoltaic. Voltaic. Thank you for what he said. array and the perimeter fencing at the DPW facility 1800 East State Road authorization of a contingency of 67,752 for the total project authorization of 745,275. approval of the budget amendment of $245,275 to the fiscal year 2027 building division and DPW service pool fund and authorize for the city manager to sign.

Motion by Singh. I'll second. Second by Grigsby. Any discussion? Mr. Whalen, did you have more comments? Any further comments? Would you care to address your motion?

I just want to make one point, which is that the break-even point is 10 years, which is really quick. And then even if the feds renege, it's 16 years.

I'll just add for my part in terms of screening, there are other municipalities that put their solar panels front and center in front of their city hall. Like if you go to Meridian, they're very proud to display them. I'm proud to display this. So any further discussion of the motion? No. OK. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK. That authorization passes. Congratulations and thank you. That brings us to item 5.2, consideration of proposed ordinance 1575, amendments to chapter 50 of the city code, the zoning ordinance, and to chapter 4 of the city code to modify requirements relate

Further questions? I'm ready for a motion. I have some questions. And then I've got a motion. OK. Where did the EV capable, EV ready, EV installed ratios come from? I mean, they look fine. And I know that we sort of bumped up against lack of information when we had various discussions about this. Mr. Bartley and Mr. Walls and I were on some of those meetings. So where did those come from?

That's great. So we leveraged their investment and their ordinance to apply to ours. Okay, super. I have some questions about the new adjusted parking ratios in 50-812. So there are a lot of little tweaks there. And did you have sort of an overall rule guiding the adjustments that you made?

OK. One of the more stark changes was to the requirement for Class A multiple family units. So it's now the proposed is half a space for an efficiency or one bedroom. And then two spaces per each unit with two or more bedrooms. So that's a maximum of two per unit. It used to be that that could go a lot higher, right? Three and a half spaces for four bedrooms and then one space per bedroom above four bedrooms. So that's a pretty substantial change, it seems to me. And I was just wondering if you could address why that seems appropriate.

Got it, okay. You're going up in parking requirements for funeral homes?

And then for commercial, for commercial recreation uses toward the end of that table, um, the old, the current version of the ordinance, uh, requires parking for spectators and now we don't require parking for spectators anymore.

It seemed pretty parallel. So tennis, racquetball, or handball courts, four spaces per court. Still four spaces per court. So I'm just wondering if we're anticipating. I'm not sure there's room to build a stadium with a lot of audience and so forth in East Lansing. But if that was intentional to drop that thing about space for spectators, that's fine. It just looked like that whole section fell off. And so that was the basis for my question. Okay. I have some questions about the waiver process. So this would create an opportunity for the zoning official to grant waivers of less than 25% and pl

Okay. Probably cause there's no minimums for the downtown, right? There's a whole separate process for guaranteeing parking. Okay. Um, And then I had two minor suggestions in the proposed 50-812 sub 3 sub C. It makes reference to priority on-site bicycle parking. And when the time comes, I might want to propose an amendment to suggest priority on-site covered bicycle parking. If they're using it as a basis for a parking waiver, it needs to be covered because otherwise it's not really functional. And then I was also going to ask for feedback from staff about the suggestion in 50-821 where you i

theoretically planning commission granted them that waiver the site plan as a whole would still come to council it would just be then reliant on a reduced number of parking spaces if that makes sense it does make sense but I think the question I think my question still stands about whether one of the arguments that we got in the opinion from the city attorney is that the Planning Commission is advisory and based on that there's a question about whether they have authority to make decisions on their own And so I would appreciate a clarification on that point. And I think that's probably a quest

You said that's correct. Does anybody else have any questions? Council Member Singh, it looks like you were. No. Okay. I didn't. i was going to make a motion unless mr grigsby did you have no i was just going to say um

I appreciate the attention to detail and the clarification to some of the different things that I just didn't have that in my purview and I wouldn't support deferring.

So then I'll move to defer action on Ordinance 1575 until the November 17th, 2026 City Council meeting. Second. Motion by Altman, second by Whalen. Any discussion of the motion to defer? okay all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries that further consideration is deferred Thanksgiving celebration there we go that's great we're gonna take a short recess while we await the return of the mayor pro tem That means we've got to heat it up.

OK. Thank you all. We are now back in open session. Our next item is item 5.3, consideration of resolutions 2026-55, 2026-56, 2026-57, 2026-58, and 2026-59, establishing revised. finance department policies we are joined by mr geiger our finance administrator and mr torak our risk management administrator welcome gentlemen thank you good evening council we are here to present the update of five of our financial policies

Questions concerning procurement policy? Council Member Singh.

So you mentioned using state thresholds. I'm just curious, since the state's budget is much larger than ours, just the rationale for using the state's threshold.

And I'm curious on the last piece in terms of a qualification-based selection, how do we handle engineering services today?

I just feel we have gotten community feedback regarding the amount of firms we hire, especially for some of our DPW services. I'm a little uncomfortable removing an RFP and taking that off the top. There's still... ways to design an RFP where you're getting now the value for the project as well as qualifications so I'm just I'm struggling again you know federal projects is just a whole different ballgame compared to what we're doing within our budget so I'm struggling with this one so it's not necessarily for federal projects but if federal funds are being used we have to follow those rules as

But if we change, we don't have to factor in price.

But you can still figure that out through an RFP process?

every RFP process I've been a part of, you can determine that.

Like for Harrison Road, we had engineering services out a few times that people complained that we did a number of different rounds with engineering. So that would or would not be included. Was that part of a larger construction bid or I guess we did a couple of different rounds to get to where we ended up on the Harrison road, um, pedestrian walkway. But I mean, we've done, I mean just a lot. So, and I know, so I, anyway, I've, I've expressed my concern here. So if there's additional presentation to go through,

Any further questions on procurement issues?

They wouldn't have to under this if we accept these changes.

Next item is delegated authority to approve contracts.

Yeah, I would just be curious, what does that threshold look like for other similar sized municipalities?

Questions concerning that item? Okay, next item.

So this would need to be amended? Correct. OK. Any further questions on that item? OK. Next item.

Questions concerning federal grant awards policy?

back to the delegated authority to approve contracts. I don't understand what's the reasoning for that? What's the mechanism for that in changing that amount from $20,000 to $50,000 and then how you land it with $50,000? for me that's a big jump and I'm just trying to understand um why we would not have anything over twenty thousand dollars not before Council for us to make an informed decision on that for the city manager

So, and I'm just asking, I'm learning as well, but I mean, so if we say, Okay, $50,000, no. What about $35,000 or $40,000? We have room to work with that, correct? Yeah. In regards to we'll help you be able to have a number in front of you. So the $50,000 is what you particularly would like to see, but that's necessarily you have to have, right? Okay. I just wanted to get that cleared up. Thank you.

So $20,000 was 1994? Correct. So that's $45,000 today. Roughly, yeah. Inflation adjusted. And you argued that having one number was just going to be easier for people to remember across the board.

But on this, I mean, but we also have or the mayor has control widely on what goes on the consent agenda versus what needs a vote as well, regardless of contract amount.

No, this is about whether it has to go to council or not.

Right, but it can go on a consent agenda. Correct. It could go on consent. That's what I'm saying. And then I guess I'm just struggling a bit. I know it may be a hindrance at times, but having The memory issue for staff having to remember twenty thousand dollars and fifty thousand That's a little bit of a struggle for me and then also a project management standpoint That that is a little bit foreign But at any rate And then it would be helpful to understand municipal, uh, communities of our size. What is a standard there? Um, that would be helpful, um, to compare.

And that was the delegated authority one, right? The second one, 2026 dash 56. And the one that needed an amendment was 2026 dash 58. The capital asset management policy? On the drains. Is there any time considerations here, if we defer consideration? Or are there no?

Well, if people have residual questions, we could certainly defer this to our next business meeting, if somebody would like to make a motion.

So I'll move to postpone further consideration of this item, including all five resolutions, until our October 6 business meeting.

OK, motion by Altman, second by Grigsby. Does that cause any headaches for you guys?

Does that give you a little bit of direction for kind of, what we're thinking about and uh how next time we talk about this um give you a little bit better feel kind of what direction we're going into with some of this think I'll just ask are you looking for a lower threshold across the board or the delegated authorities I can't speak for everyone else but I think I would be a little bit more comfortable with an option or two when it comes to that so that we could discuss that in a way that I think everyone can feel confident and being able to give you the the direction of support you need to

Is that sufficient direction? Yes. Yes? Okay.

I mean, that's where I would be to maintain an RFP for those services to have that practice today.

For my part, I have no objections to the policies that's laid out here, and I would actually add that as somebody who studies human error professionally, I appreciate the interest in getting all those numbers to be the same, because that will avert errors. It will. So that's my perspective on that.

Any further comments on the motion to postpone?

I think for me, what would help me is like-sized municipalities, what their thresholds are, either by budget or by population, to help understand that level. Even if it's retro, like even if we get notification, well, guess what? We have no, you know, say, you know, a notification.

Any further discussion of the motion to postpone? OK. So the motion is to postpone to further consideration to our October 6 meeting. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, that motion carries. And we'll hear about this again on the 6th. Thank you.

Which brings us to item 5.4, consideration of a request to unfreeze and fill the vacant deputy director of parks, recreation, and arts position and approve a related budget amendment. Director Drinke.

Questions for Mr. Drinke? Mr. Whalen? Council Member Singh? Nothing? OK. Oh, well, please make your comments.

I know that Parks Rec and Facilities and Arts has taken a sort of a pretty aggressive cost recovery posture, right, for all sorts of programming. And could you address how that might interact with unfreezing this position?

And sort of a slightly different take on that same question. I think personnel can be investments. Yes. Right, that pay off. And how could that play out here with this position?

Thank you. I would entertain a motion if there's, or Mr. Grigsby, did you have further comments?

No, I'm just, I'm going to be supporting a motion. I just, as Council Member Whalen was saying, since you've got on, I've kind of seen like right when you got on to who you are now, to what you've been doing from my purview, and I'm just really impressed with your leadership, your organization. You just, have your eye on the dial and I see it and respect it and so if This is going to help you be able to even be more sharper. I think this is a great investment I think we'll figure things out and you'll figure things out when it comes to the financial aspect of and I trust the fact that you have

I move to approve a request to unfreeze and fill the vacant deputy director of parks, recreation, and arts position and approve a related budget amendment.

Motion by Singh. Second. Second by Grigsby. Any further discussion of the motion?

I just want to add, he does all that impressive work while completing his master's at GW, right? Oh. Thank god, Brookover's not here. You crushed me. OK.

Any further comments? Okay. Motion is to approve the request to unfreeze and fill the vacant position. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion carries and that request is approved. Thank you. That brings us to item 5.5, consideration of a contract with Hedrick Associates for $594,320 to replace City Hall and Hanna Community Center boilers and pumps with a 10% project contingency for a total authorized amount not to exceed $654,000 and authorize the interim city manager to sign and approve a related budget amendment. Director Dranke.

further questions. He had us all with fuel savings.

So I kind of had to open any question because Councilmember Mark Meadows brought this up in relation to investing in this boulder. I know you're telling us right now that you've got to have this. I understand that. But I'm just curious, generally speaking, about City Hall and kind of really the timeline with that. And this decision tonight I think is we have to do it, but just in general, what are we doing with that? Or is there a plan? Have we talked about that? Am I missing out on kind of what that is? Because I really don't know.

I'm asking. If you're missing out, I'm missing out. So I would ask either the city manager or the director to address that issue. Whoever draws the short straw.

Yeah, I just, other than, I know the previous city manager really wanted, was, you know, and I came in just in November, but I just never understood the urgency with it, so I didn't know if it was a building issue, a capacity issue, or what, but it just, the timing right now doesn't seem very good to be doing something like that in regards to where we're at financially, so I'm just trying to understand You know, I understand the investment tonight and that's what we're talking about, but I just wanted to just throw that out in the air because if that is in fact something that is an initiative,

Understood. I appreciate that. And thank you for entertaining my open-ended questions about that.

I think that was on everybody's mind. It was certainly on mine. And so I'm glad it came up. Okay. Mr. Whelan.

I am of the opinion that we will be investing in Hanna for a long term to keep this building useful. So that feels an easier investment in a boiler system. Now City Hall, there's a lot of questions. Now I recall some of the biggest questions. Yeah, we have lots of folks interested in buying that lot. I'm not sure if any of us would want to give up ownership of that lot. Two, we don't have the money to build a new city hall right now. Three, there were, I know our former city manager talked to MSUFCU downtown to see if there was enough capacity for the city staff there. The challenges with that

Yeah. So, anyway, just wanted to tease out a couple of those things, so...

sign and approve a related budget amendment motion by Whalen second by Singh any further discussion of the motion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that contract is approved thank you thank you it is 9.12 p.m., is there a motion to adjourn? Moved by Singh. Second. Second by Whalen. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you.