Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the East Lansing City Council regular business meeting of Tuesday, October 6th, 2026. The meeting will come to order at 6.30 p.m. Could we have the roll call, please?

Here. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? Second. Motion by Meadows, second by Whalen. Any discussion of the agenda? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Agenda is approved. Is there a motion concerning minutes of previous council meetings?

Motion by Grigsby to approve the regular council meeting minutes of September 22nd, 2026. Second. Second by Singh. Any corrections to those minutes? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes are approved. Communications. All written communications received by council are posted on the online agenda packet. When you email the council account, we get those messages in real time. But then at around 4 p.m. the evening or the afternoon of a business meeting, they're uploaded to the city council agenda packet and become part of the public record. Communications from the audience, a remin

Ms. Kirby, could I ask you to conclude your remarks, please?

Thank you. Nadia Sellers. Okay, not here. Nazita Lajevardi.

Brandon green Brandon green Brandon green So if you want to address any particular issue on the agenda Now would be the time because we don't have a public hearing later today. So if you would like to address Any particular issue, please do so

Thank you. Were there some other slips? Donald Berringer.

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to address the council? Please state your name.

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

Could I ask you to conclude your comments, please? Your time has expired.

Thank you for your comment. Your time has expired. Is there anyone else who would like to address the council? Seeing none, do we have any callers?

Thank you. Are there any further callers?

Okay, that concludes communications from the audience. That brings us to communications from council. Council Member Singh.

I don't have many words this evening, but I do at least want to, I haven't met Mrs. Kirby and other family members in the audience, but again want to extend condolences for the loss of your son. And I know there are no words, only actions. are what's needed. And you know, I will continue to work behind the scenes on some, you know, shared initiatives to seek the outcomes to a more just and better community. Thank you.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem. I echo those thoughts. A lot of what was brought here tonight and the focus of what we should be doing as a council, what I should be doing as a council member. I hear you. I am working. I'm doing everything in my capacity. to address the issues that some of that I've heard tonight and I still look forward to working with the community And getting better and moving into a better direction in regards to those issues That's all I have tonight Thank You mr. Meadows

A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THE IDEA, JUST BRIEFLY, OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION LOSING THEIR RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE. BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN REPEATEDLY STATED IN A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED, HAS THIS LANGUAGE IN IT. The Human Rights Commission shall establish and implement complaint procedures to receive and review complaints alleging violations of Chapter 22, Article 2 of this Code, the Civil Rights Ordinance, hold hearings on such complaints, and make determinations on referring such complaints for mediation or to fed

Thank you. That concludes communications from the council. That brings us to the city manager's report. Ms. Irwin.

Okay. No report from the city attorney. Um, that brings us to item 3.1, a new officer introduction, assistant chief craft.

We're glad you're part of the team. And thank you, Assistant Chief Kraft. And that brings us to the consent agenda.

Okay, would any council member like any items removed from the consent agenda to the business agenda? Mr. Meadows?

Yes, I'd like item 4.9 moved to the business agenda, which is the parking agreement with HBMBM East Lansing.

Okay, I'm going to suggest we move that to become item 5.0, so it will become the first item on the business agenda. Would any other council members like any other items removed from the consent agenda to the business agenda?

Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended?

Moved by Meadows, second by Whalen. Any discussion of the consent agenda as amended? Seeing none, the motion is on the consent agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The consent agenda as amended is approved, which brings us to newly located item 5.0. Approve a parking agreement with HBBM East Lansing 3 LLC for the mixed use development located at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River and authorize the mayor to sign. Director Hodges, Administrator Lacasse, welcome.

Questions for staff? Yeah, of course. Mr. Meadows.

Yeah, I wonder if Brad would talk a little bit about sort of the two things that seem to need some adjustment in the agreement. Why don't I start out? Okay. The provision of 5B, the parking permit fee, access card fee and payment, Here's how it reads. The monthly rate set forth above shall be effective upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project the effective date. I don't think there's any issue regarding that. The monthly rate shall be subject to adjustment beginning one year after the first day of the calendar month after the effective date and annually thereafter Each s

I'm not really saying they're conflicting. I mean we could readjust every year and still add five bucks after every five years. I mean if that's what's intended.

Well, I'm not really keen on us negotiating this at a council meeting. So I think my question really is, is there a way for us to put this off a week? I mean, can we use our discussion-only meeting night to also take action on this particular contract after you've had an opportunity to sit down and develop appropriate language that would reach that result?

No, if there are questions from the council, we will address them to you. Thank you. I have two questions at the moment for the City Attorney. One procedural. Can we take action at a discussion-only meeting under our operating principles?

My other question, I wanted to maybe echo Mr. Meadows' question and reread the sentence. The monthly rate shall be subject to adjustment beginning one year after the first day of the calendar month after the effective date and annually thereafter. When I first read that, I assumed there would be annual adjustments. How am I reading that incorrectly?

Okay, so that sentence could just be deleted?

Mostly a comment. This is substantially different than the last agreement that we reached with the same developers, as I think I mentioned to at least some people. That in our prior agreement with them, there was an annual adjustment of 1.5% or the CPI, whichever was less. And one thing that happens when we do, you know, five bucks every five years, although I do think that needs to be changed from may to shall so that we have five bucks every five years. if we're going to go forward with that number, that we aren't going to keep up with the rate of inflation that's based on the three and four

So the $5 would meet essentially what we did. CPI has been low. So, okay. Got it. Well, I feel more comfortable with the $5 then. You know, I didn't have any background from our earlier conversation with regard to that. So I appreciate that.

A more general question, then, if our rates go up at approximately $5 every five years, how are we keeping up with inflation? Or is that not an issue?

Mr. Whalen. I'm sorry. I was going to ask Carrie a question, which do you have any problem changing that word may to shall?

Any further questions or comments? So I will make a motion. to approve a parking agreement with HBBM East Lansing 3 LLC for the mixed use development located at 401, 421, and 427 East Grand River and authorize the mayor to sign with the following amendment. Paragraph 5B shall read in its entirety, the monthly rate set forth above will be effective upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project open paren quote effective date unquote close paren on the fifth anniversary of the effective date and on each fifth anniversary after that the monthly rate shall be increased by five do

Yeah, we need to take care of the noise problem out there. We're going to take a brief recess.

Okay, after a brief recess, I think we're ready to continue. Mr. Bartley, if you could resume at exactly the thought that you were interrupted at.

Can I answer any questions? Questions for Mr. Bartley?

Mr. Whelan? No. Mr. Meadows? I don't have a question. I have a comment because, you know, we put the moratorium down so we could get something like this. So I appreciate all the work that you've done with regard to this.

Thank you. Anything else? I have a question. Yes. Did you consider an overlay as a mechanism? And the reason I say this is, I'm quoting from the AIR, this is intended to reduce the eligible areas with B2 zoning, but open up possibilities for gas stations closer to existing freeway interchanges, which is where auto service center uses are more appropriate. That seems entirely appropriate. It occurs to me we have this mechanism under the MZEA of overlays. could we adopt an overlay? Would that simplify things?

Any further comments or questions? Council Member Singh.

Just a practical implementation, potentially. I know this is just a vote to refer to Planning Commission tonight, but like it was at Chandler Road, we may get an interchange up there someday. So it would just, if someone wanted to put a gas station up there, it would just have to go through a special permit process, correct?

A rezoning. Okay. I'm interested to see where Planning Commission is at. I mean, that's the only area that comes to mind of potential interest. I don't want to make it more challenging than it necessarily needs to be. So that's my only thought tonight. Thank you.

Sorry, I just wanted to fact check you really quick.

Motion by Whalen. second by Grigsby any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye any opposed that motion carries and that ordinance is introduced and referred thank you which brings us to item 5.2 introduce and refer to the Planning Commission ordinance 1582 a conditional rezoning request from the Commons Church Inc. to rezone a 27.08 acre unaddressed vacant parcel located north of Coleman between West and Coolidge Roads and fronting on both accessed by Coolidge Park Road and with PN number 19-20-50-35-100-104 from B4 restricted office business to RM14 low density multiple family to f

Can I ask for questions? Questions for Mr. Bartley. I would entertain a motion, yes.

I move to introduce and refer to the Planning Commission Ordinance 1582, a conditional rezoning request from the Commons Church Inc. to rezone A, 27.08 acres unaddressed vacant parcel located North of Coleman between West and Coolidge roads in front fronting on both access Coolidge park road and with PN number 19 dash 20 dash 50 dash 35 dash 100 dash one Oh four from before redistrict office business to REM 14, Lodicity, multiple families to facilitate the construction of a religious institution associated with parking with conditions offered by the applicant that would cause such rezoning not

TODD BANDUCCI. Motion by Grigsby, second by Meadows. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, and that ordinance is introduced and referred. And Mr. Mayor, can I make one more quick comment?

Appreciate that, and we're also going to try to push that out, I would think, because I imagine that there could be a high level of interest in that.

Thank you. Item 5.3, consideration of an appeal of a tree removal violation at 2982 Coleman Road. Director Lacasse is here representing this issue.

So just so I understand you correctly, based on where you're at now, there's a possibility that that fine will increase based on more damage that was done. Is that correct? It's possible, yes.

opportunity to respond to revised findings motion by Whelan second by Meadows I have a question for the appellant mr. green who's here you could step to the podium are you the owner of this parcel I'm not the owner of record I'm a partner with with the owner Who is the owner of Record?

That's the name of an individual? Yes. Could you spell the last name?

Okay, thank you. And where can we reach the owner?

If you could address that to the city manager, I think that would be helpful, the address of the owner.

Thank you for your answer. Okay, so there is a motion before us to postpone action on the appeal. Moved by Will and seconded by Meadows. Any further discussion of the motion? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries and that appeal is postponed. I have a question. We did not postpone to a date certain.

Do we need, question for the city attorney, do we need a date?

We just voted, right? I move to reconsider the motion. Motion by Altman, second by Meadows to reconsider. If we adopt the motion to reconsider, then we are at the point where we're about to make the motion. All those in favor of the motion to reconsider, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK, the motion to reconsider carries. I would offer an amendment and ask for unanimous consent that we postpone action on the appeal to November 17th, 2026. Are there any objections to that amendment to the motion? I just have a clarification. Yes.

We weren't wiping it off. I think we were postponing action on the appeal.

And so the motion stands now as amended to postpone action until November 17, 2026. That's fine. Any discussion of that motion as amended? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion to postpone to November 17th is adopted. Which brings us to consideration of item 5.4, consideration of resolutions 2026-55, 2026-56, 2026-57, 2026-58, and 2026-59, establishing revised finance department policies. We have Mr. Torek and Mr. Geiger back. Thank you gentlemen.

Questions concerning that one. I do have a question. The QBS method that you removed, did that solve problems for us? Would it have solved problems for us?

The question was whether removing the, it was the QBS method, do I have that correct?

Qualification-based selection, does removing that as an explicitly numerated option, does that complicate your lives or fail to simplify your lives?

And could you use that process even if it's not articulated in the policy?

Okay, without additional cost of staff time? Okay, all right. That was my main question on that particular policy. Other questions concerning this is procurement, right? Correct. Dash 55. Any other questions concerning that one? Mr. Whalen? Okay, please continue.

Questions concerning delegation of authority?

I think I was absent for this discussion. But this is an increase in the capability of the city manager to sign a contract without it coming to us. Correct. Can you just quickly go over how we came to the 50 grand?

Yeah. So for me, at the last meeting, this was one of the things I was focused on, as you know, because of just the significant jump from 20,000 to 50,000. And the comparisons really helped me be able to understand it a little bit better as far as how you looked around, so I appreciate you doing that. This is not really a hill that, you know, I'm willing to, like, you know, if the majority of council is comfortable with that number, I'm also comfortable with that number if the council feels that that's too big of a jump. They want to talk about that. But I just wanted to put my point in there

Yeah. And I appreciate the comparables, even though population sizes are a little bit of a hodgepodge, but it gave us a little bit of a sense, um, where other communities were at. Um, one question, uh, well, I just want to be clear because verbally you say, um, I think you just stated that, um, anything that is unbudgeted for would come before council. Correct.

And that would continue. Correct. That practice would continue. And does that need to be explicitly written in the policies? Because I'm not sure if it's in there.

Yeah, because I noticed that in one of your comparables, too, they kind of know unbudgeted items always come forth. So that would be a recommendation I would want to see. And then I guess the other, looking at the contract threshold, if the If these turn into multi-year deals, like a 50K continuation, does that change anything?

The city manager would just be able to sign contracts even if it's an extension of a current contract beyond the 50K. Or if it's a six-month deal for 50K and then another six-month deal for 50K.

Now you made me curious about the internal contract policy beyond what we're looking at.

Okay. All right, those were my questions on this segment of issues.

Well, so we could move forward with the policies as presented. We could also ask for further changes. Would you care to make a motion, Councilmember Singh?

Well, I do have another topic I did not bring up the other week.

So I did not, and forgive me, I did not catch this question when we last, when you were last before us. And that's on the prevailing wage, requiring prevailing wage or projects. We're lifting that cap from 20K today to 50K. And did we talk to any stakeholders on this? like building trades or any unions we may work with?

This would be another area that I'm uncomfortable lifting the cap to 50K. You know, I'm prevailing wage from the current day 20. I like to keep that the same. Now more than ever, people need to make a solid wage. So that would be my only other issue that I wanted to bring up on this topic.

So then I have a question about how we want to proceed with the unbudgeted language.

could we thinking about how to proceed with the non-budgeted issue is that something that if we adopted these policies tonight you could bring us a revision to just that one at some point in the future yes and if it's clear we could maybe well we could put on business but we also potentially put on consent um Okay, so I would entertain a motion concerning approval.

Any further discussion with the context that sounds like we can expect a change to the one policy concerning the non budgeted item at a future

Yeah, just discussion on the motion on the floor. You know, I'm going to be voting against it because I'm not comfortable with lifting the prevailing wage cap. I do appreciate you revisiting the language in the future and some of the other changes that are presented. So thank you. But I'm going to go on a no vote on this.

Just so I'm clear on the procedure, so we're voting tonight, and then at a later date, we will be discussing that issue that Councilmember Singh is concerned about? Yep. And that would be something that we would vote again for an amendment to that?

That would be an additional amendment to delegate an authority to enumerate a requirement that unbudgeted contracts come to council.

And just as far as that timeline of that process, how does that work?

So I would support it tonight as long as we know that that's coming back to the forefront of the discussion.

If we want, we can make a separate motion to direct staff to draft that amendment and put it on a future meeting. We could do that after this motion passes. Any further discussion of this motion? Mr. Meadows?

Yeah, I just can confess, as I listened to Councilmember Singh's comments, I'm concerned about the $50,000 I guess, floor on the prevailing wage in the community after our hearing that this is really going to only apply then to a very small number of contracts out there. One of the things that I think we've stuck with over a long period of time is our insistence that our agreements have prevailing wage associated with it. So I'm wondering whether we can separate this question, this motion, to have a separate vote on the prevailing wage policy from the other policies. I think there's a bunch of

Okay, I'll move an amendment to remove the words over $50,000 in the prevailing wage policy explanation as part of that policy.

Question. Would that be, so prevailing wage would apply to any contract?

So you wouldn't have concerns about a $10 contract or something that requires a prevailing wage?

Okay, motion to remove the words over $50,000 from the pervading wage policy for the City of East Lansing. Motion by Meadows, second by Singh. Any discussion of that motion? Mr. Whelan?

Do we have examples? Do we have more examples that might inform our thinking about this? Is there anything Director Lacoste could add to this conversation?

Thank you. Any further questions or any further discussion on the motion to amend? Okay, seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Mayor Altman? No. So that motion carries, three votes to two. We are now returning to the main motion as amended, which is the entire set of policies. Any further discussion of that motion?

That was my understanding. Any further discussion of the motion concerning all the policies? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries and those policies are approved. All right, thank you. That brings us to item 5.5, consideration of police use of force and de-escalation policies. Lieutenant Steeman and Assistant Chief Kreft.

Questions? I don't have a question about the policy itself, but, you know, there was comments at the microphone this evening. I can't remember whether you were in the room or not, but it seemed as though I need to know a little bit about the process and procedure and how this came to us. In other words, did the group that developed the policy unanimously asked that this be the policy that be approved.

That's what I'm asking. Yes. So even though there was somebody on the – committee that came to the microphone to sound like she was objecting to the policy. It was a unanimous decision to forward these policies for our consideration. Correct. Thank you.

further questions Mr. Grigsby yeah I just have some comments about this whole process into where we're at here today so forgive me if I go a little bit long on that but so I want to acknowledge the sustained work of LEPOC on this issue I know that they have uh, advocated for a lot in what they stand for. And I think this aspect of this policy and the collaboration that was ultimately done with our community members, city attorney, city manager leadership, And a lot of the diligent work also by my colleague councilmember Singh she Was integral part of the urgency behind what we're doing here to

Thank you. Questions concerning that, Mr. Whalen?

Further questions? Council Member Singh.

I just want to take a moment, again, to thank you both for the time. You mentioned the four meetings with the LAPOC policy subcommittee regarding these policies. I also want to thank our city attorney for the time as well. I think, you know, This, just as we went through finance policy on the agenda item prior to this, I think it's important as you are required to maintain your certification to do policy review every three years. And I think it's an important process that, and I know I mentioned to you the Costco parking lot, how much I appreciated your listening posture through the meetings,

I'm going to move to approve and adopt both updated policies and authorize the Chief of Police to sign and implement the policies.

Motion by Meadows. Second. Second by Singh. Discussion? Mr. Whalen.

I'll just respond. You know, under our charter, we have the authority to approve all policies. And I think this is a unique situation because we're addressing an issue within our community that has been consistent over many, many months in front of us. And in the past, we have not approved police policies, but we've always had the authority to do that. And I think we have the authority to approve all policies of all departments if we choose to do so. So even though this is a departure and maybe one of the only times we actually do this involving police activity, I think it was important for us

Any further questions or discussion? Mr. Whalen.

This is what it's all about. I think this is why we were elected. We have had a historical challenge in our community. We've had multiple incidents where we are here as council members as the top policymakers in the city. And I know that I respect what you're saying. I know where you're coming from. And I don't want to be in a situation where we're not letting staff do staff things and set their own priorities and mandates and being respectful of that process. But at the end of the day, you have a unique situation where we have an opportunity to have a positive impact. And really what makes th

Mr. Meadows? I have a question. With this vote, does this effectively remove the authority from the chief to change policy?

The reason I ask is the language of the motion indicated authorize the police chief to sign. Does that language imply that the police chief needs our authority to sign a policy? Affirm.

So if there was a need that the chief perceived sometime in the future, months or years, to make a policy change, the chief could make that change and enact it and distribute it to the officers without having to bring it back to us for approval?

So nothing in the vote we're about to take, if the motion is adopted, would require the chief to bring future policy changes to the council?

Is that something you're interested in, Mayor?

Any further discussion? I'll just add that this is a big win, and I won't want to go on at length. I think that Mayor Patem put it eloquently. I think a lot of stakeholders came together, bridged some divides, had some really productive communication. It sounds like it was a lot of work. I think our attorneys were a central part of that, so I want to thank Mr. Young, but also I think Ms. Sachetal was involved and Ms. Patel. multiple perspectives we had their input so I think that's a great outcome any additional discussion all right we've got a motion before us all those in favor say aye aye a

Motion by Grigsby, second by Whalen. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned at 9.09 p.m.