Call this meeting of City Commission order.

It sounds like we almost uttered our moment of silence earlier there.

But um we do like to start our meetings with a moment of silence, so please join us.

Please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation, another God, individual liberty justice for the clerk, if you could call the role, and while you're doing that, if your interpreter could come up, um well, you're close enough.

I'll let you go first.

Um just explain your role in Spanish uh since in English everyone knows if there's anyone here who needs translation um services into this uh of what we're saying into the Spanish language.

Um interpretaciona sta disponible butnol, por favor.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Commissioner Belchuk.

Present.

Commissioner Purdue.

Present.

Commissioner Sasi.

Present.

Commissioner Robbins.

Present.

Commissioner Knight.

President Commissioner Kilgore, Mayor LeGrand.

Present.

Um, and that moves us into public comments on agenda items.

So anyone who wants to talk to uh uh speak to items that are on the agenda, uh please keep your comments uh focused on the agenda itself.

And also uh there's a three-minute timer that's up here, so we'll keep we'll ask you to abide by that three minute time.

I don't want to have to interrupt you, so keep an eye on the timer.

Thanks.

Hello, I'm D.

Jones.

Happy 2026, everybody.

Feel like I should be the first person to speak because I like to take initiative.

Uh I would like to speak on Fiscal Committee Resolution 5, which is the city of GRK developing arts and culture strategy.

So, as you guys know, I brought the largest regional finals in the entire United States here uh to our city, uh to the divorce place, and I've actually uh got an opportunity to develop a camp.

I've actually created and developed the culture around gaming and esports.

Uh a lot of people know the city for beer and furniture, but our city is also known globally because of me for esports and gaming.

So, as you guys are developing these strategies and speaking about arts and culture, as you guys probably don't know, but the gaming industry is two times larger than the film and music industry combined.

That means you could combine every song, every production, every TV station that every TV show that you sit there and spend your time on, and it's two times the revenue.

So gaming is very, very huge.

And I've already known this, and I am the sole pioneer that has put years and years and years and years of advocacy into uh our community.

Also, uh just yesterday, Union High School just received their video game consoles uh for their esports lab.

So we actually are going to have full-fledged esports teams for our community around our uh city, and so the infrastructure is growing, the ecosystem is growing.

I helped build literally the ecosystem, the infrastructure.

We will literally have no gaming or no educational advancement uh at this capacity without D.

Jones' leadership.

So as you guys think about strategy across Kent County, I saw as I am the person, the sole person who organized this who's seen this uh since 2018 and literally brought the largest regional finals to the U, the Voss Place.

Uh, I would like for you guys to potentially have D.

Jones be a part of this.

I'd like to be able to give some feedback or figure out how I can give some feedback and you guys a strategy for arts and cartridge because there is literally nobody in the community that did it big as me, and nobody's going to do it as big as me uh this 2026 as we had 39 schools at the divorce place, uh, only at 50% capacity.

So I look to see Betsy DeVoss this year and speak to her about public education.

Thank you.

And if you could give us your name and and where you live, that'd be great.

Um my name's Josh.

I'd like to withhold my address.

This is the threats that have been made against me.

Can you narrow it down for us?

US Michigan.

Okay.

County.

I'm here to ask you to vote against the proposed noise ordinance.

The proposed ordinance is unlawful on two counts.

First, it violates the law of God.

God has said you shall not murder.

The facility, this ordinance is designed to protect us committing mass murder by abortion.

The proposed ordinance is sinful.

Second, the proposed ordinance violates the first amendment.

There is case law precedence for what are called time, place, and manner restrictions.

However, the Supreme Court has put forth three criteria that need to be met.

It is doubtful this proposed ordinance satisfies any of the criteria.

Further, Supreme Court Justiny Anthony Kennedy points out that it must also be neutral with respect to the viewpoint from which the message is made.

Professor of law and a First Amendment specialist Kevin O'Neill points out that a restriction does not only count as discriminating against the content of a message if it explicitly states as much, but also if the circumstances surrounding it reveal that the government is targeting a particular message.

This point about circumstances helps us to address the obvious elephant in the room.

This proposed ordinance targets a particular message of a specific group of Christians at a specific location where abortions occur.

This is clear from local news reports, comments by the police chief, comments by city attorney Phil Strom.

It is also clear in many of the comments made at the last committee meeting and on social media, which focused on the content of the message and the viewpoint from which it was made.

These circumstances reveal that the proposed ordinance is not neutral with respect to the content or viewpoint of the particular message it is designed to restrict.

The third Supreme Court criteria is that the proposed ordinance must leave open alternative ways for speakers who are being restricted, restricted to communicate their message to their intended audience.

This proposed ordinance fails this criteria that this proposed ordinance fails this criteria is entailed by its being a form of ableism, meaning the proposed ordinance privileges able-bodied individuals to the discrimination of others.

Under the restriction, those who are able to project their voices naturally may still be able to communicate their message.

However, in many cases, those whose bodies are not able to do this will be left without ample alternative to communicate their message to their intended audience, especially as they compete with noise, the noise from cars and other things outside that facility to get their message heard.

In contrast, I might add the already existing noise ordinance allows such individuals to be heard by the use of voice amplification.

I think you guys, God bless you.

Good morning.

Tammy Rockford.

My name is Tammy, and I respectfully ask that you vote against the proposed noise ordinance.

During earlier discussions, it was noted that time, place, and manner restrictions under the First Amendment must satisfy three criteria established by the Supreme Court.

I want to draw your attention to the nature of many public comments supporting this ordinance, as they raise serious concerns about whether these standards are being met.

First, any such ordinance must be content and viewpoint neutral.

As Justice Thurgood Marshall stated, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

Many complaints offered in support of this ordinance appear to focus not on volume or disruption, but on the message or beliefs of the individual speaking on Cherry Street.

When objections are aimed at ideology or speech content, they create circumstantial evidence that the ordinance is not being proposed in a content neutral manner.

For example, at a prior meeting, a speaker stated they use their own amplification device to drown out what they described as quote hate speech from the Christian speakers.

That comment directly targets the content of the speech, further reinforcing concerns about viewpoint discrimination.

Second, the ordinance must meaningfully advance the government interest it is meant to serve.

However, many complaints offered in support of this proposal, such as allegations about yelling, personal character, whether speakers are paid, or other non-amplified conduct, are not addressed by the ordinance at all.

This disconnect suggests the ordinance may be inadequate to remedy the concerns being cited in its favor.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge you all to consider the nature of the public comments in support of this proposal and to vote against the ordinance.

I also ask that you honor Jesus in your decision today.

And I want to remind you of Hebrews 413.

Nothing in all of creation is hidden from God.

Not from his sight.

Everything is going to be uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account.

And that day is coming soon.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

God bless you.

Amen.

Stephen Nylon, proud citizen of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

I love this city.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

Thank you for your service to our city.

My name is Chaplain Stephen Nylon.

I'm a full-time neighbor, street preacher, and Iraq war veteran who cares deeply about peace, lawful order, and the freedoms that allow diverse community to live together.

After listening to the most recent public comments, I refute 72 distinct statements made by speakers.

Roughly 70% of those objections were not about measurable noise or decibels.

They were objections to the content of speech and the character of those speaking.

Only about 30% dealt with volume.

I don't share that to dismiss anybody's experience.

I share it because when the majority of complaints are against what is being said rather than how to regulate the volume, there is a real risk that policy may punish lawful protected speech and expose the city to unnecessary risk, legally and financial expenses.

And when frustration leads to inflated or false complaints to police, that hurts public trust and puts officers in a difficult position.

For many of us, the speech being restricted is not harassment or provocation, it's the proclamation of the gospel.

The good news that Jesus came to save sinners to forgive, restore, bring hope through his life, death, and resurrection.

Christians don't spread this message by force, but through truth, compassion, conversation, and mercy ministry, meeting people exactly where they're at and walking with them.

Public rights of way, even outside of medical facilities have always been places where protected speech is allowed.

Existing laws already allow the city to address unreasonable noise, harassment, obstruction, or unlawful behavior.

Regulation can be reasonable if nailer nailer narrowly tailored, but removing amplified speech altogether is blatantly unconstitutional.

As professionals, we already work within the law, measure 100 feet, ensure we're staying in the conversational volume, though not perfect, and we've not been found breaking the law.

We value, welcome, and enjoy cooperation with law enforcement, our community, and you as our elected leaders.

My appeal is simple.

Grand Rapids thrives not by silencing voices, but by protecting them.

Equally, lawfully and respectfully, I urge you to vote no on this unconstitutional ordinance.

Keep public rights of way open for robust expression, maintain content neutral, measurable standards, protect the right not only to speak, but for people to hear.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your genuine care for this city.

May your decision honor the God who made you and who offers forgiveness and reconciliation through Jesus.

I respect each one of you.

I love each one of you.

This really is a city that champions in this melting pot of diversity, and every single voice matters.

Um, especially that they not only use our voice, but with reasonable amplification.

Thank you so much.

I love you all.

God bless you.

Amen.

Hello, my name is Matthew.

I am from Rockford.

I'm asking you to vote against the proposed ordinance, the same one which we've all been speaking about.

It was stated earlier that time, place, and manner restrictions of First Amendment rights must satisfy Supreme Court criteria.

I touch on the second criteria.

For sake of argument, I assume the ordinance is content neutral, even though I think it is not.

The second criteria is that this proposed ordinance must be tailored to serve a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without the ordinance.

This brings up the question: what is the exact goal of this proposed noise ordinance?

If the goal is simply to limit sound level, then there is already an ordinance achieving that end without this proposed ordinance.

Further, even if this ordinance is passed, one could just move down the road and make the same level of sound within the same distance of the same residents making noise complaints.

Further still, there are individuals capable of projecting their voice without amplification to similar volumes that the current noise ordinance already limits amplification to.

For these reasons, if the goal is to limit sound level, then the proposed ordinance does not adequately serve that government interest.

If the goal of the proposed ordinance is to establish peace and quiet in the neighborhood, so-called, then the ordinance would not adequately serve that government interest for the same reasons just stated.

For assuming its content neutrality, the ordinance only targets amplification of sound level.

Thus, it would have to be the case, the neighborhood's peace and quiet is compromised by the mere level of sound.

But again, there's already a noise ordinance.

The same level of amplified sound in the same neighborhood could still be made, and individuals can achieve a level similar or similar level of sound by naturally projecting their voices.

If the goal of the proposed ordinance is something like safety or privacy, again, so-called, then it is not clear how the ordinance achieves that.

For that would implicitly assume people's so-called safety or privacy is compromised by mere sound level.

Because if it is threatened by something else, then the ordinance would not be adequate.

For assuming its content neutrality, it only targets amplification of sound.

But of course, it is an absurd notion to say people's safety or privacy is compromised by the mere level of sound that is within the already existing noise ordinance.

Further, even if we grant this absurd notion, the proposed ordinance, as stated earlier, fails to adequately serve the government interest of limiting sound level.

The elephant in the room is that not only does the proposed ordinance fail to adequately serve government interest, but would actually conflict with the government interest.

Namely, the protection of its pre-born citizens being murdered at the facility's ordinance is designed to protect.

This ordinance is sinful, and forgiveness of sin can be found in Jesus Christ alone.

God bless you.

My name is Dean Lantinga, and I'm a sinner saved by grace through the redemption of Jesus Christ.

And I will read what I have for efficiency.

So I've lived my whole life in Grand Rapids and have lived nearly 30 years in Heritage Hill.

I spend time on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood every week and have for years.

I have two things to say.

First, I have a concern that this proposed noise ordinance, if passed, will be challenged and litigated.

That of course will use up city resources.

I know you care about how money is spent.

With what with that said, you need to consider the cost to defend this ordinance if you pass it.

Second, I will talk also about the second criteria in the time, place, and manner restrictions.

The Supreme Court says that the second criteria requires the noise ordinance to be narrowly tailored to promote a substantial government in interest.

I think this proposal fails the meaning of narrowly tailored.

First Amendment specialist Kevin O'Neill, writing for the Free Speech Center of Middle Tennessee State University.

Explains that part of what is meant by narrowly tailored is that a restriction cannot make a broad-ranging categorical ban of traditional methods of expressive activity.

He list parades, demonstrations, and leaflets as examples.

This is significant because voice amplification is itself a traditional method of expressive activity, going back a very long time.

And the proposed ordinance makes a broad-ranging categorical categorical ban on voice amplification, not the required narrow ranging ban given by the Supreme Court.

For almost 100 years, people in America have used loud speakers to communicate the religious messages in public.

In 1948, the New York government tried to restrict the use of loud speakers for religious purposes, but in the say verse New York case, the Supreme Court ruled that people had the constitutional right to use loudspeakers.

The proposed ordinance is a ban on this traditional method of expressive activity.

In sum, I believe the proposed ordinance fails the second Supreme Court criteria for time, place, and manner restrictions.

Thank you.

Amen.

Good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Hallie Schneiders, and I live here in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

I am here to oppose the noise ordinance because it completely goes against the First Amendment.

Free speech is a constitutional right.

And by putting a noise ordinance in place, you're not only taking that right away, but you're also taking the opportunity away to share the gospel with people in need, the opportunity to share about God.

Uh that he extends to us so much grace continuously, even though we sin, and the possibility of saving the life of an unborn child.

And we need to continue to share the gospel and share that there is forgiveness and grace for everyone, no matter how small that life is.

Every life is a blessing from God.

I want to share part of your my testimony with you all today, uh, because I feel like that has a greater impact on why we're all out here today speaking up against this.

I am a child of God, and sadly, I was conceived through rape.

Just because I was conceived through rape, it does not mean that I'm not a human being.

It doesn't mean that in my mother's womb I was not a human being.

And I deserve life just like all of you do in this room today.

That does not give anyone the right to kill an unborn child.

And even though it's a horrific act, I deserve to live today.

I want to stand up for the voiceless because by going out there every day, having Stephen go out there and preach on the corner, having Jordan go out and preach on the corner, they are giving women an opportunity to turn away and come into the loving arms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

People have said many things about me being a victim of rape, that I shouldn't live, that I don't deserve to live.

Um, and I want to be on that corner, being able to preach through the windows and sharing the gospel for those moms that don't think they have an option other than abortion.

They have so much grace to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and that baby inside their womb deserves to live just as much as I do, and just as much as you all do.

Thank you so much for letting me speak today.

I appreciate all of your decisions and Jesus loves all of you.

Thank you.

Amen.

That's hard to follow up.

Um, commissioners.

My name is Megan Chapkis, co-founder of Mending Broken Wings, a nonprofit focused on child protective services and foster care reform.

Family preservation and government accountability.

I'm here today regarding the proposed amendment to the city's noise ordinance that would ban amplified sound devices, such as mega megaphones or speakers within a hundred feet of hospitals and clinics, including outside Planned Parenthood and other medical facilities.

I recognize the city's interest in addressing noise complaints and ensuring public peace.

However, this proposal raises significant constitutional concerns, because it could restrict reasonable forms of peaceful protest and advocacy in public spaces.

A core aspect of the First Amendment.

Free speech prote uh protections extend to expressive conduct like protests and demonstrations, and to any limits on amplification must be narrowly tailored, so they do not become a prior restraint on speech.

Policies that treat sound amplification near specific facilities as a separate category, risk creating a content-based or viewpoint-based restriction, even if unintentionally.

When people feel unheard by systems, including families impacted by CPS issues, public protest and peaceful advocacy are often their most visible tools for raising awareness and seeking reform.

Restricting those tools could unintentionally silence voices that need to be heard.

I encourage the commission to consider alternatives that protect patient access and quiet without unnecessarily burdening constitutional rights, such as clear time, place, and manner rules that are content neutral and applied fairly.

Grand Rapids has the opportunity to lead with both compassion and constitutional integrity.

Thank you for your time and service.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Jeff.

I am a sinner saved by grace, a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and one of the street preachers who use sound amplification.

As my friends have rightly argued, this ordinance has no legal basis to stand on.

They have shown more broadly why the reasons given failed to meet the constitutional requirements for a time, place, and man restriction.

Namely that it must be content neutral, narrowly tailored to a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

What I want to do today is more narrow.

I want to respond directly to the pre-ordinance or the pro-ordinance assertions made at the last meeting, because when examined closely, they are not objections to amplification, but to the content of the speech being amplified.

Assertion one, they yell at me.

This objection is not about amplification.

Yelling can occur with or without a device, and amplification actually reduces the need to yell.

Banning amplifiers does not address yelling at all, which means this objection fails narrow tailoring.

And because yelling itself is lawful and necessarily depends on what is being yelled and therefore fails content neutrality.

Assertion two.

I don't think it fringes on anyone's right to protest.

Everyone would still have that right under how this is written.

The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but the right to speak effectively.

The Supreme Court addressed this directly in Sale versus New York, quoting that, quote, loud speakers are today indispensable instruments of effective public speech.

Unquote.

Prohibiting amplification therefore removes a recognized mode of expression and fails the requirement that the ordinance leave open ample alternative channels for communication.

Research and three.

I find the amplification quite intimidating.

No explanation was given for why amplification itself is intimidating.

Amplification merely amplifies sounds, specifically our voices, so that our speech can be heard.

What is being described as intimidating, then is not the device, but the speech being conveyed.

This objection, therefore fails content neutrality.

Assertion four.

They are harassing individual patients.

If harassment is occurring, there are already laws that address it.

What is being labeled harassment here is simply speech some people do not want to hear, which is not content neutral.

And because harassment can occur with or without amplification, banning amplifiers does nothing to address it.

This objection, therefore, f for fails both content neutrality and narrow tailoring.

Amplifiers do not harass people do.

As we have seen, complaints about yelling, intimidation, harassment, appeals to subjective emotional reactions, or attempts to suppress the mode of expression are not legal grounds for this ordinance.

None of these objections meet the constitutional requirements for a restricting amplification.

Passing this ordinance would expose the city to the same legal consequences it faced the last time it attempted to ban amplification, wasting taxpayer time and money.

I urge you to be wise, to act lawfully, and to honor God in your decisions.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Amen.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Commissioner, staff, fellow citizens.

Again, my name is Daniel Scott, 31-year resident of the city.

But my real identity is I'm a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

All we are wanting to accomplish here today is to save precious babies' lives.

Children's lives are being torn apart, limb by limb, as my t-shirt depicts.

Would it not be wise for each one of you to come out to 425 East Cherry while my brothers and sisters are out there proclaiming truth and see for yourself what actually is going on?

My brother who's going to speak next.

No, at the end.

He reports that they've saved 50 precious babies' lives.

I remind you that it's a blood cult at 425 East Cherry.

One hundred babies on average.

Slaughtered.

As my t-shirt depicts, every week.

Every week, our fellow citizens are being murdered.

Mayor LeGrand and Commissioners.

Are any of you receiving money from Planned Parenthood?

I know this is a common practice around the country.

I hope not.

If you are, according to the Holy Scriptures, you are an accomplice to murder.

Holy Scriptures declare no murderer can inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Standing before Almighty God one day and explain to him why you passed this ordinance that might be saving lives.

President Trump, he has withheld federal funds from universities and other entities for this sort of kind of amendment.

Are you willing and prepared to do that?

Because if this law passes, I will inform his administration.

He will probably find out anyway.

Suffer the consequences.

Once again, also being done there.

Please consider this.

Amen.

Esteemed members of the Council, I am sincerely grateful for your work in this city.

God has given you the task of overseeing the flourishing of our wonderful community, and when I see the exceptional quality of Grand Rapids, I want you to know that you have done a wonderful job.

And so I do give sincere thanks to you.

Your work often goes without thanks, especially on days like today when you have two different religious worldviews that are debating against one another, and you find yourselves in the unfortunate situation of being put between the two of them.

And on the other side, we have a secular religion that seeks the justice for only some.

And I suspect that most of you did not receive any religious training before taking your honored posts that you have right now.

And so I suspect you would not want to be uh in this debate.

So let me help by clarifying this vote for you.

The proper motivation is equal justice under the law.

This is your responsibility given by God's law, but this is also the responsibility given to you under the Constitution.

And the proposal before you may be masked under neutral language, yet it unfairly restrains the rights of a select group of people in favor of the select group of another group of people.

And we've seen how our opponents have used neutral language as a way to hide their intent.

Our Planned Parenthood, the group that our opponents seek to give undue favor to, they are not sincerely interested in parenthood at all.

They prevent parenthood by murdering those who are the most vulnerable members of our community, the unborn.

And so we as Christians are here to be a voice for the voiceless.

Planned Parenthood also masks itself as a health care group.

But again, this their purpose is not for the flourishing of people's health and lives.

They exist to end lives.

So despite the neutral language, they are not rightly a healthcare service.

Yeah, you may know the history where the last proposal that was like this was entertained by the esteemed council.

Uh, it came before this body, and uh a lawsuit was brought against you.

And the result of the council's own acknowledgement was that this was an unlawful restriction of freedoms.

And so if you're looking for a simple answer for the vote today, you have already given the answer to yourselves in the past.

And I ask you to listen to your own wisdom in the past.

Please vote no.

Save yourselves and the citizens of this city, the legal hassle of a lawsuit by the abuse of authority.

And please do this and maintain the gratitude of the citizens who seek justice and peace.

Amen.

Hello, my name is Zafire, and I am from West Michigan.

I come in the name of Jesus, and I'm a citizen.

Oh, yeah, I already said I'm a citizen of West Michigan.

So I just come to say that it would be in your best interest and of the people of Grand Rapids to vote against the proposed noise amendment we've been talking about, especially since it's zones is specifically targeted against places like hospitals, medical facilities, including Planned Parenthood.

To stop the amplification within a hundred feet or more would mean stopping free counseling and resources, which would be doing be doing a disservice to the community and more specifically the people of Grand Rapids.

The words spoken by most of these people using amplification outside these clinics are life-giving.

Um, I don't know if you guys have ever heard what has been spoken by the people who use amplification, but personally I've been there, and I've been one of those people speaking to those, more specifically women, because it's women going to most of the time going to these Planned Parenthood uh facilities.

But we tell them like you don't have to um end like that precious babies' lives.

Like we can help you.

You don't have to do this alone.

And um, we give them resources, even um, even a friendship.

Um, you know, some of these women are really alone and they have nowhere else to go, and and it's just like just so like heartwarming for these women to know like people are there, um, and maybe they're coming, and you know we can't go past um we can't go on the land of wherever like planned parenthood is because that's private property.

So that's why it's good that we use amplification because um we can reach those people like that really um are just seeking help.

They think like planned parenthood is really their last option because they don't know what else to do with um a child um or a baby.

So um, yeah, and when these women, when these have these women have these abortions, I know this from um other um women in my life's life.

Um, they say there's such trauma that happens not only um physically but also um in their mind.

So when we are ending our when we're trying to stop um these life-giving words and these this help to get to the women, we're s we're encouraging and allowing more of a way for these women to be traumatized, and then when these women are traumatized, sometimes they get lead to drugs, and then when they lead to drugs, they get addicted, and then you see them out in the streets, and then that will cause more of a homeless problem.

And then that's just one example of the many problems that could happen if we um and uh we try to stop the inflication of life-giving words.

Um yeah, so that's why I just really come to say uh, even as a woman, I endorse what these men of God have been saying, and these women of God have been saying because um I know you might think we're the men are biased because they're men, but no, as a woman, um, I don't see their they're biased.

I see that they have a heart not only for um the people of this community for the babies, but also for women, and so yeah, thank you for your time.

I know you guys have a lot of hard decisions to make, and I pray God helps you choose wisely.

Thank you.

Lance Elliott Griffin, Kent County.

Hello, Mr.

Mayor and Commissioners.

There had to be somebody to speak in favor of this, right?

That's not me.

This proposal, while presented as a neutral noise rule, is not neutral in its impact.

It directly targets peaceful pro-life advocates who have long stood outside facilities like Planned Parenthood to offer prayer information and compassionate alternatives to abortion.

These are not shouts of hate, they are voices of hope, offering help to women in crisis and speaking for the unborn who have no voice of their own.

The First Amendment protects our right to free speech in the public square, especially on matters of profound moral and public concern, like the sanctity of life.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to use amplified sound for protected speech, even near sensitive locations, as long as the restriction is content neutral, narrowly tailored, and leaves uh open ample alternative channels of communication.

This is uh the hundred-foot rule ban fails that test completely.

Um it's tr it is triggered by the location of a clinic, not by the actual volume or time of day.

It creates a floating buffer zone that silences one side of a vital debate while allowing ordinary conversation to continue.

A city in New York implemented a ban that said the chief of police must approve your bullhorns before you can go out and protest.

The Supreme Court struck it down because the ban allowed the police chief to deny permits, creating an unconstitutional prior restraint uh on free speech under the first and fourteenth amendments.

Saya versus New York established that while governments can regulate the time, place, and manner of speech, they cannot give officials absolute power to censor speech before it even occurs.

This this ordinance does not solve a citywide problem.

It addresses complaints focused almost entirely on one facility and one viewpoint by singling out amplified speech near clinics.

It will be struck down as a unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

It will invite costly lawsuits that the city can ill afford.

Will be a waste of our tax dollars for you to pursue uh this, knowing that that's going to happen.

All to suppress speech that some find uncomfortable.

Let's not set a precedent that muzzles citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

Please reject this proposal and protect the voices of those who speak for the voiceless.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

My name's Cal Zastro.

I'm from Bay County.

And three quick points here.

Uh number one is there's a federal holiday.

I'm I'm here to speak in opposition to the noise ordinance, the proposed one.

Next week is a federal holiday, a big one, one of my favorites, on the 20th.

I'm not allowed to ask you any questions, but nod your head if you know that it's Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, federal holiday, okay.

And it was John Adams said it, but Martin Luther King echoed it, and he lived for it.

He said, injustice tolerated anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

And if we tolerate the injustice of protecting one particular business, planned parenthood, and the injustice they do to pre-born children.

That's a threat to justice everywhere.

John Adams said it, but MLK.

He said it and he was murdered for it.

He was martyred for it because he spoke out and he lived against injustice against a people group.

Now, let me point out the instructions you have here.

Just a reminder, I'm not telling you anything new, but I'm just reminding you in your expected meeting procedures under point four.

It says the city's human right ordinance prohibits discrimination against any individual in the exercise of civil rights.

It goes and lists a bunch of stuff and says, Height or weight.

As you heard earlier, a hundred s a hundred children, a hundred human beings with fingers and toes and eyeballs and heartbeats.

They're small, their height and their weight are smaller than yours and I, ours.

Their level of functioning is not developed yet.

They're pre-born children, but they're just as human as you and I are.

And they're being fatally discriminated against.

And some of us will speak up for the injustice that's done to them.

Friends, neighbors, city council members and staff, this is not a noise ordinance just to try and keep things smooth.

Let's see this for what it is.

This is a legal maneuver that cities all across America that have planned parenthoods are introducing.

It's a cookie cutter thing trying to silence free speech and amplified speech, trying to protect Planned Parenthoods.

I'd invite you to vote no against this ordinance.

Thank you.

Amen.

Good afternoon.

My name is Russ Clymey, and I happen to be, I think the resident in the room that lives closest to 425.

I live at 505 Charity.

Four buildings away and have since 2018.

So I I second ward.

I appreciate uh Commissioner Knight, Commissioner Yassi, appreciate you too.

Uh the past three weeks.

I've tried gathering information about um the number of calls that have come from Planned Parenthood from 425 Cherry uh over the past 90 days, 180 days, 365 days, and then how many times responses were required to that location.

And then tried comparing it and finding out the data around how many calls in the city have dealt with noise violations or protests over the past same time period.

And unfortunately, none of you have that information in front of you.

You don't know if it's been four calls in the past year or if it's been 400 calls because that data was I have to head to FOIA that information.

It's still not available.

So if I can't get it, I know you don't have it.

And I would hate to think that this uh ordinance is because of a four calls over the past year from Planned Parenthood, and it turns out to be a pet project for Planned Parenthood, saying, okay, we're gonna make you guys happy and take care of this so folks can't amplify their voice to folks walking in the door.

I have a six-year-old who lives with us uh at 505 Cherry, my wife and I he knows Mel.

He knows a bunch of the folks that um stand out in front of Planned Parenthood at 425.

There's no threat.

I'm never nervous about walking my six-year-old in front of them and introducing him to people.

Everyone's nice, both the folks that are there protesting, but also the folks that are there wearing pink vests that are on staff for Planned Parenthood who are advocates for the people walking in.

I'm never nervous about it.

I'm never nervous for my six-year-old.

Why there needs to be an issue of uh why there needs to be an ordinance around amplification, I'm not really sure.

It sounds like there's been history in the past that this was passed once, there was a lawsuit brought against the commission for it, and it was overturned.

Seems like history, I don't want history to repeat itself.

Um I want you to know from a boots on the ground perspective, I've lived there since 2018.

And if you ask me how many times I've been irritated, upset, or had issues with any sort of amplification, the answer would be zero.

And I'm the one that lives closest.

I appreciate your your service, appreciate the time today.

Hope the uh hope the rest of the day goes well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amen.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Jordan Sweezer.

I've been working in ministering in Grand Rapids for the last four years.

First at 320 Fulton Street, which by the Lord's grace shut down, and now in front of Planned Parenthood, 425, he's cherry, to which this new proposed noise ordinance is tailored for.

Um, in my three minutes, and I desired to go last in those speaking against the noise ordinance.

Uh, I want to thank all of you guys for speaking boldly for the Lord and and showing love and compassion and kindness to the commissioners.

Uh, that is one thing I really hope that we can impress upon you is that we are a people that are law abiding, that we are people that desire to submit to the authorities.

We believe God has put over us.

All of us here today believe God has put you in your position of power.

And that is something we want to submit to, whether we agree with you or whether we disagree with you.

But one thing I want to make sure that you understand, and I hope this is not any sort of intimidation, is just that you all will stand before God one day.

Every one of us will give an account for how we lived our lives.

And repeatedly in the scriptures, uh, Jesus makes it clear that those in authority are held to a higher standard.

The pastor is going to be held to a higher standard than the congregation member.

Those ruling a city are going to be held to a higher standard than those who are living in that city as as citizens.

So I want to impress upon you the seriousness to realize that whatever language we use today to get around what we want to get around, to move forward what seems to be convenient, or as my brother said, is cookie cutter.

I want to remind you that the Lord doesn't just see our words, He sees our hearts.

Whatever you choose to do today, you could you could fool me on your intentions.

And I'll take you at your word for it, but you could fool me.

You could fool yourself, but you cannot fool the Lord Jesus Christ.

And I I just want to make a short correction.

Someone mentioned that there had been uh that we have saved 50 babies standing out there.

You know, I I really appreciate that, but I don't deserve the credit.

Uh I've been standing out in front of abortion clinics as my work for four years now, sometimes using an amplifier, sometimes not.

And I have saved zero babies.

Every time a baby is saved, it is all the Lord changing someone's heart.

I'm merely there to point them to Christ and to give them the help that they need.

And the updated number for for the last four years, he was speaking of Planned Parenthood, but including uh Fulton Street and Cherry Street, as of yesterday, when another mom chose life, that makes 135.

Some of those moms have even volunteered to go on the news and to speak how thankful they were that we used amplification.

I'd encourage you to look up the world article uh that was given.

One of the moms who chose life gave an in-person interview, both written and recorded.

I want to call upon you all today to honor the Lord Jesus Christ, to take the authority He's given you and to rule it righteously.

We're praying for you and we love you.

In Jesus' name, amen.

Amen.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Tyver Bruggy.

I'm coming to you now as a resident of the City of Grand Rapids.

I would like to ask this body to vote in favor of this ordinance.

I believe people should be free to seek medical advice and treatment in peace.

And as far as I'm aware, this ordinance is not specifically about one health care facility, it's about healthcare facilities writ large.

And I just think about a mother who just got done giving birth and hasn't slept for days.

Or someone sitting next to their parent as they pass away.

Don't those people deserve a little bit of peace and quiet while they're going through some of those most fragile moments of their lives.

I think so.

I'm not a lawyer.

Haven't spent an hour studying law in my life.

So I'm not even going to pretend to argue about what's constitutional and what's not.

I'm okay with letting the courts decide that.

They're the experts, not me.

But I think people should be able to seek medical treatment in peace and with privacy and with dignity and respect.

And so for that reason, I ask that this body vote in favor of this ordinance.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Christian.

Uh live in the city of Grand Rapids, second ward.

Uh I didn't plan on coming to the city commission meeting today.

Uh actually got out of work early, so I was able to make it.

And I didn't plan on speaking on this issue, but uh I felt compelled to come up here.

Uh, you know, I I'm in favor of this noise ordinance.

Uh I've personally escorted patients to the Planned Parenthood Clinic.

I also did it at the Fulton Street location before it closed.

Um, you know, I respect people's First Amendment rights.

I actually do think there's a fine line that we have to walk here in regards to letting people express their opinions, even opinions I don't agree with, and uh safety and uh protecting community members who are just trying to access health care.

Uh I disagree.

I do think these people do harass women.

They harassed women in some of their most vulnerable moments of their lives who are going out and just trying to access health care.

They know they have options.

Okay, these people make sure, you know, they're very aware that this country has a lot of people who want to take away their right to health care.

And I just think that in this time of crisis where uh states all across the country have had women's rights stripped away from them, women's rights to choose what to do with their bodies and what to do when they are pregnant.

I think it is very inappropriate to let these people sit there with amplifiers, screaming, harassing at them.

I've seen them run up to people's cars and like bang on their windows or what you know, just get in front of them.

And uh I'm not paid.

I don't, you know, somebody said that the pink vest people are paid.

I've never been paid, you know, to do any of this stuff, unlike you know, I know some of these people have been paid.

I know that they bought uh a pro uh anti-abortion group bought a building that was right next to Fulton Street, just so that they could, you know, have a base to, you know, harass these women.

So even though I do uh feel very strongly about the First Amendment, I do think the Grand Rapids uh actually, you know, has done poorly with protecting protesters' rights.

That's actually part of the reason I came here, is because Black Lives Matter activists and most recently this anti-war activist have been arrested and are facing government charges.

And you know, I think it's very hypocritical that um those people get state oppression.

Those people are, you know, uh throwing the the book of the law at them.

And you know, these people get to go out there every day and that they never get arrested.

And you know, so yeah, that's my opinion, and thank you for listening to me.

My name is Joyce Gibson, and I've been a grand repedient for almost seven years now.

Some of you might remember me from the Third War Commissioner nominee two years ago.

Well, now I'm running for governor, and a bill, this bill came across my desk at first um amplified um devices.

And I want to tell you that I believe there's no harm in amplified devices between the time of 9 a.m.

in the morning and 9 p.m.

in the evening.

These sound devices are what they use.

So what's the real issue?

The real issue is that these preachers, these sidewalk preachers remind us that that they're say that what's happening behind these closed doors that we are um that we're monitoring.

And um, these sound devices are the way that these sidewalk preachers talk to people and remind us what's going on behind these closed doors.

I will say my whole reputation as uh as a as voting for governor, that with um with as a Republican, as a Christian, and as um uh uh pro-life advocate.

I would say my whole reputation on the fact that these um sound devices, these people that that are raising the sound devices, that they stand there because we as our c our uh community, we don't want to we don't want to sear our own conscience in response to these um um rebels to to these people.

And um the innocent of these of these voices that are gone unheard is one of the reasons that we stand in front of Planned Parenthood.

I would invite you to visit my personal website, Joyce Gibson Gibson, G I P as in Paul, S-O-N.

Thank you.

Amen.

Good afternoon.

My name is Oh, sorry.

My name is Elizabeth Johnson.

I'm an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Um I'm here on behalf of a client who has been impacted um from these city ordinances.

I'm here to speak on his behalf.

Um these proposed amount amendments uh to this ordinance would prohibit the use of bullhorns and other amplification systems within a hundred feet of health care facilities.

Um I'm here to share how this amendment to this is unconstitutional for a number of reasons and would affect my client.

You are attempting to restrict people's first amendment rights through a time, place, and manner restriction.

However, you need to draft that ordinance amendment that is narrowly tailored to meet a significant need, um, a significant government interest.

You can't meet these standards for several reasons.

One, the bullhorns are protected, as uh many people have said before me.

Um in the Supreme Court case, Sea versus people of New York, which states that loud speakers and other devices are indispensable instruments of public speech, and they are protected.

And two, the language of health care facilities is clearly targeting a pro-life message while attempting to hide behind a content neutral language of health care facilities.

However, we know that um the intent here is extremely clear.

Um you have no issues under of around other health care facilities.

Um the alleged reasons behind this.

Um I I would love to see how many complaints you've had beh in front of all health care facilities, including ones that don't perform abortions.

I would love to see the um the the documents on that.

I'm assuming you only have complaints where there is a pro-life message, whereby this amendment has a target, which is a pro-life message and therefore is not content neutral.

Third and lastly, this amendment is not narrowly tailored as it restricts people's rights to the sidewalks and leaves no alternative means for those to express freedom of speech.

As a municipality, I need to remind you that you must adhere to the Constitution.

And its Supreme Court interpretations of it.

This amendment is extremely unconstitutional and will be challenged in the court of law as you cannot meet the significant government interest.

Thank you.

Hello, friends, and happy new year.

Mark from Grand Rapids.

Well, I don't think you think what's going to happen is, as I said before the last meeting.

Why do I say this?

You can have protesters.

And the counter protesters.

And the noise could become violent.

Because trust me.

For one reason and one reason only.

To wreak havoc and cause physical harm.

The innocent people.

Remember 2020 in downtown Grand Rapids.

There you go.

If it can happen then, it's going to happen again.

So you better think about this.

Because you don't want.

What happened over five years ago?

Over five years ago.

Happened again.

And especially in the residential neighborhood.

So think about it.

And make sure you do the right thing.

Because I don't want that to happen again.

Not like before.

Thank you very much.

And I'll be back later.

Seeing no further uh members of the public.

Uh this brings us to our next item, which is approval of minutes.

Can I have a motion for approval of minutes on uh December 16th?

So moved.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

That brings us to petitions and communications.

Mr.

Clerk.

Yes.

Communication received from Margaret and Roger Fry expressing opposition to a proposed development.

Received and filed.

Communication received from Belinda Bardwell regarding her resignation from the Board of Art and Museum Commissioners.

Communication received from Selma Tucker regarding his resignation from the local officers compensation commission.

Communications received from Tom Lambert on behalf of the Michigan Open Carry Incorporated regarding FOIA appeal PD-25-1013.

Communication received from Scott Atchison regarding a downtown information center.

Four communications received expressing opposition to the proposed noise ordinance.

And finally a communication received from the Heritage Associate Heritage Hill Association expressing support for the proposed noise ordinance.

Received and filed.

Thank you.

That brings us to reports of city officers.

First one's report of bond sale, 41 million two hundred and twenty thousand water supply system refunding bonds series twenty twenty-five.

That's received and filed.

Report of bond sale, 48 million two hundred and seventy-five thousand sanitary sewer system ref refunding bonds series twenty twenty-five.

Comptroller's warrant report for the period of December two, twenty twenty-five through December twenty-nine, twenty twenty-five, an amount of fifty-six million forty-six thousand six hundred and seven dollars and fifty-two cents in the monthly travel report.

See if and filed.

And finally, the treasurer's report for the period of December 3, 2025 through December 31, 2025.

Save and filed.

That brings us to our consent agenda.

And for uh everyone's uh to refresh everyone's recollection, these are items that passed out of committee unanimously, the various committees.

They're uh detailed in our agenda, but they've passed out unanimously and not been uh requested for removal for further discussion or action.

Uh can I have a motion?

So moved.

Mayor.

Yes.

Um I just need some clarification before we do that.

I see on the uh items removed from consent.

I remember passing this morning unanimously uh the commission of Mr.

Van Shrine to the uh the mayor is requested to have that removal.

I sent because he's going to abstain.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks.

Okay.

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh any opposed?

Motion carries.

That brings us to items removed from consent.

And uh the first item is indeed uh resolution uh uh uh my appointment of Kyle Van Strain to the City Planning Commission.

Uh, if I can speak to this briefly and then Commissioner Kilgore, you can well guess you can introduce it and then I can comment.

So I I did request for this to be pro uh polled so that I could abstain from the vote.

I'll make a motion that we'll support okay.

Uh Commissioner Kilgore, you want to anything to say?

Um, this is for their addition, yeah.

Okay.

Adding uh Mr.

Van Shrine to the city planning commission.

If you need to I can't do that, not participant.

Um you can state your reason why you're yeah, yeah, yeah.

So briefly, um, I don't think I have a conflict here.

Um, but that we did have when we we've had a number of robust discussions about uh financial disclosure, and there was a question of people disclosing uh business relationships they have.

I actually think there's more potential.

I because I'm mayor, I do a lot of appointments.

I think there's more potential of favoritism and reappointing somebody I'm not in any pre-existing relationship with actually because um one of the things you're trying to stop in government is undue influence and and uh people trading uh uh uh influence for for some other consideration.

Uh in this case, however, uh Mr.

Van Strain is in fact uh a business partner in a business that I own uh part of and he owns part of and uh so I'm gonna recuse myself not because I think there's a conflict because there might be an appearance of a conflict.

Um so to have a belt and suspenders approach to transparency.

I wanted to point that out and also re cuse myself from the vote.

I will note um for the public's information that Mr.

Van Strain served on uh the planning commission uh in uh numerous terms in the past, and so my reasoning for having him back largely is institutional continuity.

Um but I am not gonna take the vote, so I'll step behind the curtain.

And uh I think that means no, you're not that yet uh commissioner uh usasi.

Madam President.

You're our first act as president.

Yeah, uh, and and and also just so everyone knows uh uh Commissioner Robbins was president of the commission last last year, but uh Commissioner Usasi's filling that role, so she gets to take my seat.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, that was a little bit of a joke, but no.

Um I'm honored to serve in this role today.

Um and thank you for the mayor for adding the additional context because we did talk today, um, Mr.

Chair, about the length of service that Mr.

Rainstrain had, and also just noted the the realities and complexities about planning commission as it relates to other bodies, so uh a little bit more pieces in there.

So um all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion carries.

Thank you.

And I can go out and get them.

Yeah.

Sound goes around corners, it turns out.

Um that brings us to our second item, which is off of consent, and this is from uh lack of unanimity in the uh earlier decision.

Uh, and that's the resolution um on revising our city commission policy on uh conflicts of interest, ethics, and financial disclosure.

Uh Commissioner Robbins.

I'll make the motion.

Uh yeah, thanks.

I'll speak.

Yeah, this uh I know we've had robust discussion about this item um from this body.

We also workshopped it at our fiscal committee um as well earlier um a few months back.

So uh presenting this back this morning.

Um I I think much of the sentiment was the same from the members of that committee.

Um and yeah, as you mentioned, was removed from consent just for lack of unanimity, but um we have it back here today, taking into account um the feedback that's been shared by uh myself and and my colleagues here.

So um that's what we're we're presenting.

Great.

Um and I'll say um again for framing purposes.

Um I spent a number of years of my life trying to make sure that Michigan was not one of two uh states in the country that didn't have financial disclosure for state representatives that ultimately got passed uh in the form of a ballot initiative, but um taking the job as mayor and realizing that we didn't have explicit requirements for financial disclosure um for um members of the commission, it was very important to me that we have this discussion and bring this forward.

Um the the it's really really important to me that uh the voters and the citizens of the community understand that when we sit in this uh position that our job is to work for the residents of the community and that we remove any shadow of uh possibility or lack of confidence that we're uh making decisions based on ways in which they might reward us particularly.

I mean, if we voted all if we all voted to lower the city income tax, we would all benefit, but so would everyone on the other side of the dais.

Um but what what's very dangerous in in uh any operation city government is um having elected officials in a position where they can um benefit from their position, and uh I think the simplest way to have a check on that is to give robust information to the citizens.

So you can put um checks in place and you can put policies in place, but at the end of the day, the best way to keep elected officials accountable, I am firmly convinced, is to have robust information uh shared with the citizenship.

So I think that uh and for me, uh I I say that I think this job is sort of like a marriage.

Uh it's a sacred trust, and it's an obligation to be in that relationship with uh citizens.

And that means that that means that means I have less rights to privacy, for example, uh, than if I wasn't elected.

And uh my obligation to make sure that the and our obligation to make sure that citizens understand what we're doing and why we're doing it um includes knowing what we own and who might have influence over us because of those um because of those relationships.

It's not the only way you can have a relationship.

I mean, I might vote for something that Commissioner Purdue wanted on the uh uh to be voted for because of friendship.

Uh might vote for something because I have a friend in the community.

I mean, there are lots of ways in which it can get traced, but the but the most vulnerable and the most troubling one traditionally in Western democracy has been are you is somebody paying you for a vote, to put it crudely.

And um I think there's always work we can do to to be more transparent and to be more uh accountable to the voters.

I also think it's oh there's always more work voters can do to be more engaged.

Um I think that the free press plays into this, uh and I think that giving the press information about uh where our financial oblig uh lines of interest might might be uh helps them communicate to the public.

So I think this is part of a broader um very uh very deeply held uh passion on my part, and that is um I think that our democracy fails when trust fails, and I think nothing is more important than us uh working to continue to demonstrate that we want, but also I hope that we deserve uh the trust of the people who put us in these positions.

So that's a long little political speech, but this is a big deal, and it's been a while coming.

So that's my uh I'm I'm excited to be at this point.

Uh Commissioner Kilgar.

Yeah, uh similarly to that, uh I'd like to we make these decisions on behalf of the folks who we represent.

And throughout uh the tenure of a year that I have here, uh I had over a dozen uh community events where folks can directly share their feedback.

And this continues to come up.

Uh and I want to continue to let folks know I've been so very supportive of this ordinance update since we took office uh last year.

Uh the new folks on the commission and reminding folks where this is coming from of, you know, we are in a really bad group here in Michigan.

We receive an F grade from the Center for Public Integrity in 2015 for ethics and corrupt corruption prevention.

So we are doing our part to ensure, for example, it was raised during public comment.

You know, are we taking money from Planned Parenthood?

That's readily available from our current financial reports, but it's not readily available if our spouses are.

So those are the types of loopholes that we're closing today.

Uh and I'm very proud to support this.

I'm hoping that we are modeling behavior uh for the state government.

So that we know that folks who make far larger decisions with far larger amounts of money and influence than us, we know what they're up to.

And this is just one of those things of I don't know if it's a marriage, mayor, but it's certainly a relationship.

And I think that is an important, I think my partner would be a little upset.

Um but I think uh this is certainly an important part of a relationship, which is that open transparency uh that folks want from uh their elected leaders right now.

So I am honored to give this, and since the beginning of last year, I will be happy to support this today.

Any other discussion?

We've had a number of robust discussions before, so Commissioner Purdue.

I'll just add on um you kind of uh Commissioner Robbins mentioned how this went back to public safety and and or or finance.

Uh my apologies I made it back uh to to this body, and one of those main uh changes in this last round was including those business interests, and so uh that's what getting me across the line of supporting this, and so um happy to see us kind of uh set the stage across the state as well.

Great.

And um maybe I may as well just say one more thing, and that is um often people uh I it it can be easy to think that um things we do are to use a biblical reference, uh like the laws on the Medes and the Persians that can never be changed.

Um we can we can modify it and we uh and frankly, I think that there are uh even next steps we can take uh for greater transparency.

Um and so I I hope the community will engage in conversations about like how can if there are other ways we can demonstrate to the community and walk the walk and uh walk on that strengthening of the trust relationship between elected officials and uh members of our democracy.

I I hope that that conversation is ongoing.

So I think this is a step on a journey, but um like most of other policies, um there are gonna be lots of steps, and I don't think there's even an end to the journey uh when we talk about justice issues or housing issues or um you know fairness in general in government, those those things are always changing over time, and we can always do better tomorrow.

So as excited as I am about this, um I hope we come up with new better ideas going forward.

So um I would ask for a vote now.

All in favor of the ordinance change, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries that brings us to our next uh item, and that is ordinances to be adopted.

Uh the first is an ordinance amending uh and actually we're gonna discuss these together because they're um uh is d essentially uh tied or uh tied initiatives.

Uh an ordinance regarding amending Article 5 of the uh chapter 151 Title 9 of the Grand Episode City Code regarding noise control, and then the second is the ordinance amending uh section 9.857.151, Chapter 17, Title IX of the City uh code regarding municipal civil infractions for nuisances.

Um can I have a motion?

So moved.

Support.

So uh we'll discuss these together.

We're gonna have to vote separately.

So I'll uh that's a motion in support on the first item.

Uh but Commissioner Yasasi, if you want to address both of those together.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um back on August 12th of this year, or I'm sorry, last year, uh, which was based on a request from from the mayor and multiple city commissioners.

I was one of those.

Um the Department of Law began to provide um provided a staff briefing on a community concern related to amplified sound near hair health care facilities.

Um at that time, a decision was made for additional community engagement and it was requested to determine a broader perspective from the medical community, and this was also in relation to our public safety meeting um and to help determine whether additional modifications to the ordinance would be appropriate.

On October 15th of 25, the Department of Law, again with um communications community engagement manager did facilitate and host virtual listing sessions and did some um targeted community surveying with additional representatives from the health care um community.

On November 18th, the concept of amending the noise ordinance to prohibit amplified sound around the entrances and exits of medical facilities was presented to public safety.

And in general, the citizen members of public safety were not opposed to prohibiting prohibiting sound at health care facilities to protect the facility staff and patients.

At least one citizen member advocated for prohibition of amplified sound um at health care facilities.

Two of the three electives serving on that body were in favor of amending that ordinance to prohibit amplified sound.

On December 2nd of last year, again, the law department provided a final briefing to our committee of the whole with additional community engagement responses, and based upon guidance from a majority of the committee of the whole, um, the ordinance amendment is being presented to further uh regulate amplified sound around health care facilities.

The amendment would also remove the enhanced option for a misdemeanor charge for multiple noise violations within a six-month time frame.

And that was a um amendment that you offered, mayor.

Um and so I will just read this section because this was obviously a large topic for today.

So no person should operate any device, create an amplified sound within a hundred feet of the health care hospital or clinic.

And to amend an ordinance at first must be introduced to authorize for that publication.

Once if this ordinance is adopted, the ordinance is not effect until 30 days after the adoption.

So I'll just add that.

If I could add and go off script a little bit too, Mayor, we have had a number of ordinances where we reviewed where you know questions about education or awareness to the public I can think of, and this was before my time.

City manager worked with departments in terms of you know the awareness and understanding.

And so I anticipate and believe that would be the same with these ordinances if they were to pass.

Additionally, when we had those public safety uh measures, um Ms.

Barrens was a part of that leadership, and um that was brought back to our public safety body.

Um I anticipate we would do something very similar in this as we have regular updates related to a number of things, whether it's surveillance um equipment and different um uh different reporting that might need to happen at a public safety perspective.

So I wanted to add that as well for the public.

Um we do a lot of ordinances, but sometimes they might not um resolve in this.

And then um I'll just stop there.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Um and thank you for all those all of those you who came and engaged on this.

I'm sure my commissioners and my colleagues will have some comments.

I want to point out, at least beyond the record, I think given given the nature of this discussion, it's worth um making sort of a legislative history here if there is going to be indeed um litigation on this matter.

Um I am convinced that uh the ordinance is proposed is indeed a narrowly tailored uh and B content neutral.

So I am not supporting this ordinance uh because it's because of anything about content.

Uh I I don't uh the question is not whether you you know want to talk about bullfrogs amplified or whether you want to talk about you know the U.S.

deficit amplified or talk about the color of your neighbor's house amplified.

Um I think that uh the fact of the matter is in the United States, every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights has limits.

Um the Fourth Amendment doesn't say it doesn't give citizens the right to uh not never have the government enter their house.

The government has to can only enter their house with uh and do reasonable searches and seizures.

It doesn't uh prohibit any surgery search and seizure by the government.

The second amendment doesn't give uh citizens the right to carry thermonuclear weapons.

Um there are reasonable restrictions and the famously the uh the first amendment does not give people the right to yell fire in a crowded room.

Um so I also think that there are human rights which are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

It's not intended to be exhaustive.

And I do personally believe that there is a right to privacy, which all humans have.

And when rights are in tension, the French very famously said that my right to swing my fist around ends at someone else's nose.

Um when rights are in tension, you have to come to reasonable landing points on how to resolve those tensions.

And I think that in this case, uh people absolutely have the right to express themselves.

The question uh really I think is gonna boil down to whether they have the right to express themselves in such a loud manner uh that it starts interfering in impinging on other rights and where the balancing point is there.

And whether this is constitutional or not, um uh we have certainly made our best efforts to to craft something that's constitutional.

Um I think uh whether reasonable minds can disagree on that, I think reasonable minds often disagree in court uh and courts resolve matters.

Um I don't think that it's uh I certainly don't think it's appropriate for us to stop making policy because we're afraid that there's going to be litigation.

Um we set up uh balances of power and and separations of power for very good reasons.

Um the question is whether we can do our best using advice and counsel uh to uh enact reasonable policy in our city.

So um I certainly would ask any of my colleagues who are going to vote in favor of this ordinance if they're doing so for any content related reasons to state that because I want it to be very clear uh not only that I, but anybody who votes in favor of this is not doing it for any reasons related content, nor am I doing it because of uh any balance of advocacy or you know, allegations of uh opposing viewpoints uh or uh or any of the any of the comments that have been that have been made along those lines.

Um I also um wanna point out that um obviously free speech is very important and uh we we allow for a space for it here and we allow for uh we're gonna continue to allow for it um in all kinds of in in every uh venue in our city that is possible and it is absolutely one of our most important uh rights.

But as I've said, um right to privacy is also a very pro uh is a very powerful right.

And um and that uh there's a tension here.

And so um I certainly think reasonable minds can differ on this and they can differ on the approach.

And however my colleagues vote, I certainly respect uh the possibility of difference of opinions here.

But um I am uh convinced that this is something which will um on balance uh address concerns of the community uh in general about uh rights to peace quiet, and it's not simply uh people at uh health care facilities, but uh the people around those health care facilities.

And um I'm not gonna talk about any specific case, but I think that it's not simply the uh people going to any given f health care facility.

Um but there are there are obvious spillover effects to noise.

The fact is I could hear the commission discussing something when I was walking behind when I walked behind this wall.

Uh noise carries and it does uh my voice does uh right now is reaching and influencing and affecting uh 50 or 60 human beings.

Um so noise is not a simple matter of uh something that happens in isolation.

So uh any uh colleagues, uh Commissioner Purdue.

Yes, thank you.

Uh thank you everyone for engaging on this issue today, but really over the last few months.

Um I think it's a really important one, but in some ways a really a really tricky one because of all the things that we need to consider and balance.

Um I am personally fully supportive of access to care, but also protecting, respecting and um defending the right to protest, the right to free speech, the right to assembly.

Um and so while I understand the intent of this ordinance, um, I've raised a few concerns that I want to reiterate today, uh, which will lead me to um either vote no or put um another proposal on the table.

Um so first, and I'm I've mentioned this before, um so this this ordinance will change to to reduce or outlaw amplified noise within a hundred feet of a health care facility.

We are a health care capital, particularly in downtown.

And so while a lot of attention has been paid to one particular facility um and you know, one particular group who engages there, um I am not thinking about content, and I am certainly thinking about what does this mean for our entire city, particularly as we enter an age of what I expect will be increased protests, right?

And I want to make sure that we are protecting, defending, and respecting that right.

So my concerns with the way that this is currently written written is that 100 feet from a health care facility.

When I think about downtown, we have health facilities everywhere.

We have Corwell Health headquartered here, we have Cherry Health, we have Trinity, we have Mary Freebit, on and on and on, which is great for um health care services and making sure that people throughout our region and our country can get their health care needs met.

However, when I think about protests in our city, they often happen downtown.

And you know, we've asked the question, I've asked the question well, how much of downtown will be covered or excluded if we go through with this ordinance.

And we haven't gotten a clear answer.

But I do know that protests typically happen downtown.

If you go up the medical mile, I have concerns about now that being um not being uh permissible.

I also think because it's a hundred feet from each building, each property line, that can get really, really confusing for protesters and for law enforcement to alike to know when are you in violation, when are you not in violation, causing a ton of confusion and what I fear opportunities for increased escalation between law enforcement and and residents.

Um so those are my key concerns with what this might mean for protesters and protesting in our city.

Um I want to I want to name that.

Um, and though we might solve part of a problem isolated to this community, I think we will be creating additional problems that I'm personally not comfortable with.

Further, this I want to clarify that this conversated conversation started with three issues.

I would say number one, um, it was not the the health care facility and that that keeps uh that people keep bringing up that brought this to us, it was the neighbors.

It was the neighbors and it was business owners who feel like their course of business is being disrupted by the noise amplification.

So that that is one issue is disturbing the local business and business activity.

The other one certainly is free free speech and assembly.

And the third one certainly is protecting the safety and the comfort and the peace of those who are seeking health care, whether it's that facility or elsewhere throughout the city.

Um and so with that, um there are I think some other options to ensure that we can protect patients while also making sure we're not creating new problems with uh with with protesting activity.

There's a federal law that is very tailored to um prohibiting threats, obstruction, and intimidation at health care facilities while we cannot um enforce that federal law, we can look at that law to say what can we tailor for us here locally so that it is tailored, it does address this problem directly, and it doesn't have the unintended consequences and the creation of a myriad of other problems related to protesters, law enforcement and escalation.

The other piece or one thing that I heard said was uh that this uh health care facility who provides abortion is the one that's driving this.

That's just not true.

They haven't been part of this conversation, it hasn't been them advocating.

They they've actually stepped away to allow this to play out, and I'm sure they have you know a lot more important things to think about in terms of funding and um threats to their overall business um and their ability to give education and other services to folks in the community.

Um and so I would like to uh moving forward, I would like us to consider um tailoring this language should be more precise to harassment, obstruction, and threats, so that we're truly getting at the core root of some of these problems and look for other ways that uh that we can make sure that we're working in collaboration with law enforcement, health care facilities, and other key stakeholders to make sure that we have a smart, enforceable strategy that isn't creating um problems elsewhere.

So, with that, um I would like to I either plan to vote this down, but I I will actually think that there's an opportunity for us to take a step back and re-look at some of the specific language.

And so I would like to move that we postpone vote postpone this motion until we have time to go and to see if some of that federal law can apply here locally, um, and what other um collaboration and coordination we can do to meet the goals that we initially set out to do here.

Is there a second there's support for that okay?

Hearing none further.

Yep, hearing none.

So um, so just reiterating that I plan to vote no for those reasons on on this ordinance.

I think no, no, you finish.

Did you want to second the motion?

There was a motion.

There's a motion to postpone.

Yeah, I was trying to do some.

Um, but but I want to be clear.

I I I do agree that there may be some commissioner, if I could.

If you second it, it would allow for discussion.

So if you have something to add, I wasn't debating.

I wasn't debating.

I mean, okay.

It's there's a motion to postpone.

So you can either second it or not.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

So Commissioner, you want to continue?

Um, no, I'll pause.

I'll let you uh add any additional discussion you like to.

I I honestly was um I'm I'm in agreement with uh a few of those items that you pointed out specifically.

I think we just have to be careful.

Um again that that there's a lot of misinformation going around.

And um while we're trying to get to a space where people are supported, that it is businesses and it was community people that were were um that brought this issue to light.

Um, but we're also doing a disservice for people that need services that this particular business may offer.

And so we gotta be, you know, to your point, drawing the lines, where's a hundred feet?

I don't think anybody is trying to minimize the right to speech, um, because that's not what it is.

It didn't say you can't speak, it didn't say you can't witness, it didn't say you can't preach, it didn't say you can't testify testify.

But I want to share a story just just very briefly and be very transparent.

When I was a teenager and had to receive services from Planned Parenthood, it wasn't anybody standing out on a sidewalk yelling at me that stopped me.

And we have to be very careful on how we're bringing our approach to people that we're trying to help.

Because then we end up actually doing more harm than we are good.

So one more um related piece.

Right.

And so if we pass something like this, this is not a complaint-based system.

This is I see you in violation, and now I'm going to get involved.

Now the second companion item to this is one that uh changes the the consequence, and I will certainly be in support of that if if this passes.

But I think for this one, this is going to create so many new uh challenges, particularly around the culture of protesting in our city, that I think we can find a way to address the noise concerns for the businesses, the safety of the patient without risking uh this broad negative impact uh that will certainly impact folks uh here in our community for for for some time to come.

Um so commissioner, are you uh moving to postpone indefinitely or to a date?

You said till you did a federal review.

Yeah, that's so indefinitely give us time to to I think the purpose is uh you know, I'm I'm I'm open to what date folks, you know, I don't want to move it too far too fast, but um I think it's worth going and taking a look at um how we might incorporate some of those elements.

I've already sent uh messages uh to uh city attorney Strom and other colleagues of what's in that federal law for us to take a look.

Um and it was part of his suggestion uh to myself of if if we want to look at this, we might need time to do that because we just had this conversation last week, but we thought there was some hopeful, promising things in there that we could consider uh that will uh de-risk uh some of the potential unintended consequences of this proposal as is.

Okay, uh city clerk, if you could uh just simply do this Chris.

This voice vote for the postponement for postponable.

Okay, and I'll say I'll say until we have the chance to do that process and to a date to be recommended by our city attorney.

Okay.

Uh in favor of postponing, say aye.

Hi.

Hi.

Sorry, I didn't it was too hard to call.

I got some muttering there.

So can I can I see a show of hands?

I like I want to get this right.

Who wants to postpone?

Okay, so that's three motion doesn't carry.

Okay.

Uh anyone else want to comment on the resolution?

Commissioner Robbs.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um yeah, I I struggle whether or not to vote to postpone, but I think for me, um, you know, serving on the public safety committee, um, having this conversation come before us in the past, uh at this body two, this you know, this item came before us initially as a noise um amplification concern.

But I I think in the concerns I I've voiced since the beginning on this is that you know every conversation we've had about this has divulged not to being about noise, and I I think that's my my biggest concern here.

Um, even on the public safety committee, you know, as soon as it was introduced, we had citizen members who um you know immediately talked about the noise piece, but then really just started talking about they didn't like what was being said.

And I think that that uh uh as my colleague today too, just with the the concerns around um ensuring people have the freedom of of speech, whatever it is, whether I disagree or agree with it, um, that I haven't seen that been a consistent um approach to this conversation from the beginning.

So um I I I think um we have noise ordinances on the books.

I understand they're they're tough to enforce.

I understand the PD gets a lot of a lot of calls and questions about this.

Um but my my perspective hasn't changed that my preference would be to use the ordinances that we have already on the books as it pertains to amplified sound and find creative ways to enforce those.

Um I I'm not gonna say I would practice my my first amendment um rights in the same way that you know those you know, maybe being complained about do, but I I do think it's important to make sure that we're being um really careful about how and and where we're enforcing restrictions on on that.

So for those reasons, I I plan to vote um no on this ordinance, but similarly to my colleges or my colleague as well, I I do um in in candor plan to support the second companion item for this.

So thank you.

Uh Commissioner Sasi.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, thank you all for the discussion and people coming out engaging.

Um, you know, when I think about this, this was actually one of the first items in my inbox back when I began on commission back in 2020.

Um my predecessor Ruth Kelly um had noted that this was something that regularly came up as as being a commissioner.

And so it was about five years of sort of going back and forth, uh working, working with the police department, um, but really hearing from neighbors, and I would say those are probably the people that I'm most beholden to is the people that I serve.

Um, and so when I hear consistently and regularly from people who I serve um and hear from individuals who work with the city and are saying, you know, there's challenges with business being able to, you know, conduct work.

Um to me, this has solely been about noise.

Um I I can't control what other citizen members would say or what other people might have come to say during public comment, but I can say that for myself, and this is something that, you know, not every single week of every single last six years, but I would say at least a number of times, um, both from different neighbors and neighborhood associations.

I want to recognize that we also received comments um just in full transparency, we received um, you know, the letter of support that the clerk mentioned that was sent back in November from Heritage Hill neighborhood association.

I also want to mention that there was a member who said they were not supportive of this, right?

So this is, you know, when we look at ordinances, when we look at changes, it's never like there's 10 yeses and nine no's.

Um that is in my head, not not how policy is made.

Um and in fact, some of the data pieces, because when individuals might be dispatched, police officers might be dispatched, there may not be a record of, you know, there probably isn't an arrest because that amplification gets turned down.

I know there's some on the dais who have even gone out and talked with people and said, you know, we're hearing concerns from neighbors, we're hearing concerns from businesses.

Can we come to a common ground where again there is not um a concern on the content, but there is a concern on um really the the quality of life in that that noise piece in the neighborhood.

Um that was not met with any sort of um agreement.

So I think we've done that work, at least in my head, that's what I feel.

Um and then secondly, I think uh, because of that recommendation of the companion item that this will now be um, you know, something that is you know we call ticket versus you know that that uh that misdemeanor infraction.

I think that was um, you know, that was a smart amendment uh uh a change that you made, Mayor, um, because I think this actually sets the stage of how we might respond in the future as it relates to other demonstrations, um, and not putting a burden on the system.

You and Commissioner Purdue, and in full disclosure, my husband have worked on a project um that's funded uh uh to really look at what is the burden on the system when individuals get arrested and then they get booked and then they get immediately dispatched.

And so to me, this is sort of the frame of how we might respond in the future.

Those are for discussion.

Um, but to me, there is a win win in that.

Um will just like today when we talked about ADUs, ADUs will not solve all of the issues of the housing in this um in this community, this will not solve all of the issues of noise ordinance.

A few years ago we were dealing with industrial noise that was keeping people up, that was causing people to have seizures.

And so for me, I feel very confident that I have focused on noise issues, whether they be due to types of um lawful um gathering of individuals and also uh you know uh industrial pollution and noise.

So my intention is to continue to support this and um uh just thank you everyone for their engagement.

And if I can make a point here uh for the audience and for the audience at home, um a lot of citizens don't understand that there's uh the for me very profound difference between a misdemeanor and a civil infraction.

Uh the proposed ordinance here and the uh is coupled with a shift currently a violation of our current noise ordinance in the city can become a criminal case.

Uh I find that antithetical to uh First Amendment concerns.

And so I'm happy that in this case we're proposing that this new ordinance uh have the same weight as a parking ticket.

Uh uh civil infractions are things that cannot uh result in someone getting a criminal record.

There are things that cannot result in you getting incarcerated.

Uh and so there's a profound difference between a low-level criminal charge, which currently is uh an available option for noise infractions or noise uh disobedience and uh uh civil infraction.

Um civil infractions don't, you know, no matter how much you're uh the police are angry at you about parking, if they give you a parking ticket, that's kind of the end of the issue.

You do with your parking ticket.

Um that's how civil infractions work.

They're vastly less intrusive, coercive, um, punitive um from my mind than then misdemeanors.

And so that was very important to me that we have that be part of this conversation.

Um sorry, uh Commissioner.

I I thank you.

I have not had the opportunity to officially put my name on the record as you requested.

Um so while I appreciate the comments and the proposal to to table this till May or some to do more research, because I do think there's some opportunity there with looking at how the federal uh guidelines could be law could be maybe miniaturized for our own uses.

Um I I do and I am a huge proponent of First Amendment, um, especially as a former journalist.

I really, really value our right to be able to speak, to have free media, to be able to talk, and I think it's even more important in this day and age.

And but I also think that we have as leaders a preponderance on our shoulders to ensure that we balance the needs of a high quality of life.

And so this has never been about content for me.

This has always been about what is the quality of life in that neighborhood.

What does it feel like to go uh there to work, to live, to have that environment.

And noise is a plays a huge role in that.

And I live in the downtown area on the west side, so I do know about noise.

I know about how sound transfers even through windows, and um I do think it matters.

I also think it's very important that we have the right to seek medical care, whatever we think that's for our own bodies necessary.

So I think that's what we're we're struggling with here, and I do think that that is a significant government interest for us to ensure the quality of life and maintain the public safety for our residents and our businesses, businesses, and yes, even for protesters.

So I'm going to be voting um yes.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Purdue, I I took more than one bite at the apple, so even though Roberts rule says we only get one bite in debate in debate, go ahead.

I don't think that's I looked it up.

Um I just if if anyone would be willing to um, you know, I really am concerned about the unintended consequences, particularly in um in the downtown area uh where we do see a lot of protests.

And so if if anyone will uh would be be willing to address that, I think all of us would like to hear how if this goes through, how will you how do you plan to guarantee uh that we are respecting and protecting those rights given given the logistical challenges uh that this ordinance will present, particularly for those who are walking and chanting um downtown, which they did every week since the athletes since the beginning of the year.

Is anyone willing to address that?

I think that's a real concern, not just for myself, but so many other folks um and yeah.

Sorry.

I think that's uh that's a question from the department that would enforce it.

That would be the police department that would have to respond to your question.

And I see And I I'm more so mean uh this body.

Because as is, if someone if if folks go up uh Michigan Street, go up medical mile with their blowhorns protesting, or let's say something happens in health care and we have nurses out uh picketing, they can't they can't be on the the horns.

They can't go down the medical mile, they can't be outside those employments.

And I don't think that was the intention here.

So my I'm really getting to how do we protect those those rights to assembly and free speech downtown when health care facilities truly covers a large footprint of downtown.

So now all of a sudden we're gonna have these these areas where people cannot assemble and uh speak with the blowhorn.

Yep.

I I guess my response is a very important thing.

There needs to be a plan.

I mean, I obviously I know PD is going to enforce whatever we ask them to enforce.

But how do we make sure that we protect and protest it?

Mayor, I uh And I also want our policy.

I'm I'm curious as from policymaking standpoint as well, because we have to balance intended consequences and unintended consequences.

Go ahead.

Well, I think if this passes we'll go back to that heat map that we shared since day one of our engagement with this body, we we're we specifically uh bulleted on a map where our hospitals and health care facilities were.

We were intentional with our language and definitions to apply the same definitions that apply in our zoning codes to those facilities.

It's my understanding that yes, on Michigan, there are obviously uh more facilities on Michigan, but in the central core downtown around our town square, which is called or plaza and Rosa Parks.

Uh I I don't remember seeing any 100 foot zones in that core town square area.

Uh there's no constitutional right to use amplified sound, and uh the that I heard some sense of that through our public comment.

I think it is something that many people utilize to have their message shared, but in part this time place and manner restriction does restrict the use of amplified sound, which I don't believe that manner of using sound is a constitutionally protected manner of of speech.

The messages are are constitutionally protected uh generally in public places that aren't otherwise restricted, the places can be protected, but um this would infringe on any sort of notion that anyone has a constitutional right to use a amplified sound in a demonstration.

That wasn't my question, but I don't understand we put you in a tough spot to answer that.

And and Commissioner, if I could maybe engage a little bit on this, and we're not really um so this would be my third bite of the conversation.

But first of all, um, you know, I think you're bringing up some some very valid and and nuanced questions, and I think that um as I said earlier in the meeting, like we can always modify things.

So there is something up for a vote today, and I understand you're gonna vote no on it.

Um, but if it passes, uh it seems to me that one reasonable thing one might do would be to ask for a further modification of this in the future to say first time violations get warnings.

Um that would mean that any virtually any one incident protest, let's say you're protesting oil prices and you're marching past St.

Mary's.

Um, well, if you get a warning, um, then you're not immediately whereas um, you know, uh a repeated habit then becomes becomes something else.

Um that's one possibility it occurs to me again.

We're where we're discussing I think we're ready to move to the vote, but I'm just saying like things in the future that might be a possibility.

It's also true that like I've been part of lots of protests that didn't involve bullhorns, and like you can get hundreds of people mobilized to march without using amplified sound.

I've seen it done, I've been part of it.

So um go ahead.

Yeah, I didn't I didn't get to finish my remark earlier because I want to be very clear with this body in the public and uh on intent, and the question was asked on the diets, but the there is one department that is responsible for the enforcement of this ordinance, and they cannot selectively do it.

So they will do it at any health care facility, whether that was the intent or not the intent of areas we're trying to protect.

And so it it is it is something that will be uniformly applied throughout the city.

And while there may be one intent, and I've said this earlier at public safety meeting, there may be unintended consequences.

So I I uh we will do whatever this body decides, and I I sense a some urgency, but it's taken this long.

If it takes a couple of more meetings to get it right, I would appreciate us being very intentional about it.

But yeah, we'll we the department will do whatever this body decides.

Thank you.

Okay, uh um seeing no further do it, Commissioner Kilgar.

Thank you.

Uh, you know, I'm uh very appreciative of the robust conversation today about protecting folks who are seeking health care by addressing uh amplified sound.

Uh I want to talk about something we have not yet discussed, uh, which is during public comment, many share deeply held beliefs.

Uh some included the idea that we are governed by Christian law or that we will be judged by God for this decision.

I respect those beliefs that are sincerely held.

But as elected officials, we are accountable to our neighbors, those who we represent, not to any one religious text or religious law.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular document.

It makes no mention of God, of Christ, or of Christianity.

And the first amendment explicitly states that government shall not establish religion.

That separate separation protects all of us, including people of faith.

And I will also say this the judgment and condemnation that we have heard in these conversations does not reflect the values of the Jesus I was raised with.

Values rooted in compassion, humility, care for one another.

The rise of Christianal nationalism, Christian nationalism to me is dangerous and does not hold the values that this nation is built on.

Thank you.

Hey, seeing no further uh engagement from my colleagues, uh call for a vote, and uh this can be is this uh this is a roll call vote, thank you.

Commissioner Belchak.

Yes, Commissioner Kilgore, yes.

Commissioner Asassi, yes, Robins, no sure Purdue.

No, Commissioner Knight, no.

Mayor Legrand.

Yes.

Passes four three.

Thank you.

And that brings us to our second uh item we already had discussion on, but can I have a motion for the second ordinance uh uh issue?

So moved.

Okay, uh again uh any further discussion um expecting and seeing none.

Um uh city clerk if you could call for a vote.

Commissioner Kilguar?

Yes, Commissioner Asassi, yes, Commissioner Robbins, yes, Commissioner Purdue?

Yes, Commissioner Knight, yes, Commissioner Balchak?

Yes, Mayor Legrand.

Yes.

That passes.

Um, and that brings us to um public comment.

So anyone who wants to uh be heard in public comment can come up, and this is for any item, uh whether it was on the agenda or not.

And as again, three minutes, and if you can please give us your name and um ideally this the uh municipality you live in at least hopefully.

How are you doing, everybody?

I am D Jones.

I was forced out of my house on Tamarak and I stay in the orchards.

I'm still learning the cusp of this.

Uh I'm speaking to you guys about 3D printed construction.

As you guys know, I was the passionate entrepreneur and visionary that's been speaking about 3D printing houses, as you don't guys probably know or do not know that you can actually 3D print single family houses, buildings, apartment buildings, community centers, shopping centers, all of those different things.

And I've actually been working.

Uh, y'all want to start my time, I don't want to take up all the time.

This for transparency.

But uh I uh been working on this for a long long time, and uh happy to say that I actually have uh people from Texas from the company icon.

Y'all probably heard of icon, the uh organization in Texas that actually 3D printed 100 homes in under uh a year and a half.

I actually have the person who actually built that department, the 3D printing department from the ground up.

He actually has no college degree, he has no high school diploma or anything, but he actually built this department up where he actually drove a hundred million in investments, nine figure in investments, and he was actually able to uh 3D print different structures, over a hundred structures, uh hundreds of houses, houses all across the United States.

Nobody has printed as many houses as him on Earth.

And so I have this guy as one of my advisors.

I have a 3D printing company called Guardi Tech that actually was asked to be uh vendor for the United Nations, and I will disown Fox 17 a couple days ago, as I said, uh the second day of January.

I was on Fox 17 speaking about 3D printed construction that made it to Yahoo MSN.

So here from locals, my stories uh continuously glow global.

Uh as we are the number one city on a rise for LinkedIn, and I know we're going to be 3D printing houses and things like that.

It's cool to uh speak about the financial institutions.

So I actually am very, very avid on LinkedIn.

Uh, and I actually got some invites from the World Bank that actually these are actual verified accredited financial institutions, the financial institutions that push the global funding, the funding that you guys look to try to get to help our community.

So I have an invite from the World Bank and then the Federal Reserve Bank from Cleveland, and then the European Central Bank and then the International Monetary Fund.

Yes, I was born in July.

I understand the financial banking system.

I understand how the financial banking system was created by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and people in Global Leeds and the Vanderbilts and JP Morgan's and the people who actually shape the United States and our policy.

But I do have those same financial institutions on LinkedIn that officially verified institutions from those global banking, the banking system itself.

I know I'm going to be very, very rich.

I just wanted to be sure that that's filed so I can put that positive energy out into the universe and show you guys that I can actually get direct contact and engagement from the financial institutions that control the entire global banking system.

And I've been speaking due diligence about cryptocurrency, and I know that you guys see that tokenization of stocks and bonds and everything is going to be happening.

David Le Grant.

So just a cool cool thing, man.

I'm excited to, you know, continuously pioneer.

I got another TV interview coming up on Fox 17.

I'd like to thank not Fox 17, but Channel 8.

I like to actually thank uh my good friend Matt because he kept his word to actually let me get on Fox 17.

And as you guys know, I'm now the global pioneer for innovative 3D printed construction.

I already have my business plan and all of that stuff, and I'm going to be looking to get that land bank land and actually doing this and showing y'all the first 3D printing house in the city.

Thank you.

Y'all have a good one.

Hello, Andrew Carly, director of outreach strong Transgrand Rapids.

It's Grand Rapids here, third ward.

Um you guys heard about ADUs this morning through the ADU task force.

Um I hope you came out of that with a lot of enthusiasm and energy.

Um as a that's the leader of Strong Towns and Grand Rapids here.

We do support the recommendations from the ADU task force.

Um, and hope that you'll be able to adopt them, start working with this different various city departments and all the smart people in them and make them a reality so we can get more ADUs in the Grand Rapids area.

Obviously, ADUs is not the only answer to our housing solutions.

Uh we got a lot of zoning to overcome, some parking mandates to get rid of, all of the fun stuff.

Um but down the line, hopefully, next year we can be talking about congratulating you on getting it all accomplished.

Um maybe two years.

We'll give you two years.

Um city works.

Um the other thing I want to talk about is uh bike lanes.

So you guys got a whole bunch of money.

Um, and a few months ago I sent you an email um about what to do with some of that money, about seven and a half million dollars out of the I think like twelve or something of that nature that you got.

Um really with that money that you didn't plan on for being for those roads.

Really, what we don't want to see is it becoming just part of another, just doing the things, repaving, remilling, all of that.

I know that's kind of the current plan from the city engineering department from what I've heard um from our contacts and everything.

Really, we should be taking that money and doing something transformational, something that really benefits this community, building more walkable places, putting in protected bike lanes, really be able to drive and start making that mood shift from people being locked in their cars, you know, going from box to box to box, not creating community, and really being able to build places with communities.

Studies show that walkable neighborhoods are more tax positive for the city uh when housing rates go up in walkable communities because they're more desirable to live in, then the city makes more in taxes.

Um, businesses make more money, obviously.

Uh when you have people walking around, you get to make more businesses.

I was walking around Creston the other day, and I ran into a business I didn't even know existed.

But because I was walking around, I stopped in there, I bought some stuff.

It's a uh like a horror movie store in Creston.

Um it's super cool.

Definitely would stop and it's like right next to the Gia House Cafe.

Um, but if I was driving, which I've driven through Creston quite a bit, but I know it was there.

But because I was on foot, I stopped and did commerce.

Uh, and so taking that money and doing something more transformational that'll help support the residents of Grand Rapids, the future residents of Grand Rapids, and the business of Grand Rapids through walkability, bikeability, and really getting people out of their cars, I think is really what we should be doing with that money.

And I think it's a great opportunity to actually do it.

Thank you.

Good evening once again.

Daniel Scott, follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Humble, humble follower.

I've shared with you many times that I respect each one of you.

And I do.

The scriptures tell me to.

And I've shared many times that I pray for you as a group.

Almost every day.

And I'll be praying for those of you that voted yes in a special way.

Commissioner Knight, you uh addressed me publicly last meeting.

And you accused me of having, quote, a beam in my own eye, obstructing my judgment of others.

I invite you to tell me from scripture where I'm wrong.

This is my standard of living.

If you can prove that I'm wrong, either publicly or privately, I'd be happy to listen.

But you must show from scripture.

As you know, I've here over the many years to speak up for the unborn.

The most vulnerable in our society in our city.

In and outside of the womb.

Mothers being killed by sterilization, the abortion pill, and yes, that's happening at 425 East Cherry.

My public question for you is do you love children?

And then Commissioner Kilgore, you also publicly addressed me by saying, quote, I vilify the LBGTQ community.

I do not vilify the LBGTQ community.

I love you, and I love the LBGTQ community.

I just disagree with your lifestyle, as you probably disagree with mine.

In almost 50 years of the inner city ministry, I have ministered to many LBGTQ people.

By the way, the Bible calls them sodomites.

And I will continue to do so.

Okay.

I hope our churches are filled with them.

If they're there to seek truth, okay?

And you're invited as well.

Speak to me and I'll tell you the times and the places.

But I was speaking about 425 East Cherry when I was just making it aware how they're destroying young girls and young boys because of their gender confusion.

And uh I hope you don't support that.

Thank you.

Hello again.

Um's Christian, second ward.

Uh the main reason I came and wanted to speak before the body today is uh the events that have been going on in Minneapolis and across the state of Minnesota.

Uh like many of you, uh, I'm deeply disturbed at what's happening there.

I believe the Trump regime is completely lost all sense of law and order.

I believe they are sending these ICE agents, many of whom have criminal records, many of whom we don't know anything about because they're hiding their identities with masks.

Uh I do not respect them.

I do not think they are law enforcement officers.

Um I believe that they routinely are violating the law.

They are racially profiling people, uh pulling them over uh in giant groups of like 10 to 20 officers sometimes.

Uh they're they're pulling people over.

I saw a video the other day of a woman being uh pulled over who she had green hair and she was white.

I highly doubt that you know that was an immigration enforcement stop, and they're brutalizing these people.

They're uh throwing them on the ground, sometimes putting their knee on their necks, doing other things like that.

Um they are you know sending them to detention facilities where they are not answered, they don't have any other questions answered.

Uh their uh access to the bathrooms and other things like that are severely restricted.

Um you know it's just that with the way things are escalating here in the city and all across the country, the city of Grand Rapids is gonna have to take a proactive approach because I only think this problem is gonna get worse.

I think that uh the city commission and the mayor should seriously consider the demands that have been brought by some of the immigrants' rights community, some of the groups like Grand Rapids Response to ICE and Move Mieto Cosetha.

I don't know if all of those demands can be met, but I think that uh they should be seriously taken under consideration because um we're Americans.

You know, we have the right, we have the Fourth Amendment protected rights.

Uh we are not supposed to be letting government uh thugs, if I'm being honest with you, uh come into people's homes without warrants.

You know, they like to pretend they have warrants, they literally lie to people and say, Oh, I have an uh a warrant, but it's only an administrative warrant from D uh DHS and ICE.

It's not an actual judicial warrant.

So we need to be educating citizens, especially our immigrant uh neighbors, that you know ICE is lying to you, and that you have rights, and you can refuse uh to let these people into your homes, refuse to let them take you out and search your car.

And we need to be proactive, especially the way um we deal with ICE, and I believe that the city should consider uh how the police department deals with ice, because we're gonna have situations where ICE agents are gonna be breaking the law, and I believe our police department should be protecting uh our citizens and our immigrant neighbors who are being harassed, beaten, and brutalized by these government thugs.

And frankly, they're the modern-day Gestapo, if I'm being quite honest with you.

So thank you for taking my time and thank you for hearing my opinion on that.

Hello, I'm Deb Van Dynen, longtime member of South of uh resident of South East Grand Rapids, member of Together West Michigan, and our third ward traffic team, specifically working to calm traffic on Kalamazoo Avenue.

I want to start by thanking Commissioner Purdue and Commissioner Kilgore for walking with us last April and um working with Mobile GR, looking at some of the concerns that our neighbors have, and um specifically Commissioner Kilgore for all your work in pushing forward our proposal.

We're thankful that Mobile GR has um has worked hard with us to solve some of those problems.

We've seen improvements in signage along Kalamazoo.

There's going to be some more work done in terms of crossings and and um paint after the snow clears away.

But two big things still remain.

We really are in need of a traffic signal, a full stop traffic light, and some rapid flashing beacons.

We have lots of people traveling down that street, have difficulty on both in a car or on foot, crossing the street, making turns, and it's dangerous.

So we're asking that we can keep working together to find creative solutions.

Mobile GR has told us that while the funds aren't there, um the work needs to be done.

And it doesn't all have to be paid for in one lump sum.

We can be creative in how we deal with that.

So uh we look forward to continuing our work and hope that we can keep meeting together, finding creative solutions to that problem.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

Uh already stated my name, uh Jordan Sweezer.

Jordan Sweezer.

I've been ministering here for the last four years in Grand Rapids.

One of the greatest privileges of this work.

Have I on?

One of the greatest privileges of this work has been to see people in really tough situations actually get the help they need.

And today I just want to let you all know that you voted to make it harder on single moms.

I know many of you had uh concerns against this amendment.

Um and you didn't vote your conscience.

You might not have agreed with me on why you had concerns with it.

But I I was disheartened not so much that it didn't pass or it passed.

I expected you wouldn't have brought it to a vote unless you were planning on putting it through collectively.

But the ones who had um real concerns, you chose not to to vote what you spoke.

You spoke your concern and then you voted the opposite.

Uh that that discourages me about the integrity of the city.

And I just want to encourage you, whether you agree with me or not, vote your conscience, be more concerned with being faithful than with having unity with your fellow uh commissioners.

Um I just want to also address you in this that uh Jesus Christ, the the King of Kings, doesn't make me a Christian nationalist.

Um when I say Jesus is king and believe that he gave you authority and put you in power, um, that doesn't make me a Christian nationalist.

That makes me a believer of the Bible.

And you I I didn't hear you mention about um Commissioner Kilgore about um the log and the plank and the speck in the eye.

Um but if you did you did ref okay, Commissioner Knight, I appreciate that.

Uh but I just want to say it's really important in Matthew chapter seven, it says, let us take the log out of our eye so we can see clearly to take the spec out of our brother's eye.

So um these kind of conversations need to be happening so we can take the logs out of our eye to actually see clearly.

And I want to thank you for taking this so seriously.

I want to say, uh, even though I was a little discouraged by not voting your conscience, I support you.

Uh, I'm thankful for you, I submit to your authority.

And and I also want to let you know just one last thing is that um as a as a father uh with five kids and and a wife, uh I have personally been assaulted at Planned Parenthood this week, or well, now last week.

I was assaulted.

I was hit by uh a pro-abortion person with her sign, Kim Cones.

She's usually here to speak.

And um, just so you know, that aggression and that kind of violence is actually not gonna be stopped, which you pointed out, uh, Commissioner Purdue.

I believe you pointed that out.

That kind of violence is gonna keep happening.

Now I've submitted three um angles of camera about being assaulted to the police, and I trust that they're gonna look into this.

But I just want to let you know you didn't stop anything uh violent or harassment happening.

In fact, I want you to take full advantage of any harassment law there is because I'm not doing that.

I'm out there to offer help and to preach the truth in Jesus Christ.

Thank you.

Thank you guys, Dr.

again.

Um I just want to say thank you.

I was honestly really impressed about how like serious you guys took this, just listening in on your conversation.

It was it was clear you actually genuinely did listen to us, and I just I just want to thank you for that.

Um because I I expect as we all do this, we'll this is gonna be an ongoing discussion moving into the future.

I just want to raise a few things, uh partly asking them as questions.

I would love in the future to hear more.

Um I'm just going off of note quick notes and memory, so I misrepresent, I'm sorry.

Um, but it was said at one point, I believe Commissioner Robbins put out um at certain meetings have been brought up where people talk about what's going on.

It quit very quickly um kind of just just goes all over the place on what exactly people have a pro like a concern with.

You know, sometimes people say noise, but then it turns into well, it's actually you know safety or privacy or or I don't like what they said, content-based things.

Um so I I think that brings up a point that was made earlier, is that to me at least it's not clear on the exact goal of this proposed ordinance.

And as we said earlier, um a relevant second uh the second criteria put forward by the Supreme Court says that the ordinance in effect would have to effectively achieve some government interest that wouldn't be achieved without it.

Um and so I just want to raise again what is the government interest being achieved.

If it's merely noise um or level of sound, I would just point out again that there's already an existing ordinance doing that.

If and even in amongst the uh the complaints or concerns raised about noise in the neighborhood, again, someone could just even under this uh restriction, someone could just you know move down the road, made the exact sound uh the exact same amount of noise within the same distance of the same people that are making this within you know the same neighborhood.

Um again with safety or privacy, it's not clear to me how exactly restraining sound level how it achieves that.

Because it's not because we're implicitly assuming that it's mere level of sound that is um compromising people's safety or privacy, but more than that, not just any level of sound, but specifically level of sound within the existing noise ordinance is somehow taken away people's safety or privacy.

I I just don't think that's that's really tenable to be to be able to hold up.

And so um there are a few other things I said.

I just wanted to address um Commissioner Kilgore.

I thank you for being very honest um about your feelings.

Um, and I'm not saying this is like a slight I would point out that even in the midst of this conversation about the ordinance, content was addressed.

Uh if I remember right, multiple times people addressed the content of what's being restricted, which again at the very commission uh meeting where this ordinance is being discussed, adds to that circumstantial evidence that it is not content neutral, regardless whether neutrality um it is is said in the wording.

The circumstantial evidence also does that.

And just real quick, I just want to say Christians are sinners uh forgiven people, not good people.

We don't think we're better than anybody.

We we pronounce judgment of God because we will be judged by that same exact judgment, and we want everyone to be saved by faith in Christ.

Good evening again, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Jeff saved by Christ.

My I'm a sinner.

Um, I'm not as good um as a note taker as Joshua, so I'm even worse.

Um I guess uh one one thing that came to my mind that that's a common uh verse, uh Matthew chapter seven.

You know, take uh first take the log out of your own eye before you remove the speck out of your brother's eye.

Um, and I I just want to like just emphasize like we the one who actually you know really takes the the log out of our eyes is is Jesus Christ, and that's that's why we we we do what we do.

We're not going there as my brother said, We're not more righteous, we're not more, we're not better.

We're going there as people who have transgressed God's holy and righteous law.

God is perfect, and as you all know, we are not, no one is perfect, but that that's God's standard.

Um Jesus says, You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.

And uh, since we ever all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, as Romans 6 says, uh, the the good news is that we can be justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption in Christ Jesus.

That's actually Romans 3, not six.

But um, so that's the good news.

Jesus Christ is the only one who's perfect, he's the one who lived that perfectly righteous life uh about two thousand years ago.

He was the only one who obeyed the law of God perfectly without sin.

And you know, he's born under the law, fulfills the law, will willfully does the he does the will of his father in heaven.

Uh he's tempted like you and I, he's tempted, but he doesn't give in to the sins, he doesn't give into the temptations uh because he's about doing the will of his father, and and what we have done, we've done quite the contrary, we have done our own will.

This is why it's so important that Jesus He's the only way, the truth, and the life, and he says that that everyone who comes to me, everyone who believes in my name has eternal life.

But he he does say, he does tell us that we are to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him.

And this is a picture of us self-sacrificing ourselves as he sacrificed himself on the cross for our sins, he now tells us to do something at a way much smaller scale.

He's he's asking, he's telling us that we need to die to ourselves, die to our desires, die to our pleasures, and we need to follow him.

And this is a lifelong process for the Christian.

And uh, and if we want to know what that looks like, it's it's in the in his word.

And Jesus Christ is that perfect image, and so we we follow him, and we know what it looks like to do the will of his father in heaven.

And so it's really Christ that removes that log, and that's why we have the right to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, because we've had that log removed, and we're saying it's through faith in him, faith alone, not of works, it's through faith in him, and because he took our log from our eyes, now we can see clearly, and we say, hey, we were once in we were once in darkness too.

And the gospel saved us.

Jesus saved me.

It was by hearing of the gospel that we were saved.

So we had that same uh job, that that um command from the Lord to go and tell the good news of Christ.

That's ultimately our message.

Amen.

Hi again.

Um it's Safa here, legal citizen of West Michigan.

I want to thank you all for taking the time um for hearing what we had to say, and I appreciate those that voted no to this ordinance.

Thank you.

Um I want to apologize if anyone w if anyone felt that what we had spoken was condemnation, but I do want to point out that there is a difference between condemnation and conviction, and even personal conviction.

So, yeah, nothing is to um hurt anybody's feelings, it's just to bring the truth.

And we just don't want anybody to believe in a lie.

I'm sure we all have good friends and I hope those good friends tell us the truth even when it hurts.

And one thing I do want to mention about truth is I believe our nation and its foundation is built on biblical principles from the God named Yahweh or Yeshua.

And one of the many examples on why I believe this is by how this country and government is run.

For example, even in the beginning of this meeting we started with the Pledge of Allegiance and in there it says we are one nation under God and uh the founding fathers you can't really find documents that they believed in any other God besides uh the God of the Bible and Yahweh or Yeshua and another example is uh even when we go to court um we put our hand on the Bible uh pledging that we won't lie and what we say is the truth so um that's why we bring up religious texts and um we are Christians that are citizens and so I appreciate you guys um for letting us be able to speak upon our values and our religion because um yeah the citizens here um some of them are christian and so yeah thank you for taking the time to listen to what I had to say hi everybody uh my name's Charlie Snedker lifelong resident of Kent County I want to read this first it says our strength our sense of community and our ability to participate in a democracy all depend on our ability to gather together and respond to injustices I sat through this meeting tonight and I never realized that I was in a room full of free speech advocates and that's why I'm here I want to talk to you about what happened on January 3rd Rosa Park Circle and the arrest of Just Kaplista okay I was there I took part in that rally and then I followed in that march the only safety risks of that particular day were the GRPD police police department with their sirens blaring and their loud Hummer noise machines that they have on top of their cruisers blaring in our ears they were the ones who cut off the traffic and the lane on Fulton Street tell GRPD as free speech advocates they need to back off okay concern for safety they targeted Jessica because she is an activist and she is a well known face as being an activist if we want to have free speech we have to allow free speech to happen we have to like set the ground rules that yes you can go out and you can participate in our democracy and we will not impede that we will not give you the threat of the risk of being arrested and I also want to comment on our worldwide notoriety Grand Rapids I read about us in the UK publication The Guardian I read about us across the state of Michigan Grand Rapids Police Department arrest activists during interview we gotta be proud of that huh we gotta be really proud of our GRPD.

So in closing I just want to say I'm glad you guys are all free speech activists and together we'll work together and we'll make this democracy work.

Thank you is this on yeah um first of all I want to thank the mayor and the commissioners and everybody here for for overseeing our great city it's can't be an easy job with the size and diversity of our city um and in order to to live here I've been a lifelong resident of the the first ward and you know you you need you need to have order and you have to have laws and ordinances and laws and those are um created by members like you and they're enforced by the Grand Rapids Police Department the Kent County Sheriff the state police um but we also have laws on the book regarding immigration and um those laws either need to be changed or they need to be followed and so currently uh there's an organization that enforces immigration laws as an immigration and custom enforcement agency and I would support I mean I would ask this commission and the mayor to invite the immigration enforcement custom enforcement organization to our city to welcome them and to support them to enforce the laws that we have currently in in the in our area.

And I would support, I mean, I would ask this commission and the mayor to invite the immigration enforcement cu customer enforcement organization to our city to welcome them and to support them to enforce the laws that we have currently in the in our area.

Thank you.

Mark back.

He lied about defending the Constitution.

And he did.

I said that ICE agents was going to go around raiding homes.

And they are.

I understand these anti-abortions talking about pro-life.

What were you all at when Keith Porter was killed by an ICE agent?

Just to basically celebrate New Year's Eve.

Were y'all there?

No, you were not.

Were we all at Minnesota?

Renee Good was offed by an ICE agent.

And then lied about being run over.

If he was run over, he would have been at the hospital.

Not walking around the street waving and yapping at people.

That tells me you're not pro-life, you're anti-abortion.

Just tell the truth.

Okay?

Tell the truth.

This is what happens when you have somebody.

Is that the office in the office of the highest the high the at the highest honor in the ruining in the ruining the lives of the American people?

All because of money, greed, wanting that oil.

Trying to build a little whorehouse he calls a ballroom inside the White House.

Unbelievable.

Thank you.

Revenge 2026.

Well, that brings us to the end of our public comment and to comments from commissioners.

Commissioner Belchak.

Thank you.

That was a lot of good comment here today.

And it was a very good day.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mayor LeGrand, and to my fellow commissioners.

I really want to emphasize that our discussions today show that I can continue to count on and be grateful for your leadership in upholding transparency and fairness and our city's democratic values.

As we step into 2026 more fully here, I want to reshare what I sort of shared inadvertently coming to conclusion right before the end of the year at our last commission meeting, and that is the word for 2026 being civility.

And I think today we saw some examples of that.

So civility, I want to share not as a good feeling phrase, but as a shared practice of listening carefully, respecting different perspectives, and engaging constructively, even and maybe especially when we disagree.

In times when life public life feels turbulent and trust is being tested in many places, our local commitment to civility matters even more.

Civility isn't just a courteous language, it's about how we preserve dignity, strengthen trust between residents and institutions, and keep democratic participation, which we did here today, alive in everyday life.

Civility also requires a high standards in policing, especially during First Amendment activity.

So that authority is exercised with restraint, dignity is preserved, and moments of tension do not escalate into harm.

And just as we have faith in each other as neighbors and community members, we can have full faith in our public safety servants because they're here to protect and serve.

When we hold them and entrust them with that and have the highest level of standards for pre professionalism and care and restraint, I want to make myself very clear.

For me, civility means grounding our work and my work specifically in people's lives and the way they're experiencing them.

It means making decisions that support a high quality of life for regular residents.

And that was what was reflected in our committee work today.

Whether we are investing in clean, safe drinking water infrastructure, which we did today, or we are expanding housing options through thoughtful discussions and recommendations on ADUs, or we're improving how residents access information and city services through our new website rollout.

This is what civic engagement and civic action looks like in practice.

Planning ahead, communicating clearly, and using public resources responsibly.

Civility also asks something of us as residents, neighbors, and grand rapids to meet each other with care and compassion and listening, even in disagreement, because respect and dignity are what bind our community.

When we practice civility and treat one another with respect and that human dignity that we all deserve, we affirm our faith in each other and in the promise of the Grand Rapids we are working to create.

A civil city is one that builds for the future without losing sight of the people who live here now and who will come after us.

One that values safety, opportunity, human dignity, and understands that those things are built through collaboration, accountability, and care.

And I would argue that leads us to trust.

So as we move through the year, my commitment to you and to my fellow colleagues is to lead with civility in how I listen, how I communicate, how I work alongside my commissioners and my community, so we can set up Grand Rapids for a strong, resilient future.

Civility is not just a word.

It is not just 2026.

It is a choice we make together.

And it is a foundation for a city that remains safe, thriving, and worthy of the trust of the people that we serve.

So thank you.

Commissioner Rollins.

Sure, thanks, Mayor.

Um, busy day, that's for sure.

Uh two just quick items that I was happy to see across the finish line.

I uh won't steal Mayor's Thunder, but I I know these are both items that um are near and dear to uh his priorities, but um was was grateful to see the financial disclosure um update pass, I think, um, as we've discussed in in many uh situations, you know, anything we can do um as a local government to work with our means to increase trust with our constituents, I think is something that would certainly behoove us, and so um really grateful uh having worked on that uh with the fiscal committee as well to uh to see that come to fruition.

Um, and also was was glad to see the update on the ADU task force um as well.

I think um maybe myself as a you know 30-year-old single dude with just a cat.

I I've I've got a garage that I don't need all the space, and so um I anxiously await um seeing some of these materials come to the public, and and I plan to use them myself too.

So um just grateful for everyone's work on that, grateful for the staff to be able to provide an update and um looking forward to seeing how that will um will benefit benefit the community and contribute toward our housing goals.

So with that, uh enjoy the rest of your evening.

Just want to caution you there's only six unrelated cats allowed in our residence.

Um noted uh Commissioner Knight.

Uh thank you.

Um thank you for that.

Uh Commissioner Robbins and Commissioner Belshack and uh for everyone coming out and sharing their um concerns and their thoughts on us moving forward, and I just kind of want to be clear that uh even with that ordinance.

I I was going to vote in favor of, but I do think there's an opportunity for us to tighten up on language and just uh making sure that we understand that things change, right?

And if if it doesn't fit, if it doesn't work, we have the opportunity to craft and reshape and rethink about um how that looks in our community.

Um but um just a small response to Pastor Scott.

The only reason that I addressed you publicly is because you brought it out publicly.

But for your information, I think probably everybody up on this dias can count how many kids I actually have.

But I'm gonna help you.

I got 11, I got 11.

I'm an adoptive and a foster care parent.

I run an organization of over a hundred girls throughout this community.

So if your concern is what I care, how I care about children in this community, I hope I just answered it for you.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Saucy.

No comment today, Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Purdue.

Good afternoon, slash early evening, everyone.

Um thank you all for coming to engage and kicking off the year with with with passion um and strength.

Um, you know, I I do believe that elected officials and folks who um lead cities and run organizations do have a different level of responsibility when you are making decisions for an entire community that can have real consequences and benefits for people's lives.

I think it requires us to take a very disciplined, measured, thoughtful and and critical approach to make sure that we're achieving what we're meant to achieve, and we're really thinking thoughtfully about the unintended consequences.

And so I do think that there um are different standards, and I try every day to come here um and think through everything with purpose um to do my research on the back end and to weigh the public good and to pet to weigh the consequences of every single decision that that we that we make.

And so I brought that to today's items as well.

Obviously, I'm disappointed in how the vote went around the amplified noise because of the um the concern around how that might impact our protesting environment.

Um but I'm looking forward to um how we might um rein in some of those unintended consequences, um, what education we can provide in the meantime, and um also will be interested in a three to six month update similar to what we did kind of with some of the past public safety uh changes.

Um and I think that can help ensure that there's transparency and ensure that we can measure um the impact of um legislative changes.

Um a few people named uh experience with violence and assault and harassment um outside this health care facility, both on both sides, if you will, both patients, protesters, counter-protesters, um, and I do think and we'll commit to continue to moving forward with um supporting a coordination of communication, making sure we understand what is permissible, what is not permissible, and if things are inappropriate and are happening at that site, that we know who to call and and um they'll be they'll be ready to respond.

So I do look forward to kind of going forward with that um and a more informal coordination communication standpoint, and invite folks from your group to be part of those conversations as well.

Um lastly, I will be extremely remiss if I did not mention that today my sorority, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Incorporated, celebrates a hundred and thirteen years of sisterhood scholarship and service.

We are about empowering women, empowering the community, advancing justice, and Delta is such a big part of my foundation and why I do what I do in the way that I do.

So I am in crimson and cream from my head to my toes in celebration of our Founders Day today.

Um thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kogar.

I was wondering where this rap was coming from, Commissioner Purdue.

I thought that today.

I've seen you in a lot of colors.

I felt like we were doing USA Happy Founders Day.

Yeah.

And I always joke and say she's a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Incorporated.

I'm in a member of Delta Sigma 5 fraternity.

Uh 1899.

December 10th.

Um but I am so um it's been great.

It's a time of reflection for me uh to working uh with my colleagues uh here on the commission.

Uh last year was an interesting professional challenge as I kept calling it in my mind to be kind.

Uh and I think now we're sort of in the swing of understanding the cadence of how we work with one another, and it really helps on how we can better serve the community.

So in my second year, I am optimistic and excited about the work that lies ahead of us.

Uh some of the work that's been outlined by my colleagues.

I uh also echo that excitement, Commissioner Robbins, in terms of the zoning, making building easier here.

Affordable housing is one of the number one things that I hear about when folks come to meet.

It is the number one thing.

And throughout my tenure in the first year, uh we had over a dozen uh monthly meetings where folks could speak to me directly on what they care about in the third ward, and that's top of mind.

So I'm excited to soon release uh our schedule for how we can continue to do that uh in this uh new year in 2026 to make sure that we continue these conversations, and we had great robust conversation today, and I'm hoping that that can continue, right?

It shouldn't just be a one-off, but we should continue to speak to one another about what concerns the city.

I am uh super excited to and honored to serve as third board commissioner and just looking forward to um you know also celebrating that we passed these transparency update to the ordinance today.

Uh, that's something that I'll continue to say since the beginning.

Uh, you know, I posted a fun video about that and had so thousands of reactions about how many folks wanted to see this uh in West Michigan and the nation, but specifically in Grand Rapids.

Um, and just excited to do the work that represents the people.

So happy to be here with you all.

Thanks to city staff and my colleagues for uh a great first year and looking forward to 2026.

City clerk.

City attorney.

Uh just briefly, I would lift up Commissioner Kilgore what what you've just said.

I think from a staff perspective, I can feel the uh deliberation amongst this city commission and the maturity after a year of having some some new members, it can be hard sometimes uh to feel like we know um how to best provide good orientation and good uh welcoming to new commissioners, but I I sense through the conversations today.

While there was some uh challenging topics and some disagreements of opinion from a staff perspective, uh I can feel that cadence uh and that um drive to do good work.

So uh that's that's reassuring and and uh I enjoy uh the optimism for 2026.

Okay, city manager.

I was gonna offer another staff perspective, but I won't ruin Phil's moment here.

I I actually will don't.

This has been good day, good work.

Thank you for uh the staff for all your work that you've done.

And I want to uh congratulate uh several new directors, uh Parks Director, Laura Claypool, community development director Selma Tucker, and our public uh utilities direct director Wayne Dernberg for their work.

Um I do want to just uh emphasize I know there was a comment earlier about the incident on January 3rd.

I think we're pretty clear on what the issue was with the obstruction of the roadway, and there was no um uh inappropriate actions in the police department making that arrest.

It would the timing actually is very unfortunate, but I think um what we want is respect everybody's right to First Amendment, um, the constitutional um right to address and petition government and the public, and I think the mayor is pretty clear on the statement, and I affirm that.

I also want to um thank the the staff for the work today on a lot of these complicated topics and this ADU task force that was unplanned work that we did not plan without budget for, and uh the staff delivered, but these hard policy works that doesn't happen overnight.

And so I guess my um uh comment is uh on pace and cadence, and there's a lot of things we're doing, and we cannot rush it, or else we will regret some of the things.

And even on the vote today, up to this meeting, several of you have asked me to take an item off the agenda for more time for consideration.

And yet, some were the same ones who are pushing the gas pedal to accelerate.

And so I would I would ask us to be very intentional about these important topics that we have to deliberate.

And if it takes a little bit more time, it takes a little bit more time.

Um also want to um, for example, on the noise ordinance, uh, those other ordinances, Commissioner Asasi identified where we were the personal property.

We had months of education leading to change after we adopt it.

We have 30 days now, and we're going to do what we can with with what we can, but it will not be a robust engagement effort.

It will be information, notification.

And these are things that I think in the future, if there's an intention to be deliberate on change, we have to talk through the change management process.

And lastly, happy MLK day, everybody.

To my D9 sister on the other end, to all my Delta Delta Friends, happy Founders Day.

So let me let me wrap this up.

Commissioner Purdue touched briefly on one of the things that I often say is that one of the chief dangers of public policy is law of unintended consequences.

It is very, very easy for uh good, thoughtful people to really study an issue hard and have the opposite outcome from what they intended.

That happens in public policy all the time.

Doesn't mean we should be paralyzed, but it does mean that it is perilous.

Um one of the things that that means is that we have to have the ability to change our minds.

Uh we have to the ability to remodel, rethink, and move forward.

Um one of the I mean, one of the highlights of today, I suppose, is the fact that living together means living in tension on some things.

Uh and I will, you know, not trivialize this, but maybe localize it or personalize it a moment uh at a slight risk, and that is uh the other day I told the city manager that uh, you know, I knew we were becoming friends because he was feeling uh free to tease me.

And um, and I will say one of the things that I've said about my relationship with the city manager at some points has been that I want to do things fast and he wants to slow things down.

And he just said he values slowing things down.

Um and I value his valuing slowing things down uh because it has on occasion been a good check and a balance to my why don't we do this right away?

Uh why is it taking so long?

Uh can't we do this quicker?

Um I'm gonna continue to upload uplift my concerns that we build a more experimental culture and a more uh fast moving culture on some things in our city and a more forward-looking culture because those are things I worry about.

But that doesn't mean those should be that should be the only voice in the room for sure.

Um I think that that dynamic tension is actually uh the source of a lot of brilliance, and it's a source of brilliance in our society, and it's and it's one of our real strengths if we can pull it off.

And that comes to uh you know, highlight to back to Commissioner Belichick's uh question, which is I often say that we will we are going we will lose our democracy if we cannot figure out how to disagree with each other profoundly about important things without imputing malice.

Um so let me just personalize a little bit today, and that is um I was not looking forward to today's meeting because there have been times in the last year when I've had people come up and tell me that I they just I discuss them and that they think I don't have empathy and I don't have a soul and that I'm an awful person.

Um and person after person after person doing that feels like a version of torture to me.

Uh it's not much fun to have that happen to you.

Uh and it's a real cost of being in this position sometimes.

Now, do I you know Voltaire's old line about I disagree with you or what you say, but I I will affirm your right to say it.

Um people do have the right to vilify me, I guess.

I wish they wouldn't, but they do have the right to do it if that's what they choose to do.

Um that being said, um, and I don't mean this uh I let me let me say this as precisely as I can.

I really appreciated the tenor of uh everyone who came up and uh spoke today on this issue.

Really, really deeply appreciated it.

Um because I don't I suspect that there are foundational things that people profoundly disagree on, and and sometimes people change their minds.

Um, but often people persist in deeply held opinions that they thought about a lot.

Um and that means that we're going to be living in the tension of societal disagreements.

And figuring out how to do that while valuing uh those who disagree with us can sometimes mean softening our opinions too.

And I say this because that's exactly what uh uh speaker I heard yesterday, um uh who's uh uh very who's a very, very um committed Catholic, said that at the beginning of this year he took out his eight most deeply held political opinions and decided he'd had to get rid of them because it was more important to him to love people who uh who he disagreed with than it was to win arguments.

And um and I was I was gratified to hear that.

I I found out afterwards that he um probably has traditionally voted different on the party partisan divide than I have traditionally, and I wouldn't have guessed it from the tenor of his of what he said.

Um so I I I I I guess you know today's big win for for me and today's big success for me for the whole day uh was the tenor of the discussion we had tonight.

Um it was important.

Uh it is an important discussion to continue to have.

Um but most importantly to me is important that we be foundationally committed to living together, to loving each other, to respecting each other, and I really appreciated the the tenor of tonight's comments.

And and and I and I appreciate the thought that went into all of the all of the work leading up to this and all of the thoughtfulness that I know we're gonna get from uh citizenry, from our staff, and from my colleagues uh on things in the future.

So A plus for civic engagement tonight, everybody, from my perspective.

Thank you.

And that convenes the meeting.

Doesn't convene, ends.