Marshall group files lawsuit after city denies petition for city-wide vote on Ford rezoning

MARSHALL — A group of area residents pushing for a city-wide vote on rezoning tied to Ford Motor Company's planned electric vehicle battery plant is now taking legal action against the city of Marshall.

The Committee for Marshall — Not the Megasite filed a lawsuit against the city Tuesday in Calhoun County Circuit Court after its petition for a city-wide vote was denied by Marshall City Clerk Michelle Eubank on June 16. The committee submitted about 810 signatures May 30, well above the minimum threshold of 578 signatures (10% of registered voters) required by the city charter to place the measure on the ballot.

The lawsuit asks the court for an order to direct Eubank to immediately issue a certificate of sufficiency on the referendum petition, and to suspend Ordinance # 2023-08 — which effectively rezones 741 acres of the Marshall Megasite in support of the Ford project — as required by the city charter.

"Residents have requested that Megasite issue be brought to a vote of the people on multiple occasions," committee members wrote in a statement Tuesday. "The petitioners feel that local elected officials in the City of Marshall are now purposely blocking resident voices by declaring the referendum petition insufficient. That ends today."

Eubank indicated June 16 that the targeted ordinance rezoning 741 acres of the Megasite is not subject to a referendum or vote because the ordinance amendment approved by the city council included appropriations of $40,000 for site plan review services and $250,000 for building inspection services for the proposed project. Such appropriations make the ordinance amendment ineligible for referendum under Article V, Section 5.01(b) of the city charter.

Eubank also determined the petition lacked the minimum number of valid signatures to place the measure on the ballot, in large part because the bulk of signatures were obtained by circulators that were not part of the five-member petition committee.

"We support the city clerk’s ‘certification of insufficiency’ determination of June 16, 2023, and we will vigorously defend the city’s position in court," Marshall City Manager Derek Perry said in an emailed statement Wednesday. "We are confident the facts will show that the individuals behind the effort ignored the City Charter and failed to properly gather a sufficient number of valid signatures to attempt to overturn the unanimous City Council decision to rezone the property. We know there is broad community support for this project, and we remain excited about the potential of the BlueOval Battery Park to create thousands of local jobs including jobs for young people, so they aren’t forced to leave our area to find opportunities."

Committee members argue the city charter does not explicitly state that only committee members can collect signatures.

"There’s no legal grounds for what they did if you look at the charter, it does not say what they claim it says, and our attorneys agree," Marshall Township resident Diane Kowalske, one of eight plaintiffs in the suit, explained Tuesday. "I just want our voices to be heard, I just want the people to vote … It’s just mind boggling to me that (the city) keeps battling that."

Article V, Section 5.02 of the charter states that "any five qualified electors of the city may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing an affidavit with the city clerk stating they will constitute the petitioners' committee and will be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form."

Committee members only circulated and submitted referendum sheets with 136 valid signatures, according to Eubank. The other signatures were obtained from circulators that were not members of the committee, she said.

"Many of the petition sheets were circulated by individuals other than the Committee members in violation of the City Charter," Eubank wrote in the certification of insufficiency letter June 16. "Article V, Section 5.02 of the City Charter requires that the members of the Committee — and only the committee members — be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form."

This eliminated the voice of 35 circulators, including city of Marshall residents and Marshall Township residents, committee members said. They also believe the city deliberately included an appropriation of money in the ordinance to prevent a referendum.

It's ultimately unclear as to why the city allowed petitioners to proceed with the collection of signatures, given the ordinance cited in the petition was not subject to referendum.

"The ordinance included an illegal addition of a second subject, an appropriation of money, which was not included in the title," committee members said in a statement. "This violated the city charter’s single subject title rule, as well as a restriction on passing appropriations via resolutions only. Residents warned the city council that the appropriation provision was illegal at the May 1 and June 15 council meetings, but those warnings were ignored."

The Marshall City Council on May 1 unanimously approved a request to rezone 741 acres of the Marshall Megasite to Industrial and Manufacturing (I-3) Zoning, marking a key step forward in Ford's plans to build the EV battery plant — dubbed BlueOval Battery Park Michigan — on 950 acres of the roughly 2,000-acre Megasite.

Ford in February announced its intention to build the nearly 2.5-million-square foot EV battery plant on a portion of the Megasite, a 2,000-acre parcel southwest of the I-94/I-69 interchange in Marshall Township that's been considered for decades as a potential destination for a large-scale manufacturing operation.

The automaker plans to invest $3.5 billion to make the EV battery plant a reality, an investment that's expected to create 2,500 jobs when production of lithium iron phosphate batteries begins at the plant in 2026.

Contact reporter Greyson Steele at gsteele@battlecreekenquirer.com

This article originally appeared on Battle Creek Enquirer: Marshall group takes legal action after city rejects petition effort