With court decision looming, here’s where things stand with Ford’s BlueOval project

MARSHALL — A judge will soon decide whether to suspend a rezoning request tied to Ford Motor Company’s planned electric vehicle battery plant in Marshall.

The Committee for Marshall — Not the Megasite filed a lawsuit against the city of Marshall June 27 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 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.

Judge William Marietti speaks during a court hearing regarding a lawsuit between the Committee for Marshall — Not the Megasite and the City of Marshall on Wednesday, July 12.

Visiting Judge William Marietti denied the Committee’s request for a preliminary injunction — or temporary pause — on the rezoning on July 17, indicating several city and state laws likely prevent the committee’s efforts to challenge the rezoning through referendum as the ordinance included an appropriation of money.

The targeted ordinance rezoning 741 acres of the Marshall Megasite to Industrial and Manufacturing (I-3) Zoning, approved by the Marshall 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 the Marshal City Charter.

The Committee has since filed a motion requesting summary disposition in its favor, as have the city, Eubank and the Marshall Area Economic Development Alliance (MAEDA), which joined the case as a defendant in July. Parties were given until Sunday to submit additional briefs in the case and Marietti is expected to issue a written opinion in the near future.

Ford in February announced its intention to build the nearly 2.5 million square foot EV battery plant, dubbed BlueOval Battery Park Michigan, on a portion of the Marshall Megasite. The roughly 2,000-acre parcel southwest of the I-94/I-69 interchange has been considered for decades as a potential destination for a large-scale manufacturing operation.

These days, the site is a flurry of activity as crews work to level the land in preparation for development. Ford 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.

So, where does the project stand?

A preliminary site plan for BlueOval Battery Park Michigan is shown.

Ford still needs site plan approval and a building permit to construct the battery plant.

The automaker has received preliminary site plan approval as to the location, height, size and elevation of the building, and footings “have already started with the limited initial site plan approval that was issued,” according to Marshall Director of Community Services Eric Zuzga.

“We have been working on site plan revisions,” Zuzga said Tuesday. “(We’re) shooting for a meeting in September for our next review.”

The site plan does not require planning commission or city council approval. Rather, Zuzga and a development review team comprised of 12-14 city employees and consultants will review the plan to determine if it meets all necessary standards.

Ford spokesperson Hannah Ooms said the BlueOval project is proceeding on schedule so far, and “at this point we don’t anticipate delays.”

“Construction will begin this summer,” Ooms wrote in an email. “While the full scope of the construction details are still being worked out for the site, Ford is committed to being a good neighbor and keeping the surrounding community informed on progress and any details that may affect their surroundings.”

Ooms indicated Ford is committed to “ongoing engagement with the community to share updates on our plans,” including at town halls, listening sessions and community meetings.

“Ford takes our responsibility to be a good neighbor seriously,” Ooms said. “We look forward to learning more about what is important to the community.”

Push back against development, legal challenges

Protesters gather outside of Marshall City Hall in downtown Marshall to oppose development of the Marshall Megasite on Monday, Feb. 13, 2023.

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

Citing concerns about the potential for pollution at the site, the loss of several historic farmsteads and the loss of quality agricultural land, among other issues, the Committee for Marshall — Not the Megasite resident group filed an affidavit with the city clerk to petition for referendum just days after the May 1 meeting.

The committee ultimately submitted about 810 signatures on May 30, however, a legal review determined less than 200 of those signatures were valid.

“Many of the petition sheets were circulated by individuals other than the Committee members in violation of the City Charter,” Eubank wrote in a June 16 letter of insufficiency.

Eubank also determined the ordinance was ineligible for referendum under the city charter as it included an appropriation of money. The committee subsequently filed suit against the city and Eubank on June 27, requesting the judge issue a temporary restraining order to suspend the rezoning throughout the disposition of the case.

Attorney Robby Dube speaks on behalf of the Committee for Marshall — Not the Megasite during a court hearing Wednesday, July 12.

Robby Dube, an attorney representing the Committee for Marshall, argued the city has violated petitioners’ constitutional rights and its own charter in its rejection of the referendum petition.

“The city clerk was limited to assessing the form, i.e. the physical nature of the referendum petition, and to counting signatures,” Dube explained Aug. 9. “In reviewing her actions, the city council was subject to the same. (Eubank) far exceeded that authority by determining that the referendum was not legal under the city charter.”

Dube also argued that the appropriation of money included in the ordinance amendment is illegal and must be severed as appropriations must be passed by resolution, not ordinance, and can only be included in budget resolutions or ordinances related to bonds and loans, according to sections 9.06 and 9.08 of the city charter.

In denying the Committee’s request for a preliminary injunction last month, Marietti said there is nothing in the city’s charter that prevents Marshall from putting appropriations in an ordinance.

“It places no limitations on what an ordinance may encompass and states that all legislation shall be by ordinance or resolution,” he wrote.

Marietti also noted, “The appropriation of funds for services to facilitate the transition from township to industrial zoning is incidental to the general purpose of rezoning and is not beyond the scope of the ordinance’s title,” and as such does not violate the city charter rule that an ordinance be confined to a single purpose.

Marshall legal counsel Joseph Colaianne argued the city should be granted summary disposition in its favor “for all the reason’s stated in the court’s earlier opinion” denying the preliminary injunction.

“We believe the court got it right and the petitioners have not offered any reasons to change that opinion,” Colaianne said Aug. 9.

“Petitioners spend an awful lot of time talking about First Amendment rights, but the First Amendment is not even relevant if there’s no right to a referendum,” he continued. “The Home Rule City Act gives cities flexibility with respect to the scope of any referendum right and the charter is clear that there is no right to a referendum for any ordinance relating to the appropriation of money.'”

Contact reporter Greyson Steele at gsteele@battlecreekenquirer.com

This article originally appeared on Battle Creek Enquirer: A look at where things stand with Ford’s BlueOval project in Marshall