Citizen Portal
Sign In

Battle Creek approves hiring outside counsel for PFAS settlement claims; public asks about costs

5107034 · June 18, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission approved retaining outside counsel to pursue Phase 2 PFAS public water system settlement claims. A public speaker asked how much the city will pay in outside counsel fees and whether this will affect other drinking‑water contamination claims.

The Battle Creek City Commission on June 17 approved a resolution to retain outside legal counsel to pursue claims under Phase 2 of the PFAS public water system litigation settlement.

A member of the public concerned about water contamination asked about the cost of retaining outside counsel and whether the city would pay for PFAS claims while earlier or concurrent contaminants such as TTHM (trihalomethanes) remain unresolved. "We currently already have a present water contamination issue with the TTHM," the speaker said, and asked whether the city would be paying for PFAS settlement claims and later for TTHM claims. The commission record shows the city attorney recommended outside counsel with environmental and PFAS expertise; the panel approved Resolution 182 to retain counsel. City staff noted Rick Berg of Butzel Long was available remotely to answer technical questions.

Why it matters: PFAS settlements can result in recoveries for public water systems but require legal and technical review; retaining specialized counsel is intended to maximize potential recovery under the settlement. Members of the public raised questions about costs and the interaction with other drinking‑water issues.

What the commission did: The commission approved Resolution 182 to retain outside counsel for PFAS settlement claims. A remote attorney from the proposed firm was made available to answer questions during the meeting.

Remaining questions: The amount of the outside counsel contract and fee structure were not specified in the public record at the meeting; a public commenter asked directly for the expected outside counsel cost but no figure was reported in the meeting minutes.