Third Ward residents oppose nearby shooting facility as council moves to adopt Resolution 240341.1

Flint City — During a public hearing at the Flint City Council, several residents said they oppose a proposed shooting facility near homes in the Third Ward, citing concerns about noise and whether live rounds would be used. Councilmember Pfeiffer moved to adopt Resolution 240341.1, with support from Councilmember Priestley; the meeting transcript does not record a final roll-call vote on the measure.

Residents who spoke during the public comment period said the prospect of gunfire near homes would worsen existing nighttime disturbances. One resident asked whether the facility would be using "dummy rounds or live rounds," and said, "if they're gonna be doing using live rounds outside, there's homes over there, so they definitely be hearing that." Another commenter said, "We already got too many gunshots in the Third Ward. We already can't sleep at night in the Third Ward," and urged councilmembers to postpone action and consult more residents.

A speaker who described the facility as "state of the art" said the indoor venue has been "bringing revenue" and that "the material is the same," arguing the location and construction mitigations should address concerns. Councilmember Burns, addressing the chamber during discussion, described the Roberts Street proposal as "a state of the art facility" that is indoors and "it will receive revenue." The clerk clarified a procedural point during the meeting, noting that the "0.6" designation referred to the public hearing rather than the adoption item.

After the public hearing was closed, Councilmember Pfeiffer said, "Motion to adopt 240341.6," which the clerk and others corrected as referring to the public hearing. The motion was then restated as a motion to adopt "240341.1" and received support from Councilmember Priestley. Councilmembers asked for discussion; the transcript ends without a recorded roll-call or final tally for the motion.

The record shows community concern focused on potential noise impacts and the use of live ammunition, while proponents and at least one councilmember emphasized the facility's indoor design and revenue potential. The transcript includes a procedural clarification from the clerk that "0.6 refers to the public hearing," which contributed to confusion when the motion was introduced. The council opened the item for discussion after the motion but the documented excerpt does not include a concluding vote or an announced outcome.