Yeah, the pilot.
We're gonna, we're gonna,
That's okay.
Don't they look good Soccer players.
Now calling to order a regular meeting
of City Council Tuesday,
December 10th, 2024 at 7:00 PM Please stand
for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge Allegiance to the flag.
To the flag of the United, United States of America,
and the Republic for which it stands.
One Nation, nation, nation, under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call Madam Secretary, president
Roi. Here,
vice President McGee.
Here, assistant Secretary and Mayor pro Tem.
Mr. Dwyer. Here. Councilman Bokey. Present.
Councilman Nunan. Present. Councilman Lafferty. Here.
Councilwoman Moore. We have a quorum.
Next item. Next item is adoption of the consent agenda.
So moved. Support
Lafferty. Discussion.
Anyone hearing nine?
I'll call to question Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr.
Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is adoption of the agenda.
So moved with discussion support, Lafferty.
Discussion, uh, secretary Moore.
Thank you. Um, first off, we are going
to remove items 11 A
and 11 B, um,
and we are adding 11 G, which
involves 75 51 Prospect Ms.
Camp, what is the action on that item?
It was a, um, table nuisance statement.
So it's a request of a, a proof demolition
of a house in shed at 7 5 5 1.
Do you, do you have that written down? Yep.
So I can have it while we read it.
Okay. Request to approve the demolition
of a house in shed at 75 51 Prospect through the Na na
nuisance abatement program.
So that will be 11 G as item
12 B.
That will be, uh, proving, um,
a settlement pursuant
to the terms discussed in closed session in the matter
of Macomb daily versus City of Warren.
And I believe that is it. Is that Madam, Madam?
Secretary? What was the, The item number 11 G
and the, uh, 12 B.
12 B, the settlement? Yes. 12 B
Makers of the motion comfortable with those amendments?
Yes. Yes. Without objection. Any other discussion?
Hearing none? I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr.
Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogans he is. Yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is calendar of pending matters.
Uh, motion to receive and file
Support Lafferty discussion.
Um, do hold on just a minute.
That's, that's all? Yes.
Okay. Uh, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is seven a approval of the minutes
of the regular meeting of November 26th, 2024. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Support Bokey. Discussion.
Hearing none, I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item. Next
Item is eight.
A approval of the bills
of the General Revenue funds. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion? Anyone?
Hearing none? I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr.
Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan?
Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is eight B.
Approval of the bills of the water
and sewer systems. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Discussion.
Hearing none? I'll call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr.
Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Noonan?
Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is nine, which is audience participation, uh,
for agenda items only.
Good evening. Members of the audience who would like
to address City Council this evening may do so
by filling out an audience form located at
the right side of the stage.
This is a reminder per our council rules
and, uh, procedures.
You must write your name and address on the audience form,
or give your full name and address at the podium.
You have three minutes. This audience is
for agenda items only.
There is additional time at the end
of the meeting for general audience.
First up is Joel Rutherford for
Good Evening.
Can you hear me? I can. Oh, go ahead. I hear it.
Thank you. Um, this is
for item 14 a requesting your approval to my appointment
to the Downtown Development Authority.
The reason why I'm requesting
that is I'm a resident in Heritage Village, which is part
of the Downtown Development Authority.
One thing I feel is residents need to be more involved.
We also need to have our voices heard.
One of the things I've found from, uh,
living Heritage Village is when the PUD was approved, one
of the things that was allowed was
that we have what's considered substandard
roads by the city.
So therefore we can't get snow plowing.
We also can't get trash pickup.
You know, this is something that was
great for the developer.
It's also great for the city
because they still get the taxes.
Unfortunately, it's not so good for the residents
because we have to pay privately for both snow removal
and also trash pickup.
One thing I would like to see as well on
for the Downtown Development Authority is I think
for too long, residents of Warren have accepted too little.
I think we need to have more.
I mean, a few years ago, I know, uh, council President Ancy,
you mentioned something about more
of like an upscale place to go in the city.
I think that's really needed. But I think
what we also need is something that's family friendly
that's different than just the usual Coney Islands
and Mediterranean type restaurants.
You know, for the third largest city in the state.
I'm still surprised we don't have a senior citizen center.
You know, we have an aging population.
I'm one of them, but to me, I think it would be great
to have something that, you know,
is really geared towards seniors
that they can call their own.
I think also we need more recreation available.
I think that'll help, you know, with some of the problems
that we've been having, especially as far as when it comes
to students and different things like that.
But most of all, the residents need to really have a voice.
We need to have a say so.
And the one thing I will tell you is this,
I'll attend the meetings, I'll follow the approved budget,
and I'll also make sure that what we do is within compliance
of all laws and regulations of the city
and the state. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Lori Harris.
Hi. I am gonna also take a minute to, um,
encourage all these lovely people behind me, uh,
to come back to meetings, um,
and get involved in your city governments.
It's, um, always a great thing
to see young people here at the meetings.
Uh, that, so I know it's not an agenda item,
but that's my comment on that.
Um, I wanna talk about, uh,
13 CI wanna talk about the public library and the parks
and Rec, um, desire to print a news beat.
And I was at the, um, budget hearings,
um, last fall.
I mean winter and or spring, whenever they were.
And I recall that the news beat was not funded
during the budget hearings.
Um, I was here at the meeting when the request came
for $37,500 to do a quarterly,
uh, brochure for parks and rec
and library offerings to the community.
And good
golly, it's on the agenda.
And I don't see anybody here from Parks and Rec
or the library, which is very interesting.
Um, but here's what I wanna say. I don't recall.
I couldn't pull it up on my phone,
but I don't recall if the discussion even,
I don't remember any of you asking who was paying for the,
um, postage.
So aside from the cost of printing, um, where was the cost
of postage gonna come from?
And I remember Mr. Fox sitting over there saying, um,
that there's money, there was still money,
and that parks would bear a bigger burden than, uh,
the library, but it wasn't actually spelled out.
So, um, as this is discussed,
I we need more information
and, um, I will
just leave it at that.
Thank you. Thank you. Next is Gary Watts.
Good evening. Normally don't speak out too much on this,
but when I read the agenda this week
and I looked at the backup documents regarding 14 a,
I'm concerned about Mr.
Rutherford being appointed.
I've been for five years going to those meetings
and I think I seen him there three times.
And tonight he walked right into the, walked right into
what I was thinking, this is nothing more than to try
to change the PUD buyer.
Beware. He should have known when they bought those
places, what was there.
It's not up to us to pave the roads.
It's not up to us to pick the garbage up.
And it's not up to plow the roads.
This is a self-centered situation.
We need professional business people that have a knowledge
of what needs to go on under economic development.
We've had no economic development.
I went to ev almost every meeting in five years.
You know why? One, because I'm a citizen, I'm concerned.
Two, I was on council and I was concerned
and see anybody else come to that.
And now they want to be appointed
to the DDA and change the world.
No, this is not a wise decision. I know Ms.
Cavalier, under the Steenberg days,
she was our economic development director.
She was head of DDA and tfa,
and things run like a well-oiled machine.
Back then, I wasn't as active,
but I'm very aware of what went on.
And we need qualified people on the DA.
They're gonna get things done
and move the city forward in the manner it should be going.
We need business. We need good business.
We need money coming in. Thank you.
Next is Joel Vander, Linden,
Joel Lin, longtime worn resident.
I'm here to, uh, second the concerns of Mr. Watts.
I think we need responsible, educated business people
filling the positions of the DDA.
I'm concerned about the people
that are being appointed today.
I think they have outside motives, personal motives,
personal motives for themselves
and not for the citizens of Warren.
I show great concern on these choices.
I also have a concern on one that was on a consent agenda,
four H Mr.
Papazian, who came to this microphone
and lied to all of you saying that his group was going
to pay for the gay parade, the police
and the cleanup and everything else.
And didn't, I
think Ma, Mr.
Papa owes
or should reimburse this city, this
whole city for the money that this city paid
on our taxes for the overtime
and the cleanup of those police officers.
Mr. Papazian is not qualified for that position.
Think you have a blessed day.
Thank you. That is the end of audience. Next item.
Next item is 10 a resolution,
recognizing D las L Pilot's 2024 Division two State
Soccer Champions.
Um, if I could, uh, make a motion to approve the resolution
support Lafferty.
Thank you. And I'll just read the resolution very quickly
and then I'll come down and present it to you.
Um, whereas De Lasel Collegiate high school's core
principals are quality education,
inclusive community concern for the poor, social justice,
respect, and faith.
And in 1983, the school relocated to the city of Warren
after purchasing Holly Middle School from the Warren
Woods School District.
Since its relocation to the city of Warren, the school
and its supporters continue to invest
and approve the facilities to provide its students
with spiritual, intellectual, cultural,
and athletic programs of excellence.
And whereas the 2024 Varsity soccer team
demonstrated this athletic excellence
by winning the Division two State Championship
by defeating Forest Hills, Northern four
to one at Grand Ledge High School on November 2nd, 2024.
This victory is the sixth title win in School history.
But the first in 19 years,
the previous championship wins occurred in
19 90, 19 92, 19 93,
2000 and 2005.
And whereas Coach Thayer Muktar has been at the helm for all
of the title wins,
he's also the all time winningest high school boys soccer
coach in the state of Michigan with over 837 victories
and elected 11 times as Coach of the year in Michigan.
And the 2024 Varsity soccer triumph is not just the result
of skill on the field,
but the embodiment of the core values instilled in them.
At d Lasell Collegiate High School,
the team's success serves as a reminder
that greatness is achieved through collective effort
and unwavering belief in one another.
And now therefore, be it resolved that the City Council
of the city of Warren hereby recognizes
and honors the 2024 D Lasel Collegiate High Schools
Varsity Boys Soccer
as the Division two State Soccer Champions
Resolution declared, adopted on this 10th day
of December, 2024.
Good evening. Thank you, Mrs. Moore.
Um, as an AP government teacher, I truly,
truly appreciate the sacrifices all of you make up there.
Uh, some of my boys even commented this is like AP gov, Mr.
Muktar. Uh, so I really truly appreciate it.
I couldn't be prouder. These young men, uh,
they worked hard all year long.
They went 21 and three.
I think they've represented the Macomb County
and the city of Warren with great pride.
And I think we, you know, just the amount of work,
people have no idea how hard it is
to beat out 118 other teams
and be the best in the state of Michigan.
They were not gonna be denied.
At de Lasell, we always teach our boys,
it's more than just a game.
It's contributions.
In my class, they always hear me say,
give back to the community.
That's the lasallian way. It isn't about you.
You're never judged about what you accomplish.
It's what you give back.
You see, like our soccer team, our football team,
always doing things around the neighborhood trying
to make life easier for others.
And many cases, I'm proud of these young men
because they're great soccer players and great athletes.
I mean, these guys all ran two miles on around 12 minutes.
That's how conditioned they are and how hard they train.
But mostly what I'm proud
of is the type of young men they are.
I couldn't be prouder to call them my boys.
And you, you know,
I think the the whole county should be proud of 'em.
And I think, uh, city councilman
for you guys inviting us here today
means a lot to all of us.
Thank you so much for the time.
Thank you
On behalf of the Warren City Council
and all the residents of Warren, congratulations. Thank
You so much. Very nicely.
Thank you. Very
Kind. And madam,
madam Chair, I'd make a motion to recess
support Lafferty.
All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Thank you again. Yeah, we're
Just gonna take a, if you want to take photos,
we'll bring the, if you counsel wants to come down, I think
Please that be great.
You want you to go down there and take a
That was fun. Good job.
Yeah, that was nice.
Computer.
Oh, we're waiting for Dave. Where'd Dave go?
He just appeared. Oh, no, he's here. Okay.
Oh, Jeff, we don't need Jeff.
We will resume. Ready? Next item.
Madam Secretary. Uh,
we're still on audience participation. Madam Chair.
Announcements. Announcements. Announcements.
What did I say? Audience participation, oh, sorry.
Announcements by May.
Any Announcements by May.
Um, uh, yesterday, um, several council members, uh,
attended, uh, fire department training exercises.
One in the morning, one in the afternoon.
And the one in the morning was a, a mobile trailer that, um,
is a live burn situation
where firefighters enter this trailer
and they are exposed to flashover,
which is about 1100 degrees.
And this gives them an opportunity to judge
and, uh, react in a real situation with, with fire.
So that was very interesting.
Along with that, um, I don't know how long ago,
but we approved new thermal imaging cameras
and we were able to see them in action.
It was just amazing. We were outside of these trailers
and we could see the firemen actually crouched down inside.
Um, so it's nice to see that something that we've approved
and everybody worked hard to pick out the right equipment.
And we see it used for, uh, to do good, to help.
Um, our first responders, um, aid our residents.
So that was a really nice event and in the afternoon,
and was a demonstration of how quickly
Christmas trees can, um, ignite.
Just take, pardon me, ignite. Ignite. No ignite.
And, um, they showed the difference in a room
where there were sprinklers
and you can actually have sprinklers in residential homes.
I didn't know that until yesterday.
And, um, um, they had a room that didn't have anything,
and it was pretty scary.
And, um, they would ask that.
We remind everyone, if there's a fire in your home, get out,
close the door and stay out.
Everything can be replaced, but your life,
and if you don't have a smoke detector, um,
we've given those, uh, that information before.
I forgot to bring it again today,
but, uh, I'll put it again on our Facebook,
especially this time of year.
If you need new smoke detectors, replacement new ones,
call the fire department.
They will come out and install them free of charge.
We have a cooperation, uh, partnership
with the state fire marshal,
and this has been a really,
really success successful program.
In fact, we are doing smoke, um, uh, carbon monoxide
and, um, I don't know how long ago it was in the last month
or so that they had gone to put a,
a carbon monoxide detector in,
and later that night there was an activation
and they were able to get people out of there.
So it's really important to take advantage of those, um,
things that are offered by the fire department.
Um, I'm trying to think if there's anything else they asked.
I think that's about it. Um,
but speaking of fires, um, I think just about all
of us attended the tree lighting ceremony on Saturday.
And, um, we were, we got a little bit delayed
and it was very, very cold, but it was nice.
But while we were in the atrium in the city hall, uh,
atrium area, a fire alarm was pulled.
And I was a little, um, uh, worried
that there was no evacuation of the building.
And there has to be, that's part of the procedure.
If there is a fire alarm, whether it's pulled accidentally
or, um, purposefully there is to be, um,
evacuation of the building.
And that did not take place.
The state fire marshal was very concerned about that,
as was the, uh, city fire marshal.
And, um, when you have kids
and there were hundreds of children,
or hundreds of people including children, um, we don't want
to send the wrong message.
Even if it is, uh, a false alarm
and there's a, a fire alarm that goes off,
you want those kids to be ready to get out of that building.
And you don't want them ever in a situation
where they're gonna say, nah, I'm not going,
because it's just gonna be a, a false alarm.
It's a bad message to send to kids. So we need to do better.
Um, maybe we can, um, train, uh, the city folks
that put on these events that what they have to do, uh,
in these situ situations,
because we certainly don't want something,
uh, tragic to happen.
Um, that's all. Thank you, Adam.
Secretary. Mr. Boykin.
Can I just add a little bit to that? You say false alarm.
Um, most people, uh, say false alarm,
but it's actually not a false alarm.
Uh, if the alarm was pulled
or it goes off, it's working as it intended.
It's up to the fire department to respond
and clear the place and, uh, clear the alarm and reset it.
And then, uh, everybody could come back in.
But, uh, when the word goes out as a false alarm,
it spreads in a crowd and people say it's a false alarm.
That's not true. The alarm went off, it went off
for a purpose, whether it was, uh, a fire in the building,
in, in the eating ducks, uh, or,
or someone pulled the alarm.
It has to be clear
by the fire department. And that's, that's
Mr. Bokey.
Thank you very much for correcting me.
You are absolutely correct.
We had the discussion yesterday
and I misspoke. Thank you very much,
Madam President.
Mr. Bokey, are you finished, Mr. Nunan?
Thank you. Um, so today I got a call from Ms.
Michelle Cater, uh, about the, um,
climate Action Plan, RFP process.
Um, and they're, uh,
planning on putting together a committee
and forming a, uh, RFP, uh, committee
for the Climate Action Plan.
Then, uh, she was saying that at that point it would come
to the council to be put on the agenda to approve the RFP.
Um, at any rate, I, I thought I'd give an update on that.
And also today we have, um,
the first reading of the tree
and, uh, vegetation ordinance of the New Tree
and vegetation ordinance, three years in the making.
And, um, thank you, uh, uh, president Angela Zi
for having initiated that process.
But, um, I would like to ask Jeff, I I think
that Jeff is going to be giving some, um, modifications
to it before we actually,
I thought perhaps he could comment on that,
Uh, during the item. Oh,
Wait, wait for the item for that.
Okay. Yeah, sure. Thanks. Any other announcements?
We're making progress. I think
that's the announcement. Thank
You. Thanks.
Any other announcements,
Madam President Mr. Dwyer?
Yeah. Regarding the, uh, fire, uh, display yesterday,
the presentation demonstration, um, Warren TV was there
and videotaped the, uh, fires both sprinkler
system versus the non sprinkler system.
And I encourage everybody to watch that video.
And it's just truly amazing to watch how quickly
that fire was extinguished with just a couple
of sprinkler heads and the preservation of property
because it was extinguished so quick versus the other video
that you'll see or demonstration where
it went up fully engulfed,
everything was destroyed within a matter of four minutes.
So if you get a chance to watch Warren tv,
I I encourage you to watch that video.
It's very, uh, very enlightening. Thank you.
Any other announcements? Madam President?
Mr. Lafferty? Thank you.
Our friends at the Warren Civic Theater
are producing a holiday favorite one of mine,
especially Miracle on 34th Street.
And these performances will take place at the Owen Jacks Rec
Center at nine in Van D**e.
Uh, both Friday, Saturday and Sunday this weekend,
and Friday, Saturday is Sunday next weekend.
The performances on Friday
and Saturday are at seven o'clock,
and the matinee on Sundays are at three.
This Sunday's performance is already sold out.
Uh, the tickets are $18 for adults children, 12
and under are 14.
And for this particular performance, uh, every night,
the theater is accepting new unwrapped toys, uh,
for children in need during the holiday season.
Thank you.
Thank you. Any other announcements?
I just wanted, I have one.
I wanted to remind the, uh, general public that we meet next
Tuesday, which is off our regular
cadence because of the holiday.
And then we don't reconvene until January 10th,
the second Tuesday in January.
So, uh, meeting next week and then not again until January.
January 14th. 14th. Thank you. Okay, next item.
Next item is 11 A has been removed,
11 B 11 C.
Request to review and confirm special assessment role number
five 40 relating to the removal of house
and garage at 11 2 0 8 Stevens,
sorry, under the nuisance abatement program, public hearing.
Thank you. Is someone from this city able to summarize?
Mr. Lizza? We're all struggling with what appears
to be a common cold up here, so apologies everyone.
You hear me? There we go. Now I can go ahead. Alright.
This is a fire damaged home with a garage,
um, set for a long time.
The home has now been demolished by permit and it is gone.
This is a special assessment, uh, placed on by, um,
by public service on that.
So the house is removed, garage is removed.
Actually, the contractor did a beautiful job too.
Really nice job on that. Demolition.
Thank you. Is there anyone
from a petitioner perspective that's here?
No. Okay. I will, uh, open the public hearing.
Is there anyone from the audience who would like
to speak on this matter?
This is not a public hearing.
Okay. I will close the public hearing
and turn it over to counsel for action.
Motion to approve Support. Support.
Dwyer? Uh, I heard Ms. McGee support Mr.
Lafferty Motion discussion? Anyone?
No. Hearing none? I'll call the question. Ms. Lafferty?
Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item
11 B, which is a public hearing request
for standard rezoning located north of eight mile Road
between Warner and Bach Avenues.
From the present zoning classifications of R one C one,
family residential district R one P one, family residential
and parking district, and R four Mobile Home district
to R three, multiple family dwelling district Section
31, 31 27 Maple
13 31, 452 2 9.
And parcels 1331.
453 0 1 13 31 453 5 13 31 4 54 0 1
through 0 0 4 13 31 454 0 10
and 13 31 4 77 0 2 2.
Robert j Schmear Continental Bridge Communities LLC
Tom Callas, Esquire.
Call Cadian, P-L-C-P-R
24 0 0 0 1.
Someone from the administration able
to summarize the matter.
Mr. Wirth?
Uh, good evening. Uh, Madam President
and Honorable counsel.
This is, uh, a standard rezoning where the, uh,
petitioner, uh, provides a concept plan.
It's not a plan that, I mean, they, they,
we certainly would want them to, uh, follow it
as closely as possible.
Uh, but, uh, the proposal itself, when we're going to
multifamily, uh, uh, type of a district down in a, an area
that in the master plan, it's, it's specifically, uh,
is indicated as a redevelopment area in the city.
And, um, that particular area along eight Mile
Road is in need of that.
This is a former, uh, trailer park
and, uh, it's, uh, it's not doing very well.
Needless to say, there's maybe it 15% of the,
uh, dwellings that were there at one time, uh, in the past.
But, uh, planning, uh, department
and the planning commission, uh, support this rezoning.
And we do hope that, uh, city council we,
uh, understands everything and,
and then, uh, gets all their,
uh, questions to their answers. So
That's about it. Thank you.
Alright, is, uh, the petitioner here,
can you give us your name for the record, sir?
Yes. Good evening. Uh, city Council members,
my name is Tom Callis from Callis Cadian, PLC.
My address is 3 1 3 5 0 Telegraph Road, suite 2 0 1,
and that's Bingham Farms, Michigan.
And we are here this evening seeking approval
for our rezoning request.
Uh, I do echo Mr.
W's comments relative to the actual petition itself.
Uh, we are here to, uh, repurpose the Continental Bridge,
uh, manufactured home community, uh,
into a multi-family development, um, with rental apartments.
Currently, the, uh, the, uh, site is in, in very bad shape.
It's, uh, as Mr. Wirth indicated, uh,
of the 265 mobile home sites that exist.
Only 18 of 'em currently have residents.
14 are owners, and four, four
of them are actually rental units.
So 18 total units out of 2 65 that are occupied.
Um, we're going to repurpose this site, uh, redevelop it.
It's going to be all new, uh, obviously, uh, infrastructure,
paving, landscaping, you know, nice apartment units.
Um, it's an area that the master plan calls for this type
of development, an infill new residential type development.
There is a demand for housing, obviously,
throughout southeast Michigan.
Uh, and we are going to, uh, come in
and, you know, uh, the owners, uh, will redevelop this,
repurpose it, and it'll be aesthetically pleasing.
Uh, the planning commission did recommend approval.
The planning department, I believe
also recommended approval.
And I do have with me here this evening, uh,
the developer represented from the developer
and also our engineer.
Should you have any questions.
Um, other than that, we did submit a concept plan.
We do, uh, acknowledge that, uh,
if the rezoning is approved, that we have to go
through formal site plan, approval process and engineering.
And obviously we'll be ready to do that, uh,
if the rezoning is approved.
So, um, it's, it's gonna be a nice development.
Uh, these operators
and owners, uh, our nationwide developers, they,
they develop all over.
They're very skilled, uh, you know, very financially, uh,
uh, you know, able to do this.
And, you know, obviously, uh,
it's going to clean up the area.
It'll be a nice development.
And, uh, we would ask the city council to approve the,
uh, rezoning petition.
Uh, if there's any questions, uh, we're here to answer 'em.
Uh, thank you very much, Madam President.
Thank you. If you can, um, sit nearby in the event
that folks have questions, that would be helpful.
We have madam. One second.
I'm, we have to open the public hearing. Okay. Sorry.
Uh, I will open the public hearing.
Is there anyone from the audience who would like
to speak on the matter?
Hi, I apologize I didn't get
to look at all the backup on this, but I do have questions.
Oh, you can? Oh, I don't, okay.
Um, how are the people that are living there
going to have housing?
Um, are they going to be displaced?
Um, if they own their home,
it will have no value if you're tearing everything down.
Right? So we've got 14
or 18, 18 families, 14 that own four that are renting.
So that's, that's a concern.
And, and I apologize if it's in the backup, I'll, you know,
I'll look at it later.
Um, so where are those people gonna go?
Is it even gonna be affordable for them?
Because my guess is they're there
because they can't afford anything else,
and they certainly can't afford an apartment
someplace, or they wouldn't be there.
How tree is this property?
How much tree cover are we gonna lose?
Because they're gonna take it all down for parking lots
and multifamily dwellings.
Um, I believe that, you know, the master plan,
but I'm pretty sure the master plan talks about not making
more of our city a cement, uh, garden.
So those are questions I would, I would like to ask, um,
in, in terms of all the utilities
that would have to be updated.
Um, what is the city's responsibility financially?
Uh, or is this something that just the owners
and are the owners at all related to any of the owners
that are renovating some other, uh, parks in our area
and that haven't been doing so well,
where people have been coming
and saying this is not going the way it needed to go.
So those are my questions. Thank you.
Anyone else for audience? Okay.
I will close the public hearing
and turn it over to counsel for action.
Motion to approve
Support Lafferty with discussion.
Uh, let's see. Motion discussion, uh, Mr.
Lafferty. And then Ms. McGee.
I will yield to Ms. McGee.
She, she did speak earlier. Okay.
Thank you. Um, at far as the,
I'm sorry, I didn't get your name,
Mr. Callas.
Mr. Callas. Yeah.
I know we had spoken at the time that, um, you had came
to the planning meeting, um, Mr.
Andre Doucher, who's one of the, uh,
commissioner has also spoken.
It was around 18, um, people that showed up who live in
that area, who stated that they were either disabled
or could not afford to move at that time.
And you had informed us that you would, um, communicate
with them on a regular basis.
You would have meetings with them Yes.
In which you invited me to attend,
and that you will also try
to assist in working out something
with their moving assistance in the program.
Yes. Have you guys put a plan together
or had a meeting regarding this?
Uh, the developers here, Mr. Kasab, he can answer that.
Um, I'm the attorney,
so I haven't had any communication with the residents.
Uh, we've left that up to the developer
and they're, they're going to,
as indicated at the planning commission meeting, you know,
before anything even, you know, takes place with respect
to actually developing the site, it's going to take,
you know, quite some time.
You know, obviously site plan approval,
engineering approval permits and all that.
You're talking 12, 18 months minimum, right.
Before anything ever happens. So it is a plan
of the developer, and, and again, I'll let Mr.
Kassab speak to that, uh, to work with these residents,
help 'em relocate.
I believe there is a, a community just right up the road
also, you know, look at openings in that area.
But, you know, he's here and he can
answer your question more thoroughly.
Okay. I would like that. Yes.
If you could come to the microphone.
Good evening. Um, And your name, sorry.
Sure. Um, my name is Mark Kasab, uh,
3 1 5 5 0 Northwestern Highway
representing Continental Bridge Communities LLC.
So, and I apologize, um,
and, um, that I don't recall if
I was in that meeting or not.
Um, but I don't think you were at
the last planning commission meeting.
There was some discussion
regarding assistance to the residents.
And some of these residents, as we know, have been there
for over 30 years at this park.
And there is state legislation that we would follow
that is required to give the residents a one year
notification upon a change of use.
We certainly will oblige by that, as Mr. Kali had stated.
Um, we're probably 18 months and,
and unfortunately these homes, based on my knowledge,
cannot be moved because of their age, their condition.
They have numerous, what they call bump outs in the homes,
so they add on the house.
So most manufactured homes are a rectangle,
but you add on to it
and it becomes very difficult, if not impossible to move it.
Um, so we'll be working with the residents upon approval
of the rezoning, um, to provide them the proper time
to provide them the proper assistance.
And one of the comments from, uh, the young lady
that was just up here, as well as we're also looking
to see if we can, um, get them first in line
for the affordable housing or attainable housing
that we're looking to provide as well.
Um, so certainly, um, there's 12 people
that own their homes today.
Four renters within the park, roughly under 5% occupied.
Um, but 136 homes that need to be demolished within the park
that are existing on site today vacant.
I hope that answers your question,
Madam President, if you put me into lineup. Yeah.
Ms. McGee, you still have the floor? No, I'm done.
You're done. Mr. Lafferty,
Once again, I'll, I'll defer to Mr.
Newan. He also spoke before
I did Mr. Newnan
floor. Yours.
Okay. Thank you. So, I have a concern that
as far as the city council's concerned, if we approve this,
then, uh, pretty much things go forward and,
and it's not, I don't think we, we, uh, revisit this.
And so it seemed to me somewhat nebulous
and it's nice that you'll do what you can
to help them find other locations,
but, um, it, it seemed like that
that isn't very definitive.
I was hoping that, you know, I I, I wasn't in charge
of the planning commission meeting.
I maybe I should have spoken up more then,
but I would've liked to have had you already
have made some contact with those, uh, residents
and started actually figuring that out, even though
it's going to be quite a ways in the future
before you're actually building, you haven't gotten the, um,
rezoning authorization yet.
And so in a way, it's kind of early to ask about that.
But, um, if it's just moving
people into other locations,
like physically helping them to move,
but they have to like, make the contracts themselves for
what they're going to, um, be living in,
it's if, if it's not a financial help, I don't, I don't,
I don't know, like, um, I don't even think I know how
to ans ask this very well.
Do, do you get where I'm going?
I think I get where you're going.
Can can you be a little bit more Yeah.
Could, could, like, make more of a commitment
to actually looking out for the welfare
with these people. Is that all right?
Without a doubt. And again, this community, um,
this particular development's gonna be attainable.
This isn't gonna be high-end luxury apartments by any means.
Um, this is gonna be attainable.
So we certainly understand, uh, the need for this.
And it's kind of like the chicken
and the egg, which comes first, right?
If we start negotiating with the residents to move now
and it doesn't get approved right, then we moved them out
of a location, right.
That didn't get approved. Right.
Um, so that's why typically, you know, again,
there's state legislation that requires a notification.
It's my experience that a lot
of these folks are gonna need assistance,
financial assistance, to be very candid with you.
Um, we are just not prepared to commit to it until we have
some sort of, uh, agreement with the city
that we would be looking to redevelop this park.
Otherwise, you know, how do you offer somebody
to move if we're not gonna redevelop the park?
They own their home. It's their home. It's not our home.
The 12 owner occupied, it's, it's their home.
Thank you for, um, that's exactly how I saw the situation.
And I, I think it's, it's kind of, um,
it could be very sad for some of these people.
Um, but I, I did wanna say that I feel that
what you're planning on doing there seems to be really high,
uh, very high quality thing.
You are looking out for the neighbors who were, uh,
concerned about your development, uh,
looking into their windows, you're, you're gonna make it so
that they have the privacy.
You are putting in adequate, um, amounts of trees so
that it, it gives a visual block.
Um, I I thought it,
it sounded like you had really done a good job thinking
through all this, especially with the help
of the planning commission.
So, um, I'm, I'm planning on approving your project.
I just, this is the last time to ask, um, for mercy for the,
uh, the people that are there.
I can, I can assure you that's
What I'm doing. Assure we are
kind human beings
and we will not leave these people homeless.
Okay. Uh, we'll do everything in our power
to assist them within reason.
Okay. Um, and to make a win-win situation for the residents,
the developer, and the community.
Thank you so much. I don't mean to be a bully or anything.
No, no. You're not at all. Okay.
Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Thank
You Mr. Newan.
Mr. Lafferty. Thank you Madam Chair through the chair
to, uh, Mr.
Wirth and to Mr. Callis.
Uh, first, uh, the, the questions I have, uh,
and having traveled by this property
for so many years, seeing the condition deteriorate,
what, this is going to be a beautiful addition
to this particular section of the city.
Uh, I am, I'm thrilled that we're,
we're actually in investing in, in this capacity,
so many units, so many people, uh,
an infusion into the economy
to support the businesses that are there.
Uh, I do have a, a couple of questions as to
there are approximately 45 lots to the south
of the development that you're proposing
and within, within your rezoning plan.
Uh, several of which are vacant, city owned lots.
And of them, I would say a handful, maybe seven
or eight, appear to have homes on them.
Was it considered, or why was it not considered to expand,
uh, to border the commercial districts
that Line eight Mile Road?
Could you comment on that please?
So we did discuss the community owned lots.
Um, the city owned lots, I should say.
And we don't own 'em,
so we couldn't include 'em within the rezoning.
Love to work with the city,
assuming this project moves forward to incorporate 'em,
whether it's open space parks, some sort
of amenity for the development.
Um, and, and, but essentially
because we own the land of where we own mm-hmm.
We had to show the plan on what we own versus
I don't believe we can, could have come in
with a rezoning application on land that wasn't owned
by the developer, um,
City. I, I understand
that part. Yeah.
What, what I'm asking is, as from a development standpoint,
was it considered to purchase those properties,
look at acquiring those properties for expanding
or potential expansion of your project?
Either now or in the future? It certainly
Would have an interest if that was available.
Okay. And the reason I ask, we've had this
before where several of our developments have come in phases
and they've shown phase here's the, the grand grand picture.
We're doing phase one, this is phase one.
This is what phase two and phase three look like.
Looking at this. And Ms. Moore, I've immediately thought
of the Land Bank.
We have city owned lots that are completely vacant.
They're providing no taxable value to the city.
We have other underperforming properties that if
acquired by the Land Bank, could then be turned around
and, you know, used for this type of purpose.
This is a showcase of what a land bank could do
for development
and, you know, helping serve a public purpose
and enriching the city, especially in a,
in an area like this.
So I, I wanted to, to make sure that that was on the radar.
Uh, this council passed a, a land bank resolution.
We're waiting for, uh, mayor Stone to sign that.
And so as soon as that's done, we can begin, you know,
looking at how to, you know,
move properties underperforming
and the vacant properties into the Land Bank
to facilitate such developments like this.
Um,
Love to have that opportunity.
Thank you. To include 'em.
Uh, other than that, uh, I've, and,
and I've, I've driven through, through this.
This is, this is going to be a, a terrific, um, a terrific
setup through the chair to Mr.
Wirth for public notice.
On, on the rezonings, all of, were all
of the homes that border both to the south
and to the north, were those within the,
the state guidelines for notification?
Uh, yes, of course. Okay.
So they, they, they were all,
all met the 300 foot, uh, requirement.
Uh, more than that, we go 350,
so we're not gonna make any mistakes.
Excellent. Yeah. And just as a,
and I read through the notes, uh, the, the tenor of the,
the comments whether, you know, as far as, you know,
acceptability of the plan, the, and,
and I know that I'm, I don't want
to venture into site planning,
but you know, the, the overall purpose, was it, was it
positive, neutral?
Oh, the, this is, uh, extremely positive. Okay.
In, in what we, uh, uh, are, are looking for.
And, uh, remember this will, uh, if approved
by city council, it comes back to the planning commission.
Mm-hmm. And, uh, the planning, uh, department
and, you know, how we operate.
I do, we're tight on this and, uh,
we've also in the past had situations, uh, dealing with, uh,
people who already live there.
And, uh, we have a tendency to oversee that real closely.
We're very sensitive to that situation.
Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
You're welcome, gentlemen. Thank you.
Thank you. I have, I have no further questions.
Any additional discussion?
Okay. Hearing none, I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes. Ms. Lafferty?
Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Boye? Yes. Mr.
Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan CA? Yes. Motion.
Carrie. Next item.
Next item is E, which is a public hearing request
for rezoning with conditions located on the east side
of Shana Road, approximately 841.58 feet
north of 10 Mile Road from the present zoning
classification, R one C one family residential district
to R three, multiple family dwelling district 25,440 Shaner
Road, section 24, Rocky Ahmad.
Um, counsel, as you were given at the beginning
of the meeting, a modified, uh, version of this, Mr.
Lafferty, I believe worked with Mr.
Wirth and they worked out Ms.
Michaels may have been involved, um,
but they did make some, uh, changes.
So you have the new one in front of you.
This was just done recently, so
that's why it's was so late coming.
Thank you. Someone from the administration, uh,
summarize this item, Mr.
Wirth,
and perhaps highlighting what has been changed in that
document, if at all possible.
No. Or Ms. Michaels.
I think Ms. Michaels, uh, she, she dealt directly with,
uh, with the owner on this particular thing.
If I recall, it was, uh, just some modifications that had
to do with the request from, uh, Councilman
Lafferty on a berm.
I believe it's a berm and the height of it to be, uh,
three feet and not 36
feet, so to speak.
Mm-hmm. And What was the other part?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Michaels. The
Modifications as discussed
with Councilman Lafferty are just to provide clarification
that the developer does not have to
in install a basement in the units.
There's clarification.
There will be 20 units, not 21,
and there will be no basement.
The council between the time the
developer submitted the voluntary offer of conditions,
and today, counsel adopted a, an ordinance
that removed the requirement
for basement in multifamily dwelling.
So for ance of doubt, we included that in the agreement.
Thank you. Is the petitioner here?
Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Graham.
I'm the project architect.
Um, I'm representing the Ahma family.
Uh, the MA family is, um, they're very familiar
with Warren since they have their, they've had a primary
business in this city for many, many years.
Um, what our goal is, is to build a small apartment bu uh,
uh, complex with consisting of two buildings for a total of,
uh, 20 apartments.
Um, we've been working very diligently
with the planning department as well as the neighbors,
and have sort of fine tuned a conceptual site plan
that we hope that, uh, will, will,
that we feel would fit very well in with this community.
Um, the rezoning, rezoning
of this property would allow a higher residential density,
infield development along a, your, one
of your major major roadways, which is Shaner Road.
Uh, we also, by doing it this way,
you've also eliminated the possibility
of even higher density, uh, of use such as an office
or commercial property
that would back up onto the other residences
on Industrial Road.
Um, if you look at your master plan, the, uh, the one
that was developed in 2021, they've actually called
for this area to have what they called a, uh, missing middle
residential development in this, that they think
that they need to go between the commercial
and the single family homes.
And so this, this development act, this, this, this, uh,
this concept actually fits very well in with
that, with that plan.
Um, we also understand that there's, uh, there's quite a bit
of time, uh, quite a bit of other work left to do
before we can move, uh, completely forward, such
as getting our site plan approval, um,
and, uh, to also do site engineering and et cetera.
Um, I would like to mention that the next, uh,
item on your agenda is also our concerns.
This property, um, the road that's
behind us is Indu called Indu Industrial Road, or Indu.
Anyway, it was initially designed for a,
a access road to a very large industrial area.
That industrial area was never built.
So, um, so the roadway, which is,
has an extra 50 feet alongside of it, that
that is basically vac vacant property.
And in order for us to make our property work, we would need
to have, we would like to have that property vacated.
And that's, that, that topic will be discussed in detail
next, but it's also a integral part of what we're doing.
Thank you. Thank you. If you all could stay
close by in the event that
We have questions. Okay, no problem.
I will open the public hearing.
Is there anyone from the audience who would like to
speak on this matter?
Okay,
Good evening. Can you
give us your name for the record?
James Riddell. Thank you.
So I've been a resident of Warren
for over 14 years on this street,
and we were here probably 13, 14 months ago.
And I don't know if you sum up there, remember,
but they proposed plans that looked like a Motel six.
You guys will probably remember that conversation.
We have had no contact any of the residents on the streets
with the developments of the builders to see any plans.
The previous meeting was about having the approach
or the easement to enter the apartment complex
down industrial Highway.
Well, industrial Highway, even the garbage trucks back up
to go down the street.
So from the beginning,
I would say in the morning till mid-afternoon,
even rush hour, you still can't turn left
or right out of there, you know,
and with added traffic of 20 more apartment units,
that's gonna add a lot more traffic.
So as the residents, we haven't seen anything.
There's been no communication.
Like he, for mentioned, even this
meeting, I didn't get a notice.
I had to find out from my neighbors that, Hey, this,
this is up for, you know, topic today.
So we'd like to, here's some direction
and more on the planning of what's going on.
Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on the matter?
Yep, come on up.
Good evening council members. My name is Rick Schmidt.
I live on Industrial Highway and have for about 35 years.
When I first moved on to Industrial Highway, all of those,
all of that parcel was single family homes.
And I have known each individual that lived there.
Now, if you keep putting up this apartment building,
I won't know who my neighbor is.
I won't know anything that goes on.
I won't know what kind of person they are.
Do they pay city taxes? No, I don't think so.
They take advantage of everything.
They get the school system, the fire department,
the police department, and they're free to come and go.
And if you have an apartment there,
those people are transients all the time.
There's people coming in, going out.
Then when you go to build this construction,
who eats the brunt, the people that live on that street,
you got construction going up and down.
You got all the dirt, you got the noise,
you got people running around.
This is just not a good idea
for a small neighborhood community
that's just been a neighborhood community forever.
That street, as I remember,
it was never a wide street.
Never. There might be a 50 foot easement there,
but it was never intended to be that wide.
It, it did go crisscrossed through Warren at one time,
and that was probably in the thirties.
And now we're wanting to go backwards
and take that away to make that street wider
so you can get more truck traffic down there,
or you get more car traffic down there,
you would still have congestion trying
to make a turn onto Shaner.
That whole situation has to empty onto Shaner
that if you get out in the morning or in the early afternoon
or at quitting time when the,
when the factories let out in the, in the afternoon,
you might wait five or six or 10 minutes to make a turn.
And if there's an emergency on the street, me personally,
I live with a woman that's disabled,
I may need an emergency in a situation where,
how can they get down there if there's people trying to come
and go out of the neighborhood.
That neighborhood was never designed for
that amount of traffic flow.
It's a small neighborhood.
It's only seven houses on the whole block. Thank you.
Thank you. I do have one other question though,
and it, it's in concern to the next, uh,
piece on the agenda.
So we'll have a public hearing
for that. You can come up and
Speak that. I would just like a
definition of what a vacation is.
Sure. We're happy to provide that for you. Thank you.
In the next item. Thank you.
Is there anyone else from the audience who would like
to speak on this matter?
Okay. I will close the public hearing
and I will turn it over to, to, yes. Can I
Respond to those questions?
Uh, yes.
But let us, um, turn it over to counsel for action first.
Okay. Thank you
Madam Chair. I'd like to address
You to Chair Motion or support
First. Motion to approve.
Thank you. With discussion
S support, Bokey with discussion, uh, floor is yours, Ms.
Chair. Mr. Bokey discussion,
I'd like to, uh, Ms.
Michael's, uh, Mr. W's approach,
has there been any traffic study done for this project
or on Shaner In regards
to this, uh, development?
That's correct. No, there has not. Okay.
I'm very familiar with it.
Uh, the, the problem
that they're having there all the way from 10 mile to 11,
there's no center lane.
So if you have a southbound vehicle coming down Shaner,
and once it turned into this, uh, complex
or an industrial drive, they actually block the lane
and it's very hazardous.
Uh, we had a fatality rate in front of Myers a year ago.
Um, I asked, uh, Macomb County, it is a county road.
I asked them to do an engineer.
They gotta do an engineering survey first.
But I think that the, the concerns
that the residents are legit, um, I'm not,
I'm also getting the complaints from residents, uh,
that live on the east
or west side of Shanar between 10 and 11.
The only time it goes to a center lane is at 10 and a half.
It'll wide a little bit more.
So you can have a left turn lane,
but it's very hazardous with the amount of traffic
that goes down shaner in that area.
Uh, and I don't know if that's a requirement, uh, to be done
to for a project, but I think it,
there is a definite concern from the residents on this
and, uh, I'll yield back.
Thank you. Discussion. Anyone else?
Madam Chair? Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you. Alright.
And looking at the,
the minutes from the planning department, uh, Mr.
Wirth, it was at Mr. Graham even stated
that back in December of 2023, that they were in
constant contact at that time with all of the neighbors
and that all of their needs had been met.
Now, back in September of 2022, when this originally came
to us, uh, the gentleman that spoke earlier and,
and said that this looked like Motel six was not kidding.
Right. And we, we were not at all, uh, in favor
of the development that time.
The, And I,
and I've looked at, I, I went back
and looked at, uh, the, the recordings from those meetings,
refreshed all the notes,
and based on the comments from the December meeting,
and there is no egress from
onto Industrial Highway there, there's no egress
or ingress to this, this site.
And so there should not be
any additional traffic along Industrial Highway, even
with the, the vacation of the street.
Uh, and I'll get to that in a moment.
There are four driveways
that are presently available onto Shaer Road,
and those are being consolidated into one central driveway.
Is that correct? That is correct. Okay.
And so all of the traffic from this site
is going to be filtered out directly onto Shana Road,
whether they're making a left or right hand turn?
Yes. Okay. Uh,
with regard to,
Uh, The,
this site has been vacant for so long,
and we went
through the motions up here two years ago.
We put this back into the developer's hands.
Ms. Moore made the motion, uh, to send this back
to the planning department.
And it was at the request of the developer himself at
that meeting to table this
because he saw that the plan was not going to come
to fruition at that point, realized
that this is not the plan that we need for this site.
Now, other than the, the comment that Mr.
Riddell had said concerns me
that there's not been any recent contact.
But from everything that I can see with the,
the changes that were requested, the proposed berm,
which you clarified in the agreement, uh, you have,
uh, site lines.
These are the extra long lots that,
that abut these properties.
The, the berms, these are evergreens as I understand them,
uh, on the site plan, which is not, again,
I don't wanna get into site plan territory,
but, you know, overall vision, it appears that
all of the concerns from two years ago,
including a complete redesign of the,
the elevations, they,
they look like individual homes that are stacked together.
They, they're town homes
and so very attractive looking homes.
I, I can't disagree.
Yes, you're, you're going to have, uh, people that,
that typically look to, middle, middle housing
may not be the long-term residents,
but we, we have a, a desperate need per the master plan
for middle housing.
And I think the site is absolutely suited for it.
And I was encouraged that all of the changes
that the developer had made, looking at all these plans were
to satisfy the residents that lived right across the street.
That's, that's my understanding as it is tonight.
So, uh, Ms.
Michaels, thank you for, uh, meeting with me this morning.
Curious on the, the rezoning agreement, the
requirement for basements, can you point out
to me in the revised copy where, where that is?
I haven't had an opportunity to look for that.
Certainly. Page two at the bottom, it appears in red.
Oh, it's ours. Ours is all black and white.
I'm sorry. Sorry. I thought it was
Called basements will not be required pursuant to the,
pursuant to the ordinance.
And then, uh, the condition number two,
the proposed units is 20.
And then the call for the construction, Mr.
Wirth, the, the 36 inch berm as it was, uh,
called out in the conditional agreement.
Uh, what was, you mentioned earlier?
I don't believe I heard you correctly.
What is the, the actual height of the berm?
It, it's supposed to be 36 inches.
36 inches? Yeah.
Alright, so that's, that's just the height of the berm,
obviously not including the, the evergreens?
No, no, that's the height of the berm
at its peak, so to speak.
And then Okay. We've got, uh, vegetation planted on top of
that to increase the, the height and, and view and vision.
Alright. Because the, the plans that we were given, uh,
call for the,
the 18 foot wide five foot tall berm.
So that, that was the,
that was the reason I brought that up to Ms. Michaels.
Okay. Five foot tall.
Could not that, could you clarify
the, uh, the difference here?
What's on the plan versus what's in the condition?
Well, it certainly isn't a five foot high tall berm.
Uh, I don't, not, not to my recollection.
Three foot, as I just indicated,
would be tall enough.
Uh, then you put the vegetation, the trees,
and the shrubs on, plant those on top,
and that increases the height.
Uh, those are usually about five feet to begin with,
and then they grow within a few years
and increase that, that height.
That height, it provides a nice, uh, uh,
uh, screen, so to speak, a vegetative screen
that is there a year round.
Mm-hmm.
Right. But the, I guess my question, just
for clarification, the, the five foot tall landscape berm
that's called for on the plan, is the,
the minimum height of the vegetation on top of the 36 inch
berm at the ground level?
Well, it's, I, we could interpret it that way,
but I, I, I can't answer for sure that that's the exact,
the exact wording.
I mean, maybe the agreement could be
looked into differently.
I, i, uh, didn't have a chance
to look at the agreement, uh, myself, it,
but I thought that it was pretty well straightened out here,
handled going to three feet.
Okay. But, and then Just that way
For, for tonight, what, what are we agreeing to?
Are we agreeing to, we're agreeing to this,
to what's written, which calls for a 36 inch high berm.
That's what they're saying. But the, the plans that we were
provided calls for a five foot berm.
No. So I just wanted to know between you
and the developer, what are we
being asked to agree to tonight?
The developer is requesting a 36 inch high firm.
Okay. And that's, that's a document that, uh, Ms.
Michaels just showed me.
Okay. Alright. And, and, and we agree to that
and these requirements
and, uh, regulations that there, they're listed in that, uh,
agreement will be, uh,
fulfilled in the site plan approval process strictly
unless something needs to be changed. Yes.
Alright. Yes. Alright. Thank you for that clarification.
And again, I, Ms.
Michaels, I appreciate you, you know, having this
for us tonight as opposed to doing this after the fact
and during our reconsideration period.
Thank you. This is very much appreciated.
Uh, the Mr.
Bokey brought up an item about the traffic
and two years ago we brought up the very same concerns
that Shana Road needs to be expanded.
Ms. rogenSi, you made mention the same thing.
Uh, and at the time we were, we asked you to,
uh, contact Macomb County Department of Roads asking them
to expand the road.
Obviously that hasn't happened yet.
As a part of this, I'd like to ask that the city
send a letter to the Macomb County Department of Roads.
We asked, it was needed in 2022.
It was needed when Myers went in prior
to Myers going in, it was needed.
Uh, it was needed when the Constitution subdivision went in,
and it still hasn't happened.
So I'd like to ask for a letter
to the Macomb County Department of Roads
to renew our request for a widening of shaner
of, it's, it's holistic.
It's not specific to this project.
It's needed across the board.
And I think anywhere from 10 mile all the way north
to 14 mile is probably, uh, an expansion that,
that would be required by this point.
Uh, so I'd, I'd like to ask for that as well.
Uh, but other than that, I, if all
of the concerns from two years ago have been satisfied
to, uh, the resident's concern, I see no reason to
not move this forward.
The vacation that is the next item gives us the
additional footage necessary for the berm
and the parking. Is that correct?
Uh, yes, that's Correct. Okay. Alright.
Uh, I have no other questions.
Okay. Any other discussion?
Uh, I have, um, echo some sentiments about the traffic.
I live up the street. Uh, and so go down that stretch.
It's very dangerous, uh, if you try to go
to the grocery store, if you're coming, uh, north,
if you're not driving south and turning right in.
So I imagine that is going to continue
to get, uh, congested.
I, um, feel tremendously for you all in
that this property is sitting there
and that this continues to come up
and you perhaps don't feel like you have as much
of a voice on what is happening in that piece of property.
But I was just driving by it
and I was just driving by it today
and thought, you know, what a shame that we have this piece
of property that has a bunch of litter and trash on it
and is sitting vacant, uh, with, within the city
that has the opportunity to, to,
to serve some purpose other than just sitting vacant.
Um, so I echo Mr.
Lafferty's sentiments that as we move through this process,
that a light needs to be, uh, looked at some other mechanism
to control traffic because it is only going to get far worse
for folks trying to come and go with no center lane
and the addition of a driveway.
So I don't know how we beyond a letter do that,
but, uh, would love
to see Macomb County Roads figure out
a way of managing that.
Okay. If I can add to that, it, uh,
city Council should send a request to the administration,
uh, and then, uh, that'll be prob forwarded to, uh,
whomever, uh, to, uh, communicate with the road commission,
uh, or the, uh, county roads, so to speak.
And they're responsible for that. It's their road.
And, uh, they, I can tell you, I've talked to those people.
They know that we've requested that.
I can't answer for why they haven't even reacted.
Uh, sometimes they can talk to us about what roads are going
to be worked on and expanded.
So an inquiry can be made,
but send, send, uh, the administration, the, the request
and we'll, we'll move on that rapidly.
Mr. Worth, who would, uh, be in charge of a traffic light.
Is that still 'cause it's a county road? The county would,
Yes.
Yeah. They, they have 10 mile and Shaner. Okay.
They've got the light. Do I, do you think it needs
to be re timed or something?
Something needs to be done within that stretch
because it's, people go very fast
and there's a ton of people turning left
and right out of Meyer and that complex.
Yeah. Yes. And it just is not a safe
stretch of property to be driving.
And if you're adding additional folks to it,
then it's only going to get worse.
Well, actually, I mean, everything
that's been mentioned here tonight, it, uh, I,
I've done some of this work in, in my past.
So it, I think it's the county roads who are,
have a responsibility to do that type of a, uh,
traffic study of that, that intersection.
It's a, it's a node that's been, uh,
mentioned in our master plan.
It's an area that's being redeveloped there also,
there are still properties around there that are ready
for redevelopment and we gotta have the roads ready for it.
That's what, and, uh, no doubt about that request.
It's a, it's a valid one.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Bokey. Mr.
W, uh, is it a requirement to do a traffic study
or for projects like this by the city
before we, uh, put plans into motion?
Uh, I know Kroger's had a traffic study
and, um, they have a turn lane.
And I tell you, I live over there.
There's an accident there in front of Kroger's,
or the police departments here.
They tell you every day with the amount of traffic.
So you're putting 20 units in figure two cars to a house.
Maybe some half of 'em got three cars
because of family members.
You're talking 50 vehicles going in
and out of there possibly every day, plus deliveries,
mailmen, whatever.
It's a lot of traffic to, you know, to put on that location.
Um, I contacted the county myself when I first got elected,
uh, and notified him.
I was told that the city engineer's office has
to do a survey or request a survey.
Uh, I notified 'em verbally at the time.
I don't know whatever happened,
but they requested a survey, uh, a traffic study.
But if that was a requirement of, of, of the planning
or whoever, um, a traffic study, we could present that
to them to expedite their study.
It, it's not, it's not been a requirement, uh, uh, with,
uh, this many dwellings.
We don't see that as, as a great amount of, uh,
uh, people moving in, you know, in
and out driving in and out.
Uh, when you mention Kroger's, well imagine
how many people are going to the grocery grocery store.
And it's about, uh, I understand, you know,
I understand that Many,
many more there. But this, this
Is right across from Myers.
Well, I understand. And you gotta
Complete, so you gotta take consideration Myers
With Meyers Myers.
All I could tell you is drive it every day,
and you'll see what I mean,
and well, you know, we just want to get it done in,
in the right way to get, you know, absolutely
Channel it. I'll
look into it personally. Thank you. Absolutely.
Mr. Lafferty. Thank you. I real, I apologize.
I realized I had one more, uh, item to the residents.
Uh, the agreement that we're voting on this evening,
the conditions offered by the developer call for
that, the developer should make a contact name,
phone number, and email available
to the residential neighbors within 300 feet
to assist in mitigating any disturbances to the neighborhood
that may be caused during construction use
or occupation of the property.
And that this obligation shall,
shall survive the completion of the development.
So, you know, during the whole course of this,
the developer is obligated to, uh,
provide you contact information to keep in contact with
the development and their, their organization.
So, uh, I'd encourage you to, you know, make use of
that if you have any concerns.
And, you know, we, uh, we hold hide high standards here in,
in Warren, and it's nice to see that cooperation
between developers.
I, I spoke about the, the harmony between, uh, two years ago
between developers and the, the neighbors.
And that's a two-way street.
So I, I see a lot
of good faith on the depart of this developer.
I'd like to see, uh, see that through. Thank you.
And, uh, just last,
and then I'll call the question for the residents.
This is just rezoning the property.
This isn't approving a site plan
or any additional things beyond what is in, uh,
the rezoning agreement.
So there's still a ton that has to come back
before the planning commission
and then assuming it's voted on,
and then a ton that would have to come back before,
or a plan that would have to come back before council again.
So this is just rezoning the property, uh,
with some conditions around what that looks like.
Oh, site plan does not come back to us.
Just the planning commission. Thank you for correcting me.
Sorry. Misspoke does not come back to us.
It will go to the Planning commission for approval.
And so that is, uh, we'll get Notif noticed the folks.
Yes. We'll notice we'll go back, uh, out to the, uh,
the residence again.
And, um, uh,
the planning department is,
is available at any time they have any questions.
They can call us also.
Thank you. And They'll answer.
Thank you for correcting me Mr. Lafferty.
Sorry for misspeaking. Everyone, uh,
I will call the question.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Uh, Dwyer? No.
Uh, Ms. McGee? Yes. Ms. Moore?
Yes. Mr. Noonan? Yes.
Rogan C is a no. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 11
F uh, which is a public hearing industrial highway right
of way vacation, located on the west side
of Industrial Highway between Shayna Road
and Malvina Avenue.
Section 24 25, 440 Shana Road. Raad.
Mr. Schroder, before, um, Mr.
Wrf comes up, can you provide the definition of vacation
for this gentleman if you have it?
Sure. Vacation is a situation where
you have a public right of way
or a public space that is being, um, vacated
so it no longer be owned by the public.
Um, I know Mr.
Wirth can probably, uh, give more details as to actually how
that would work in this particular case.
Um, but it's vacating it as a a,
in this case it says highway right of way vacation.
Um, so I know Mr.
Worth can probably give a little more detail on that.
Thank you. Mr. Wirth,
can you summarize this item four us this evening?
Okay. So this is the second part.
Had to do the first part in order
to be able to do the second part.
But this is a, a, yeah.
Industrial Highway was platted
with an extra wide right of way.
So what you see out there as far as, uh, the, uh, uh,
roadway is concerned,
I think was put right down the middle of it.
And, um, it, so in this case,
there's extra land to, to be added about.
It's 30 feet that would be added along the west side
of Industrial Highway to that property for the purpose
that was mentioned here earlier.
And, uh, sidewalk and for, I believe sidewalk
and, uh, the berm and screening
and that type of, uh, uh, vegetation,
uh, that, that help, help screen it.
It's actually, I, I think the people I hope along, uh, uh,
industrial Highway that are there
might find it maybe a little quieter.
'cause sometimes that's the result, uh,
from this type of application.
But vacating, uh, that part of the right
of way will not affect the existing roadway at all.
No change. So, thank you.
Um, that's what I have to
Say. Thank you.
Uh, does the petitioner want to speak?
Excuse me? I said, does the petitioner wanna speak?
Oh, yes, yes,
Yes. Hi, my name is
Jeffrey Graham again, uh,
on the Project Architect.
Yeah. This, uh, to be honest, the vacation
of this property is integral to the design,
and without it, it would, it would leave.
You have to, you have to keep in mind
that the awkward shape of the property.
And so it, this makes the property usable.
Whereas if we didn't have this, this,
then the triangular shape is not a very good, uh, size
or shape for a, a rectangular building.
Um, so we, that's why we ask for this vacation.
And we appreciate if you, you, if you would consider it.
Thank you. I will open the public hearing.
Is there anyone from the audience
who would like to speak on this item?
Okay. Hearing none, I will turn it over
to counsel for action.
Motion. Motion To approve
support.
Support more, uh, discussion. Hearing none.
I will call the question. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes.
Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Uh, Mr. Boche
Find it's interesting, the,
you're looking at the right of way.
Mr. Boche. Where? Shaer? No.
Thank you. Um, Mr. Newan?
Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a no.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 11 G, which was tabled to today.
Request to approve the demolition of a house
and shed at 75 51 prospect
through the nuisance abatement program consideration
and adoption of a resolution.
I believe we had a public hearing at that time.
A motion to remove from the table.
Motion to remove from the table. Support. Mr. Lafferty.
Ms. Moore is a motion? Yes. Support Lafferty.
Uh, all in favor to remove the item from the table. Aye.
Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.
Motion is removed from, or item is removed from the table.
Madam Chair? Yes. If we could have Mr.
Lizza explain where we're at, please.
Aye. Hello again, Counsel.
Um, today I reached out to,
I left a voice message with the owner
And a person.
Last time we were here, we had a gentleman
that had a church group that was going
to help this homeowner.
So I did have a, I called him
and, uh, I left a voice message with him today.
He did call me back
and I, he spoke to me right about four 30 today.
And he is still, his intent is still
to keep helping the homeowner through this church group.
And right now, so basically he wants to continue.
I wrote some few notes here.
He's still actively, um, getting help.
He is, um, recently
replaced a front window, which was broken.
So to secure the home, um, he is reaching out
to a roofing company right now that may work pro bono to,
uh, donate, uh, materials and labor for the roof.
Um, he also, right now, currently has a HVAC company line,
is trying to line that up as well.
So he's using this church group to try to help the owner
who I think she really needs some help.
After speaking with the gentleman from the group
made it sound really emphasize how much
she really needs some help with this.
So he did reassure me that he wanted to keep actively trying
to help her with the, of getting this house back to code.
What, what's your thoughts on the
Well, at this point, I mean, I, I,
I believe this gentleman, I've spoke
to him a few times about this.
I mean, I know I don't think the owner herself
has a means to funds to do this.
She need desperately needs this help.
I don't think, without this help,
I don't think she could pull this off,
but I think this gentleman reassured me
that he would continue to help her.
So that was how my conversation went today on this. So
Thank you. Thank you Mr.
Yeah. Action from counsel.
Uh, motion to table again. Well, before I do that, uh,
I just, I made the motion to the table.
You just made a motion to table. Yeah.
Support anyone for a table support
dw? Uh,
I will. For how long? Call
The question For how long?
Yeah, to what time?
That's, that's what's gonna be my question, Mr.
Lizza is to how long should we
I would do six months, again,
Another six months.
I think it's reasonable.
December, January, February, March, April, may,
June. The first meeting
in June. Mary.
So the motion is, uh, tabling to the first meeting in June.
June 10. Thank you Ms. Moore. Yes.
Let's see. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. To table. Mr. Bokey? Yes.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Table. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a Yes. Motion carries. What was that? Do you
Have a date as I, June 10th.
June 10th. Great. Thank you.
Thank you. Next item. Next
Item is 12. A
consideration and adoption
of a resolution approving a two year extension
for consulting services for the city of Warren.
Defined contribution deferred compensation.
RHS and Roth IRA. Plans RFPW 96 32.
So moved. Support
Lafferty. Discussion.
Hearing none.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item
12 B. Motion
to approve this settlement.
Uh, pursuant to the terms discussed enclosed section
regarding, uh, McComb daily versus city of Warren,
Macomb County Circuit Court case number 2 2 4 0 0 3 2 1 8
cz before the honorable Diane m Dki.
So moved. Support I made, I made the motion. Thank
You. Uh,
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Next item.
Next item is 13.
A proposal ordinance to amend Chapter 38
to establish an urban forestry commission
and provide standards for removal, planting,
and preservation of the city's urban forest.
And amend chapter one,
to give the zoning department the authority to issue tickets
for failing to comply with the requirements of chapter 38.
First reading. Motion to approve with discussion.
Support. Support. Mr. Nunan. Discussion. Ms. Mark?
Yes. I just want to point out, this is a first reading.
Uh, we'll be able to make amendments and all going forward.
Uh, but what, at this point, the, um, administration
has 10 days to, uh, review, um, this ordinance
and provide feedback.
Um, and that, um, that will close that window.
We can accept those amendments or changes or suggestions
or not, but they do have 10 days.
Thank you.
Any other discussion? Yes, please,
Mr. Newan.
Um, uh, with respect to, uh, attorney
Schroeder, um, I think you're suggesting
that you might want to, um, modify
how this came over a little bit.
Is that true,
Councilman? What
happened was this was drafted
and pursuant to counsel's direction, I reviewed it.
And there were 13 areas where I had comments, concerns,
or issues, which is not a problem.
We can work through all these.
Uh, Ms. Murphy from the attorney's office had
done the initial draft.
I've been in discussions with her emails
and so forth, going back and forth.
Um, we're coming to a consensus on this.
There's a couple items that still need
to be worked on as council.
Uh, secretary Moore stated,
this is the first reading we can make amendments on the
second reading, we will bring back sort of those, um,
changes with an explanation.
Um, most of these changes are just to make sure
that this ordinance fits within
the Warren City Charter structure.
A lot of other communities out there have similar type
of tree ordinances, um,
but they may have a city manager form of government
and they have a different way that, um,
appointments are made and authorities exercise.
So we're working on making sure this
fits nicely in our charter.
There were a few other things,
but, uh, we should come back with a consensus on, uh, how
to address that at a second reading.
Okay. Uh, I hope that it's all right that I, uh, review
that with you during the, during this period until the next,
uh, meeting so
that I can also help support what you're doing.
I have high confidence in your work. So, um, thank you.
Uh, okay. Thank you very much. Uh, I yield
Any other discussion.
I have three points, which I'm sure you'll address. Mr.
Schroder is some of the removal section.
I'm unsure how that's gonna be executed.
Uh, how we'll coordinate with utility companies
regarding replacing the trees they take down,
which I think is fantastic,
but I don't know how legally we do that.
And then I love the right of way planting program
and wanna know if that can be included for 12 and Van D**e,
because that boulevard there is median is horrible.
So,
Actually, president, uh, if Mr. Newan mm-hmm. If,
Um, it mentions a increasing tree canopy
to 30%,
and I thought maybe that wasn't ambitious enough
of a gold as a target.
I think we'd like to, uh, I think the county
and the state want us to get up to, uh, 40%.
Um, and I think that we might as well be consistent with
the goals of, um, higher, higher levels of government.
I just thought I'd throw it in there.
Noted. Thank you. Thank You.
Any other discussion? Hearing none?
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Nunan?
Yes. Uh, Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey?
Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12 or 13 B, consideration
and adoption of a resolution
regarding the Warren Land Bank Authority.
So moved with discussion Support
Lafferty. Discussion
Ms. Moore.
Thank you. Um, we have been, um, you know, investigating
and, um, having discussions on the Land Bank since,
I think I started on it probably in March.
And then other people got involved later on.
Um, and we have, you know, all sorts of ideas
and things that we want to implement going forward.
So we're expecting, um,
pretty soon I'll have Mr. Schroeder give a little
update on what's going on.
But we expect this Land Bank to, um, get into, uh,
business fairly quickly and the, uh, authority to be formed.
And there are certain things that we have thought about,
and there have been questions about, um, you know,
where the Land Bank will be housed
and certain things like that.
So this resolution is just to put out there sort of
what council thinks, um, uh,
how we wanna see things structured going forward.
So that's what this resolution will do.
I'll read it real quickly. Whereas the Warren City Council
approved an intergovernmental agreement
with the State Land Bank authority for the creation
of the city of Warren Land Bank Authority at
August 27th, 2024, um, entitled The Agreement.
And whereas the agreement at Section 3.02 requires the Land
Bank Authority to adopt articles
incorporation at its initial meeting.
And whereas the agreement at Section 4 0 7 B requires the
Land Bank Authority to adopt bylaws, rules,
and procedures governing the local authority board within
six months of the first meeting of the board.
And whereas the City council will appoint two of its members
to the board once the agreement is signed by the mayor
and clerk, and
therefore be it resolved,
the city council supports the following provisions
to be included in the bylaws of the City
of Warren Land Bank Authority, um,
that the city controller will be appointed the fiscal agent
for the City of Warren Land Bank authority pursuant
to Section 4.14 of the agreement, the city
of Warren Land Bank Authority will seek any necessary office
space in a city owned building.
Um, and we've discussed many, um, options.
We have, you know, space at city council office,
and there's probably somewhere at City Hall, maybe, um, the,
uh, south, uh, city hall.
Um, and, uh, the books
and records of the City of Warren Land Bank Authority shall
be maintained in a city owned office or facility.
And the city of Warren Land Bank Authority
may use the purchasing division to solicit bids
and proposals subject to the city's purchasing ordinances
where applicable.
Um, we were of course, very disappointed.
Um, we lost out on a signif significant amount of funds, um,
probably upwards of a million dollars
that we were certainly anticipating would be the,
the seed money, if you will, uh, those funds
that would get the Land Bank up and running
and all the necessary things that need to go
with starting any, um, enterprise, um, from the ground up.
And, um, we are hoping that, um,
we get this in place quickly so that we are in line
to receive funds next year.
We don't wanna learn, we've already lost a million dollars,
and that is just unforgivable.
Um, Mr. Schroeder has, um, an update, I think on the, um,
signature issue.
Certainly, uh, counsel, um, pursuant
to counsel's direction,
a complaint was filed in Macomb County Circuit Court.
Um, uh, it took a couple days
for the county clerk to process it.
It was assigned to the honorable Matthew p Augh,
um, in the Circuit Court.
Our next step is to file a motion, um, with respect to how
that works with tonight's resolution.
Um, some of the concerns we were hearing about the Land Bank
as to why maybe it wasn't being signed by the mayor
were the issues were specifically stating here.
Um, and I think we need to maybe lay out that this agreement
is an agreement with the state
of Michigan State Land Bank authority
to create the city's land bank authority.
And it talks about five members around the board
and the basic structure, the sort
of day-to-day type concerns, the sort of inner workings of
how the Land Bank is gonna move forward
that is addressed when the board is formed
and passes its bylaws and rules.
For example, saying
that the city controller would be appointed the fiscal
agent, that's not something we would put in the
agreement with the State of Michigan.
That's something, once the Land Bank is formed,
it decides in its own bylaws
and rules how it's going to conduct the business.
That's why we appoint board members.
That's why they're entrusted with finding a way forward
to make sure that this land bank
serves the citizens of Warren.
So, uh, all of these items in this resolution are things
that should be either in the bylaws
or the rules that the board will approve.
The council gets two appointments on this board,
and this is council's statement
that council supports these items.
Uh, you know, there's a concern
that the city might hire some outside financing firm
to do this, or look for commercial real estate office space
and pay high rental rates
for the Land bank to have an office.
It's not necessary because the city has, uh,
available office space.
It's not anticipated that, you know, at the start
that the land bank's gonna need more than a small office
or cubicle or what have you, uh, to house, you know,
its initial records and a lot
of things now are electronic records.
So, um, I don't know how much space is needed,
but to the extent that space is needed,
it would be in a city owned building.
Uh, I did meet with Ms. Michaels in October.
I know Councilman Lofty was there when we were addressing,
uh, some of these issues about the, um, these concerns.
And we sat down with Ms. Michaels
and hammered out these four items, and thank you Ms.
Michaels for indulging us in that.
And, um, so this is formalizing the council support
for these things which we did communicate.
So, um, hopefully this helps move this forward.
I'd love to be able to move forward without going back in
front of Judge Seba.
Um, so, but we'll do what we have to do. Thank you,
Madam President, Mr.
Newnan. So, uh, further to that, um,
as you were saying, um, um, attorney Schroeder,
I think that her, um,
the mayor's objections were largely over, um, making sure
that it would be, um, something that wouldn't get corrupt.
And the other part was that the,
that it be not be overly expensive to operate.
And it seems to me that even the, uh, manpower,
uh, would be, could be, uh, brought from the staff
that we already have without hiring additional staff.
Is that, do you think that's considered true?
I think there's some possibility for that.
For example, the city controller being the fiscal agent
would be some, uh, you know,
city using agency type relationship.
Um, you know, there was, the other concern was about
soliciting bids and proposals and everything.
Um, you know,
the Detroit Land Bank 10 years ago had a scandal
where they were, you know,
doing things they shouldn't have done.
We've put checks and balances in here
to make sure that doesn't happen.
Plus, the council and the mayor will both have appointees on
this board to hold accountable as well.
Um, and that's why we have, uh,
the purchasing division to solicit bids.
I council may remember a couple months ago,
the council already voted to ask for competitive bids
to be solicited for someone to consult for the land bank.
So there's gonna be some expense there.
Yes, there is some overhead. This thing can't run itself.
I think with any agency
or program, you're always gonna have some overhead,
but this is an opportunity to try to reduce that, but,
and make it competitive
and make it, um, you know, so it's efficient as possible.
Eligible. Yeah. And then the admin fees too, for example,
you know, the city is eligible.
This year we were eligible for an initial $700,000 grant.
We didn't receive, plus an additional 2.3 million a
share of 2.3 million.
That's where we came up with the potential million
dollars for this year.
That's grant money coming in.
And that grant money would help with the Land Bank,
but also some of those funds could be applied to some
of the expenses, the authority, including, you know,
administrative expenses for using city offices and staff.
So we see that in other, you know, the DDA, for example,
there's administrative expense.
Every department has it.
So, um, you know, I think that we're trying our best
to make sure that this is not as big, you know,
an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers.
Uh, wanted to note one. I had inquired with Mr.
Lae about how many nuisance abatement properties were in the
city's control currently, like tax reverted properties.
And there was at least one,
I did not inquire about commercial buildings.
And if you look at the cost, when you look at the backup of
how much it costs us to demolish a building,
usually it's at a low end, 10 to 30, $40,000.
So even if we demolish one
or two a year within the city, much of the money
that is available at the state is for blight.
We would be essentially covering the cost in some way,
shape, or form for us paying.
We're, we're paying for that anyways, regardless of whether,
um, anyone comes forward
or we're able to put it on anyone's tax rolls, we're still,
as taxpayers paying for that demolition
and we're eating that cost.
How great would it be to be able to have a fund of money
to pay for those properties
to be demolished without us having to pay for them?
And then additionally, uh, Ms. Baker, who some
of you may know, uh, who wants to do an affordable housing,
uh, unit on the south end of the city,
I will share this information.
Um, talked about the benefits when she had,
she inquired with Mr.
Ba, Marino and I about the, the various land bank
and if it had been finalized,
and she had talked about being able to tr
to transfer the parcels of land that she has
to keep the taxes at the current rate.
Um, there's overall lower development costs.
You can do a variety of things with affordable housing
that you can't do in other spaces.
So, um, I will send this all to the balance of council so
that you all, uh, through Ms.
Camp, so that you all have the, uh,
information that she sent.
But, um, these are two, I think, important notes, uh, to,
to continue moving forward that the benefits outweigh, um,
any risk in my opinion.
So, uh, we need to vote on this resolution.
Is there any other discussion?
Have we gotten any feedback from the mayor about signing?
She has not signed the agreement in any, uh,
not within the time limit imposed or at any time after that.
And, uh, uh, we filed lawsuit now
that the court will compel her to sign
Any other discussion. Unfortunately,
Hearing none,
I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes.
Mr. Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item
13 C.
Council member Jonathan Lafferty.
Discussion regarding printing
and mailing of winter program guide booklet
as approved on September 10th, 2024.
So moved. Support Dre Support, support Dwyer.
Discussion, Mr. Lafferty
Discussion. Thank you.
I am not even sure how to begin to address this.
As stated meeting of September 10th,
we were presented a resolution asking us to approve
the printing of the printing
and mailing of a winter newsletter.
And then, uh, if all went well, the spring, summer,
and fall editions would, uh, follow.
After a decision by the city, I made a, an amendment to
that motion calling for final review
and approval of that material by city Council.
Subsequent to that, the mayor vetoed that action
and caused, uh, the issue to be brought back to the table
on September 24th,
where we subsequently overrode her veto seven to zero.
Now, with, with that being said, similar to the Land Bank,
similar to other actions the city council has taken,
the mayor has no choice
but to adhere to the direction of council.
Now, the, the motion, the the amendment that I made to
that motion was not to overstep our authority.
It was not to, uh, impose in any such way.
Uh, the idea behind this was very simple.
We don't have a sitting communications commission.
We do not have a print and mail commission.
Although the charter calls for it,
and it's in the charter, it's also mandated.
Those seats have not been filled.
And for many years, we had, uh,
no oversight whatsoever, whether
or not we asked for it, uh, whether
or not we requested, uh, for
the political side of, of, uh, communications
to not fill the airwaves or print mail from the city.
Uh, our request went ignored.
Uh, I had hoped for much better from this administration.
Now, the digital copy,
which is published on the site,
does not include thank you notes to the mayor.
It does not include photos.
It does not include, uh, love notes
or anything like that, that, uh, we used to be subject to.
But the, what was most troubling is
after hearing nothing, uh, that, you know,
no final draft was
provided to City Council per our direction.
And then on November 25th, we received all of council
received an email at, uh, shortly
before 10, asking city council
for their input.
And I, I was astonished
and asking, you know, is it safe to say I'm quoting,
is it safe to say that since council has not had further
objections to the digital presentation of library parks,
rec seniors, and city programming in the last year,
that we can go to print in the spring with the publication
of the programming?
The Open Meetings Act prevents us from deliberating
as a body through email.
We cannot jump on a conference call and discuss an item.
We cannot do it through email.
We can't come, uh, we can't meet at a restaurant
and deliberate an item in private.
We cannot do that. It's against the law.
And I'm absolutely 100% certain that had
the mayor ask the city attorney's office,
can the city council deliberate over email?
She would've been told, no, it's against the law.
I'm speaking for you, Ms. Michaels,
but you are nodding your head in agreement.
Thank you. The, so
I replied in an email
and I wanted to share that communication with counsel,
but in the proper way.
And so I added it to the agenda so
that everyone could see my reply in the proper format
and without, uh, breaking the, the Open Meetings Act.
And I ins, I advised the mayor that on the,
on September 10th that we approved the award of contract,
uh, to print the winter issue.
It was, that was not in question.
This should have been printed
and mailed to your homes already.
This was not a question.
And then per our amendment, we asked, uh,
we mandated the opportunity to review
and approve the final draft
as she has only now presented us two months later, a link
to a digital copy, what happened for two months,
what was going on for two months,
that she couldn't share a draft copy with us.
And I'm absolutely certain, based on what we saw on
November 25th, had this had been brought to us,
it had been sent to council office, properly added
to the agenda, we would've looked at it, said, yep, it,
there are no politics, there's no ads,
there are no love notes to the mayor.
It's exactly what we expect it to be.
And we probably would've passed it unanimously without
interfering with the print and mailing schedule
before it went to the printer.
And so, I am, I'm very disappointed.
Once again, the mayor has
not followed the direction of council.
She has no discretional authority to do so.
Otherwise, she was given the direction.
We were very reasonable in our request.
Uh, we, although the only delay was from her office,
she vetoed our action.
So we had to bring it back two weeks later.
There was absolutely no reason why
that draft could not have come
to us at the following meeting been approved,
and we would've, uh, it would've gotten on its way, way
to the printer in time for mailing to all homes in the city.
Uh, I question whether or not we will have a spring issue.
Uh, the amendment applied to the winter, spring,
and subsequent spring, summer, and fall issues.
So per our amendment
and per our, our passage of that resolution,
we should be receiving.
And Madam Mayor, you are being given sufficient notice
and your team and communications to provide us the materials
to review well ahead of your schedule to go to print.
And it is the expectation of this council that, uh, those,
uh, issues will be provided to us for our review
and approval before they're sent to print.
Uh, once a communications commission is seated
and begins operating, uh, I think it would be appropriate at
that time to, uh, uh, rescind that, uh,
that amendment that, uh, those are no longer subject
to council approval
because we'll have the proper authority in place
to ensure impartiality on the airwaves
and all print mail publications coming from
City Hall. Thank you,
Madam Chair, Ms.
Mark. So where we're at, right?
This, this ship is pretty much sailed.
There is no opportunity now for the,
The Winter edition. When
we got it, it was one
of the things I looked at was like the date
of the tree sign tree lighting.
And it was like, I don't even know if people know about it
before it even got to them.
It was so late. So it, a lot of it didn't make sense
to me if it was even gonna go out that late.
So it's an unfortunate,
we're missing a lot of deadlines, it seems.
I'm done. Any other discussion? I'm chair Ms. McGee.
Did we ever give like a deadline, like,
um, each calendar, uh, uh, time of the, um,
the print, let's say we would like
to have it two weeks ahead of time?
Did we request that,
Uh, through the chair, Mr.
Lap? Uh, Ms. McGee?
We, we simply asked for the opportunity to review
and approve, and it was my assumption
that the administration would build into their timeline
sufficient time for our review and approval and printing
and mailing, uh, into their schedule.
Well, we did not say at least turn it into US
30 days ahead of time.
Yeah, yeah, we did. We, we didn't specify any timeline.
Uh, MS Camp is reminded me
that the administration does have 10 days to comply.
10 days with any request of hours.
So even in a, a semi rough draft
or a semi-final draft,
if they were worried about making their print deadline,
this could have been given to us
and say, we've got, you know, we've gotta fix the margins,
or we're finishing up a couple of articles,
but here's 90% of the product.
As you can see, there are no, you know, everything
that you were worried about does not exist.
And, you know, I'm amenable.
I'm a reasonable person, and I would take that to the bank.
Mad question, Mr. Nunan.
So, um, through the president to Councilman Lafferty,
I think it, it's important that we mention that
we have not rescinded our former actions.
Mm-hmm. That it still holds that we want to review,
um, those, if they're gonna go to print.
Um, and also,
I'm, I'm trying to understand, do you get the impression
that she just wants to go back to business as it was
before with the, with her printing in full color format,
a very expensive, um, combined library
and parks document?
Or, I'm, I'm trying to figure out what do you, what do we,
what, what we think she's, she wants to do here?
She wants to just go, okay,
I can ignore the council altogether
because she seems to have done that so many times.
I'm, I'm perplexed.
Do you feel, do you feel more clear, clear on this
if you would, because it seems like you're,
you've got a better handle on it.
Madam Chair, Mr.
Laff, I'm, I'm not going to, uh, try to speculate as to
what she might be thinking.
Okay. But her past patterns of actions in,
uh, overriding the decisions of counsel, we then
three times successively have overridden her
Vito's seven nothing.
And have not only, you know, nothing has been rescinded.
We've doubled down.
We've, we've gotten the opportunity to vote twice
on these matters, saying when we voted the first time,
we meant it when we were overriding the veto,
we really meant it.
We weren't kidding. And in unfortunately,
a judge on the, the Land Bank will have to, uh,
echo what we're saying right now.
That the mayor has no discretional authority to agree
or disagree once the action of council has been,
uh, voted upon.
And if veto is not issued, that is her consent.
Or if veto is issued
and we override at the following meeting
or the meeting thereafter,
and she then again, has no opportunity
for discretional authority.
She cannot agree or disagree that
that is the way this works.
I, I cannot imagine what
what she might be thinking other than, you know, again,
she's inexperienced at, with local government.
But again, inexperienced is not, ignorance is not an excuse.
So the, uh, the library should have its publication
and the park should have its publication.
They should both be basically something like newsprint black
and white, not expensive, not, uh, full color and all that.
Isn't that one of the things that we would wanna review
before we approved going to print was, um,
concerns like that also.
Yeah. Madam Chair, Mr.
Anick, at, at the, at the budget hearings, we
allocated $50,000 to the library
and we allocated $90,000 to,
I'm, I'm sorry not.
Yes. $90,000 to Parks
and Recreation for marketing and publications.
We did not specify a news beat with
that was not what was asked for.
We did not specify a news beat.
Her email sig, uh,
subject was pending approval.
Digital Winter News beat the way we built the budget.
Both departments, the library and Parks
and Recreation had separate budgets for publications.
And I remember multiple times, uh, Ms. Moore and,
and, uh, I think Mr.
Bokey even mentioned, uh, Macomb Community College Prince,
a black and white news print style catalog of events,
low cost, easy to read, very good quality.
It doesn't have to be flashy, glossy, uh,
full color to be effective.
We're trying to communicate,
but we're trying to communicate
to the third largest city in, in Warren.
And the,
the library is doing much better than the
communications department.
Uh, budget wise, parks
and Recreation is since the late eighties,
uh, grossly underfunded.
And so I don't think it needs to be as extravagant as
what we used to print under what was called the News Beat.
That's not what we asked for.
Now, as long as it's in a, uh, it met our
requirements for not having any, it was free of politics,
which is what we asked for.
Um, I would've been willing probably to let that aspect go.
They, they made one publication
for both, both organizations.
Maybe it makes sense from a mailing perspective,
you know, consolidating cost.
You don't have to mail two publications.
I'm perfectly okay with that.
But, you know, we did not say they had
to create a news beat.
So, to, to answer your question, what was produced versus
what we received, there's still some discrepancy.
Right. And then, um, the, uh, do you happen
to know what the cost of producing News Beat was like?
It, I think it was wasn't $250,000 per
year or something?
A lot more than what we're, um, allocating to them
for, um, marketing and publications.
Right. The, the initial publication
that we voted upon was $37,000 in change.
The, that's the current allowance.
The, the printing of if this had gone to print Yeah.
Roughly the $37,000.
Right. But the old news beat costs a lot more.
I I I was just wondering if you happen to know of.
I I don't Happen to know approximately. Okay.
It, it's, sorry, it's not in my, my budget.
Okay. Well, I, I, I, uh,
hope I haven't overdone my,
my time here. Thank you. I yield
Madam Chair, Ms. Moore, quickly to go back to the email
and the core,
and you know, the quorum, there was another instance
that came up in the last couple of weeks where an email went
to certain council members
and then other council members were blind copied.
And I think that's a dangerous situation
to get into in government.
A lot of cities have banned blind copying altogether.
It's a policy and they, it can be disabled by, uh, the it.
So I think we need to be very careful,
um mm-hmm.
Who all is getting certain things.
'cause, and I found that out from a reporter who said, oh,
um, I said, how would you know
that I got an email from the mayor?
I'm very curious 'cause you're the second
person today that said that.
They said, oh, another council person got the email
on the same email as as, but it was a blind.
And you're the one that pointed out
that was a blind copy to you.
Mm-hmm. And I, I think someone else got that.
So we have to be very, very careful.
We cannot deliberate
and discuss something that we're going
to vote on at some point,
or could with more than three people.
So we have to be aware of that all the time.
And we are, everything we do conversations, we have,
everything outta council office is with
that foremost in our mind.
So I would ask the administration
to be a little careful about that.
Not to share things that's come up to that.
Somebody sent an email, um, to a couple council members,
and then the mayor shared it somebody else's e email
to everybody in council that it wasn't hers to share,
number one, number two, certainly not to seven people.
'cause it was a, a situation
that shouldn't have been shared at all
or talked about in public.
So we need to be very, very careful about that.
The other thing to get back to this whole, uh, publication
of the idea is to publish the offerings of the library
and Parks and Rec so people know what we're offering.
And it was done that way in the Parks and Rec.
So to take all of it away from the
communications department,
because quite frankly,
the communications department is going broke.
They've brought, we figured about another 18
months at budget time.
And that time is dwindling down.
And we're gonna, we really, really have to watch, um,
what's gonna happen there
because they're just gonna be outta money.
And I don't think there's any reasonable chance of, uh,
having legislation that's going to allow us to get, um,
uh, any sort of franchise fees from streaming.
I don't, just don't think that's gonna happen.
So at some point, we're gonna have to make a decision
what happens to the communications department.
We may just have to go back to essential, you know,
broadcasting, just council meetings, planning things like
that and, and get away from a lot
of the other things we're doing, unfortunately.
But I just don't think we're gonna have a chance.
And, you know, they're way over.
Well, I'm gonna talk about that when I get to the DA DDA,
but thank you.
So a motion to receive and file.
Uh, all in favor? Aye. Aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Next
Item. Next Item
14, a request to approve appointment
to the Downtown Development Authority.
Um, Gina Cavalier for a term to expire June 30th, 2029.
Motion to approve with discussion support Lafferty
Uh, discussion. Ms. Moore.
Thank you. Several months ago, we had a,
it was more than several, um, a
pretty comprehensive discussion of the DDA
and had had, you know, figured out that a lot
of people weren't showing up
and didn't, the interest wasn't there.
And at that point, I think we all realized that the DA,
we needed a reset
and a whole, you know, new redo
of the DA at that point.
Subsequently, we had, um, several of us had a meeting with,
and I think Ms.
Roku c you and I both met with the mayor and,
and really pointed out that we needed to, um,
populate the DDA with people
with expertise in certain things, whether it be marketing
or development or, you know, different businesses
that we needed more input.
It, there seemed to be a lack of enthusiasm from some
of the current, um, DDA members.
And when the DDA started,
the DDA members are the ones that drove
what was going to happen and the developments
and those kind of things.
When it first started, um, the mayor was the chairperson
until the bylaws were done,
and then the body elected the DDA director
and then the body decides who the chairperson is.
And I think under Mayor Fouts, he just decided he was going
to be, um, the chairperson.
And I don't think anybody just challenged it.
And now, um, I don't think the DDA has voted, um, yet
who their chairperson is,
but Mayor Stone seems to be chairing the meetings.
Um, we have asked, um, for the DDA meetings,
tfa others to be recorded.
Well, they've taken it, they've recording on steroids.
I went to the last DDA meeting.
There were three cameras with three cameramen,
and the DDA is lined up and they pass a microphone around.
It is the most unprofessional
meeting of, and they spend hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's very disappointing.
And there's no reason to have a full blown department
that's bleeding money.
Um, when we suggested get a smart tv,
that's all you need to do.
Save the zoom meeting. That's all we want.
We don't need a 60 minutes quality production
of the DDA meeting.
It is just for transparency
because they're spending such large amounts of money.
And there have been problems in the past that we need to, we
council cannot be at every meeting there is in the city,
and oversight and doing investigation of everything.
So we need to have those things in place.
Now, um, the mayor has appointed
Gina Cavalier, and for those of you who don't know, um,
Gina Cavalier started
as an attorney in the City attorney's office.
She became the DDA director, the economic director,
the community director.
Um, uh, for a long time she was instrumental in, she,
you know, in, in doing this community center at the time
building, building the city hall, um,
and a lot of our other things, her background is,
um, quite impressive.
Um, her background that when she signed, when she applied,
uh, was being a little, um, she has a lot more experience,
um, than she even listed.
Um, and she's extremely well thought of in the
economic development world.
Um, she's an attorney, of course.
She has a certificate in diversity, equity
and inclusion in the workplace certificate.
She went to Michigan State. She has a BA in advertising.
Um, she's volunteers.
She's, you know, one of the chair people at Leaps
and Bounds, um, board member of Jefferson East.
Um, she is, uh, she was the director of Community Economic
and Downtown Development in Morin, uh, including the tfa.
Uh, she was a development officer
and development director in economic development
for the Wayne, for Wayne County.
She was the chief, uh, community impact officer
and business improvement Zone manager now
for the Downtown Detroit partnership.
Um, that, that group is all familiar
with the Christmas tree downtown.
They put up the Christmas tree.
They do a lot of very, very innovative
and great things in downtown.
Um, and, pardon me, oversee all the Parks Park. Oh yeah.
All the parks. All the parks. And to have her apply
for this job, you know, she's got a really big job
and a lot of responsibility.
She lives in the DDA.
She is passionate, um, about what happens in this city.
She loves this city.
She's also got a background in, um, um, development.
Her family we're real estate developers.
Um, so she just comes with a wealth of experience.
And I think that she can be the catalyst on the DDA
to really get things rolling.
Um, she, I think, broke the bylaws
or was instrumental in that.
And that's one of the things that we need to have done
on the dda A, is to have the bylaws brought up to date,
because I think they're a little, um, uh, behind
and they're not quite following them.
So I'm very, very excited about this appointment,
and I hope everybody will get to meet her.
She's a very, very dynamic, um, interesting person,
and she's gonna really bring a lot.
And I, I guarantee Mayor Stone, you are going
to be very, very, very happy you made this appointment.
This is a very, very good appointment.
A really positive step for it. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Okay. Uh, the vote for these items,
Mr. Schroeder, is it confirm?
Yes. Oh, I, I, you need to clear this up because there's
All, so there was a, um, the memo from the mayor's office,
uh, incorrectly states
that this is under 7.6 of the charter.
This is not a 7.6 appointment.
Um, this is under state law where, and Ms.
Michaels is agreeing with me,
always makes me feel good when she agrees.
'cause it's, thank you, Ms. Michaels. Yes.
So, uh, this is a confirmation.
So, um, the mayor's nominating these individuals,
council has to vote to confirm.
Council confirms then they're, they're appointed to serve.
Um, and as opposed to 7.6,
which is other boards
and commissions where the mayor makes the appointment,
the appointment's effective immediately.
But the council can terminate
that appointment within two meetings
and give a reason that doesn't fit under this scenario.
I did have a question though about, um,
I'm trying to do my math here.
It says 2024, we're at December 10th, 2024.
And it says, Mr.
Rutherford's term would expire on June 30th, 2030,
which is five and a half years down the road.
And I thought that these, uh,
the maximum under state law is a four year term
for the Downtown Development Authority.
Ms. Michaels, um, I looked in the statute
and it says for Ms.
Cavalier, her appointment, uh, was 2029.
But under the state law, it says
each member shall serve a term of four years.
So this is, um, um, I think
that we need some clarification on that,
but I think, um,
I think you can approve these appointments if
that's counsel's desire, subject to the four year term, uh,
requirement in state law.
Right. I don't know how that came about. Ms.
Michaels, are you in? You agree? Okay. Okay. What's
The time? Maybe,
Or maybe just a misunderstanding.
They don't understand the terms,
So, but I saw that date
and I knew that, that you can't have a
five or six year term.
I mean, that goes into, that's, you know,
four year terms is the maximum.
So I would, if there's a motion to confirm,
I would say subject to the four year term, uh, li uh,
four year term, uh, requirement in the state law.
So I will amend my motion, uh, approve Gina Cavalier
pursuant to the discussion about the four year term limit.
Right.
Any other discussion? I, I accept
That amendment. Thank
you. Mr. L, are we voting on
Both? No, just
Gina first. Um, okay. Hearing none.
I'll call the question. Uh, Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Gina is on the DDA. Next
Item. Next item
is Joel Rutherford for a term
to expire June 30th, 2030, which we know is not correct.
Um, I'm gonna make a motion to deny at this point.
Support, Uh, Madam Chair,
Uh, discussion. Ms. Moore? Yes.
I, I was originally going to, uh, make a motion
to table this appointment
because one of the things that, you know,
we had said we wanted expertise.
And Mr. Rutherford,
by his own admission stated he had no expertise in
development or any of the things that we were looking for.
And, um, we have Mr. Zamora,
all the other appointments are kind
of on hold at this point.
'cause we, we table them, um, so that we can deal with them.
So we have Mr. Zamora, who is a resident. Um, we have Mr.
Wigan, who is a resident
and business owner in the DA.
And we need to have sort of a cross.
Maybe we want a marketing person. Maybe we want a developer.
We have Mr. Riveras who's real estate.
I think we need a broad range. And if Mr.
Rutherford, by his own admission doesn't have expertise, um,
I was going to make a motion to table to see
how we fell out in the next couple
of months when we started dealing with, but when Mr.
Rutherford got up,
and this was my concern, um, he stated he had a, um,
self-interest in being on the DDA
to affect the situation at Heritage, uh, village, which,
um, concerns me
because, um, back when Heritage Village was developed,
that was the largest planned unit development
in North America.
And this was very, very involved.
And we came across a lot of hurdles to get that done.
Um, and it was held up a long time.
We finally got it going,
but we made a lot of concessions to get that done.
These, the streets are not regulated.
Regular, um, regulation, regulation, um,
for the width for the city.
Um, and once, once a certain amount of percentage
of the, um, heritage Village is developed, the rest
of the next course of the road is to be paved.
The last course has not even been paved,
and the streets are not, but we made agreements at that time
because we were making concessions
and allowing them to put in, these are all condos.
There's no single family, it's all site condos
or multiple family.
Um, that when we gave approval for
those deviations of what we usually allow in the city, that
there would be no trash pickup in that area at all.
And, um, to go back on that, our word
that we made a long time ago would just not be right.
I don't know how we would do it.
We don't have trucks if I,
and I think we've all been, you know, to parties
and things over in that area.
And, you know, you can't,
there's only parking on one side of the street.
There's not even room for two vehicles, let alone trucks.
And then how are you gonna get trucks in?
So I was very concerned. Um, I'm, I give Mr.
Rutherford credit though for stating what his, one
of his reasons for being, wanting to be on the DDA is to,
you know, it was for self-interest to help his situation.
And, um, so, um, you know, for that reason,
I am, I think that he should be denied.
Um, I, I don't think we want people on there
for self-interest.
Um, things, I think Mr.
Rutherford would be fabulous on the Veterans Commission,
and I'm surprised I heard
that they were having trouble getting people
on the Veterans Commission.
And, um, I think he would be a
great addition to that commission.
And I, I think
that would be a more appropriate place,
uh, for him. Thank you.
Mad President, Ms. McGee. And then Mr. Okay.
Um, I did hear, uh, Mr.
Rutherford talk about his self-interest,
but he also talked about the DDA moving forward.
I think he is more than qualified to be on the DDA.
Um, I had not went to 1D DA meeting, but I've heard several
and I mean, several complaints about DDA,
how we're not moving forward, how we're not move, um,
moving forward with a downtown.
How we don't have the people that are there that are leaders
and business owners who show up
and make a decision in order for us to move forward.
I have reviewed several cities moving forward
who had put a plan together for a new downtown
and made it happen within a couple years.
How long we been working on this for years,
and have not gotten anything done.
Joe Rutherford experience with him being, um,
leaders and director,
even a director over his recreational center.
He has shown
that he has the experience necessary to do the job.
We need people on there who's going to make it happen.
He will show up, he will show up,
and he will make sure that we move forward to make,
put a strategy in place so we can get things done.
So, I'm, I'm not in agreement with that.
I believe he is more than qualified to do the job.
Thank you, Ms. McGee. Mr. Newnan,
I'm, uh, I know that
Joel Rutherford is a, uh, man
who has a very good ability to think
and to understand issues to study.
Um, he is determined and he, he's dedicated.
He says that he'll show up. He will show up.
Um, I, I don't feel that I have any good reason not
to approve his nomination.
Um, we're, we'd like the mayor to speed up her,
her, um, placement of people onto commissions.
And, um, I, I feel that we should allow
Joel Rutherford to be on, on the DDA.
Um, I think it'd, he'd be a, a good contribution.
I think he'd bring things
to the commission that aren't there. Thanks very much.
Thank you, Mr. Newan. Adam, chair.
Mr. Bokey, Uh, unfortunately by laptop,
battery, battery.
What? Dead. So this is a question to the console.
Has he, uh, been assigned to any other commissions prior,
uh, where attendance would be necessary, anything like that?
I don't believe so. And he wouldn't have been appointed
under Jim Fouts?
I can't imagine. I don't, I don't know.
Okay. If, if you do,
that's all. Yeah. Thank you very much.
Um, met Prison. Mr. Nunan.
I would like to say that I've seen him
and other, um, community organizations
always showing up and taking leadership in every, um,
everything that, in several different organizations that he,
that we've both been involved in.
Any additional discussion? Madam Chair,
Ms. Moore? Um,
you know,
I am not making any judgment about whether Mr.
Rutherford can, can think or not think
or would show up, but we have to look at the DDA
because it's not been formed
and populated correctly with expertise in areas.
I don't know what expertise Mr. Rutherford has.
And I, you know, any development real estate,
pardon me? He presented
It to us. The
information that he
Provided was, I'm, I'm sorry,
The information That he, oh, I have it,
but I, I don't see a, um, experience in development,
marketing, real estate, um, and those sort of, and,
and that's kind of certainly what I'm thinking about on DDA.
And we have, you know, we do have, there's spots
for residents.
I think Mr. Zamore is the resident, um, appointment.
So, I mean, that's, that's my thinking. I, I like Mr.
Rutherford. This is nothing against him as a person,
but I think we have to make good decisions about
where people are best suited.
And I don't think this is the best spot
for Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
Any other discussion? Madam Chair?
Uh, Mr. Dwyer?
Yeah, I mean, I think Mr.
Rutherford has a very commendable, respectable background,
but as it applies to the DA, I just, um,
don't think he's a fit for that.
Thank you,
Madam Chair. Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you.
I I've got a couple of concerns.
Uh, one, I, I've asked Mr. Schroeder to, uh, pull up
for the, the DDA.
I know that there were specific restrictions.
We talked about, uh, one that we had resolved, that
one had to be part of, uh, Warren and Kahn.
We've realized that that's, uh, that's no longer, uh,
that no longer applies as a,
a Warren and Con representative.
Uh, but I, I wanted clarification there.
Uh, before we we vote any further,
the other item is when Mr.
Rutherford applied for this position, uh, he had emailed me
to let me know that he had applied.
And at the time I told him, I said, uh, I had, you know,
you were my, I, I believe I referred to him
as my first round draft pick for veterans, uh,
because of ex his extensive military background.
And that, you know, I, I'm looking for expertise for,
you know, to represent our military comm, uh, community.
Uh, he's a staunch advocate. I can't disagree with Mr.
Newan, Ms. Ms. McGee, that as far as his passion
for the community that he represents, uh,
he lives in my district.
Uh, we're, we've met on, on many occasions.
I have the utmost respect for him.
Uh, but, uh, as I explained to him over the phone, uh,
after he sent the, uh, the email notifying to me that I was,
uh, not convinced that he was, you know,
maybe the proper fit for this particular commission, uh,
I'm looking for, and,
and I've asked the mayor this, uh, when she was first, uh,
elected, we sat down, we talked, I gave her, uh,
a list of recommendations.
And in that list of recommendations were to go
after the business owners of the largest
taxpayers in our city.
These are the people that are well connected
throughout the region.
They are, they are, uh, you know, the, the movers
and shakers that can bring that expertise to the table
and can help us where on a commission where
we need to make strategic large dollar decisions
that is second nature to the business at hand.
And that's where, uh, you know, I was, you know,
we have Gardner White, we have ARI Foods, we have all
of these large corporations.
Uh, you know, I don't expect somebody like Mary Barra
to sit on the dda.
A, uh, granted, they are our largest taxpayer.
But, you know, there are people there that, you know,
potentially live in Warren, maybe even within the dda,
that hold a higher position
and, you know, could lend expertise.
It's my expectation that the mayor is reaching out
through her connections to acquire, uh, to,
to ask these individuals to serve our city.
And, you know, like I said, Mr.
Rutherford is a well-respected individual.
I have all the respect for him.
Uh, but, you know, I do have to agree with Ms. Moore that,
you know, he is not, uh, he's not probably the, the best fit
for this commission, although I would very much like
to see him, uh, apply
and serve on some of the other commissions
that we have here in the city.
Thank you.
Any other discussion? Yeah, Mr.
Newnan, um, so as I understand it,
we've determined that we don't want, uh,
pretty much anybody who's currently on the DA to continue
to be on the D-A-D-D-A.
Isn't that true? We didn't, we didn't, uh,
I thought that, that, uh, most of them had been involved in,
um, actions that
we considered were against, um, uh,
the ethics perhaps, or, uh, uh, budgetary.
Uh, like they, they approved spending money
that didn't come before this, the, uh,
city council and mm-hmm.
And they went along with that,
and that it's not exactly showing.
I think maybe this, you know, they're great guys,
great people, maybe under a different leadership,
they would've shown better.
But if, if that's true that we, that we want a change
of the DA board, then, uh,
and yet the DDA is such a vital part
of the functioning of the city.
We need to get new people on there.
If, if, I'm not saying just anybody that the mayor picks,
but, uh, Joel Rutherford is a pillar of the community.
He is, he's a great guy.
And, uh, anyway, um, I just, I'm, I'm kind of surprised
by at the, uh, lack of, uh,
support of going forward with it.
But I'm gonna shut up now
and let you go to the vote, I suppose. Ma
Madam Chair, if I could just, um,
we did have subsequent conversations with the mayor
and indicated that
if there were enough people on the DDA
that we had confidence of that would be questioning
and make sure those sort of things didn't happen again,
that we would certainly consider those members
that had good attendance.
The ones that weren't showing up.
They're never, they're just not interested.
And I don't see a benefit.
But for instance, Oscar Zamora, he's not missed a meeting.
Mike Wegan is pretty much the same.
And, um, I have talked to certainly Mr.
Wegan who said that, um, he, he said,
I wish I'd asked questions.
He said, but, you know, so anyway, I think
that there is a place for people that are on the DDA
that have certainly shown, you know,
attendance and interest.
Those that, you know, show up 14 times in four years
or whatever, uh, 14% of the time.
I mean, um, I don't think we should consider them.
And I don't think just whether
somebody's gonna show up either should be the criteria,
you know, just attendance.
I, I think we really have to look
and people just aren't gonna come, come out.
You have to go and search for people.
That's one of the things on all the commissions.
Um, and that used to be one of the things that we did,
is we go to a commission, say, you know, what it takes
to be on this commission.
Who do you think would be a good member?
That's like the, the, uh, crime commission.
They have a, a process that they go through,
they would like members to come to,
or potential members to come to meetings,
which I think is a pretty good idea.
And I think we're going to, you know, we'll set up something
after the first of the year to come up with maybe a way
of all of us working together to, um, um,
take the commission's feelings into, um,
consideration when a point pointing.
And maybe the mayor could work with the commissions as well,
to set up a way of getting people that are good fits.
And because some of the members that are being appointed,
people on the commission don't even know them.
So you,
This is a, a nice turn of events
because I was expecting the demise of the DA at any moment
since the, that, those discussions months ago.
I'm glad to hear that there has been a leadership
conversation for more accepting approach.
Right? And, uh, that,
that the DA will not just fold immediately.
That would be on unhappy Christmas news.
Thank you, Ms. Thank
You, Ms. McGee. And
then I have a comment, and then we'll call the question.
Uh, but the, but the answer is, is that the majority
of the people don't feel that it's being done.
I think Joe Rutherford will bring to the table not only just
the communication that we need to the people,
but he is a person that puts strategies in place,
and this is what the people are complaining about.
I hear, you know, our councilman, um, Lafferty talks about,
talked about how we
as people wanna get things done
and we go where our interests lie.
I was on the Senior housing commission
because I took care of a senior father.
That was my passion, and that's where I wanted to be
because I wanted to help the seniors as I helped my father,
because I have that experience with that.
Mr. Rutherford has done plenty in the community
where he put things in place and made it happen.
And people are waiting for that in our own city.
And it's not happening with our DDA department. Now.
I've been on task force where we had corporate leaders,
presidents, vice presidents, and guess what?
They didn't show up.
They didn't show up
because they're busy running a corporation.
And we need to have people on the DA
that will make it happen, that will stand with those leaders
that are willing to show up
and put things in place to make it happen.
To bring about maybe a new downtown for a change
To bring about a renovation of the city.
A wish we need to bring this city forward for the future.
And I believe Joe Ruthford will do that.
Thank you. Uh, just a couple notes, Mr. Noonan.
To your point about, um, not voting on members. Mr.
Lafferty, I think, has taken kind of the firmest approach
around not wanting folks who participated in previous, um,
malfeasance in the DDA, um, Ms. Moore
and I have taken, I think, a, a, uh, a different approach
where we've been a little bit more flexible about folks
who had previously served like Mr.
Wigan, um, who didn't have great attendance, but it's
because his mother was ill.
I think we found out later, he did have
Great attendance.
He did not, he had like 75%, he,
he had better than others,
but wasn't great. Oh, I have the numbers
Right here because, So, um, feel you can check.
Um, so just to, to clarify that, I, Mr, I think Mr.
Rutherford could serve on a number of commissions.
He has spent 38 years as an air traffic controller.
I'm looking at his application 20 years of the Air Force.
Another 18 is a federal contractor
and a federal service employee.
And I, I am certain if this is what the commission he wants
to serve on, he would do a fine job given his
track record in the community.
So he has my support.
Uh, I will, do you have the number
just for in the event that I'm incorrect
calculation?
Yes. He's this standard.
Um, I will call the question, the motion is to deny.
Uh, so yes, a yes vote is to deny, um,
a no would be in support.
Uh, let's see. Ms. Moore,
Yes. To deny,
Uh, Mr. Bokey?
Yes. To deny Mr. Dwyer?
Yes. To deny Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
To deny Mr. Noonan
No. In favor
of Joel Rutherford.
Ms. McGee? No. In favor of Joel Rutherford.
Rogan C as a no. As well, uh, item is denied. Next item.
Next item is audience for, um, general
Issues. Thank you.
Uh, members of the audience who would like
to speak, uh, to City Council may do so
by completing a form on the left side of the stage.
Uh, this is for general audience, uh, items only.
And you have, or no, in general, sorry.
And you have three minutes.
First is Lori Harris, and then Joel Vander Lemon.
Hi, Lori Harris. Um,
why did it sound like the council was answering
to the mayor's concerns about the Land Bank?
Um, you didn't owe her an explanation right there.
Um, she hasn't signed. That's her problem.
And, uh, you guys can talk later.
Um, I, I'm sure you were giving information to other people,
but that was my immediate response is, um,
we didn't owe her right now, she needs to sign.
And if she has to be compelled to sign, um,
what is the job description
of the community Outreach directors,
I really would love to see that.
Um, they make more money than a police officer getting
hired in the city of Warren.
I'd love to know what they do.
Um, because if it's just community engagement,
like setting up photo ops
and things, um, I have a real concern about that.
An email to council included sharing someone
else's email address.
What, uh,
so when ulu from the mayor's community outreach team sent
unsolicited group emails
to 200 plus people without per permission
and didn't blind copy,
and that included my email address,
the mayor was notified she didn't pay attention.
I mean, nobody in city administration still gets that.
So open meetings,
discussions about city business must have a reasonable
accommodation for those who require accessibility.
Tomorrow's meeting on mobility.
The irony does not have an option
for appropriate accessibility.
Uh, that survey, uh, on mobility, I'll remind you people,
200 people responded and the results are posted.
Uh, 93% of those people drive.
So to get input from people who need better mobility,
whether it's walking, riding a bike, taking a bus to work,
uh, those aren't the people that have been reached.
Um, no one that answered that survey spoke English
as not their primary.
I mean, spoke, spoke a primary language
that was not English meant, which meant we missed our entire
immigrant population.
And that's not right. That's an inappropriate study.
And any decisions made about mobility, whoever's doing this,
it should not go forward.
That who got paid to write the survey and do the results
and make the nice pretty graphics, this was wrong.
This was really wrong on next week's update on the town
center, oh my goodness, does not have accessibility.
Um, so instead of using Facebook to point out every time
that there's no accessibility, um, a report, uh,
complaints are gonna get made to the Department of Justice.
And that also includes city council meetings
and committee of the whole.
Um, the council is truly interested in supporting a DA,
we've gotta start here.
Gotta have a way for people to participate.
And, uh, thank you. Goodnight.
Thank you. Next is Joel Rutherford,
Vander, Sorry, Mr.
Vander Lenin.
Joel Lan, longtime born resident.
It was disturbing to me today to read the Warren Weekly,
which had a, uh, snowball piece kissing up
to the mayor about her first year here,
and how wonderful the job she did.
I never read such utter garbage
and can't believe my tax money is going towards that.
It said nothing about the 30 police officers were short from
the minimal staffing.
It says nothing about hiring a real human resource director.
It says nothing about having a, uh, a full-time, uh,
assistant or a city attorney.
It didn't say a lot of things yet.
Ms. Stone made comments
and stuff, uh, on, on the paper, which she didn't do.
She did that also on, uh, her state of the city address,
the fire departments, the new buildings, whatever.
That wasn't her. That was
Fouts new fire trucks.
I haven't seen them yet,
but I remember the previous council was the one
that voted for 'em.
Now, I also noticed that this was a snow job thing, story
for the mayor, because the mayor only allows her
people to write her stories for her.
And that's only the Detroit news
because that lady there, the reporter, I believe,
is the member of the L-G-B-T-Q.
So what happened to transparency, remember
that was her whole thing when she was running
for office, was transparency.
But there is none.
Now, Mr.
Lafferty, you made a comment,
and I want to correct you on it, my opinion, you said
that Ms. Stone is a
global politician.
You know, she's worked at the state level and stuff,
but if you remember, it was the, uh, Mackinac News
that graded every member of the house and the rep
and the, uh, senators
and gave her the lowest score, gave her an F minus.
She's not there. She had the lowest attendance.
She had the lowest voting record,
and the same thing's going on here.
She doesn't have a clue.
The thing is, is what people are not understanding.
We did not vote for stone.
We just want to make sure George Stevens
and Jim Fch were gone.
Recall. Lori Stone,
You're at time. Thank
you. Thank you Time.
I didn't know we had, I didn't know that either.
Uh, next is Gloria Sanker.
I,
Good evening council.
It's Christmas. And the season for the reason
has been left out from under the Christmas tree at City Hall
because atheists don't believe in it.
Therefore, we have to stop a 2000 year tradition.
So here we are again as taxpayers who have to hide our
country's religious beliefs
because we don't want to offend the non-believers.
Yeah. Guess what? We believers are offended. Yeah.
I can't remember when the major wasn't under the Christmas
tree at City Hall.
Why are we so afraid to express our faith
that has been given to us by our forefathers?
In almost every political document they draft in,
they often referred
to God in developing the laws of our nation.
They didn't bend to our adversaries.
So disappointing in this unorthodox thinking
for not allowing the Christmas tree
to have a manger under it at City Hall.
They won't even put a star on the top of the tree. Yeah.
Too religious for them.
I guess they say it's a conflict
between government and religion.
No. The framers
of our government wanted God involved in our government
as evidenced by their documents.
The City of center line has a major
main manger display,
and the White House has a manger on display in the East Room
and has since 1967 at Christmas.
I wonder if President Biden knows
that he's in conflict with the government.
Hmm. So why can't we display the God
that is written in our constitution,
printed on our money in our country's pledge,
sang in our national anthem, as well as in the White House,
be celebrated with a manger in the atrium.
I wonder if there will be a National Day of prayer
by this administration.
By the way, that too is put on by our government.
We're very disappointed.
And, uh, we can't understand
after 14, 15 years of displaying the manger, now
with the new administration, we can't do it.
We're very disappointed.
Atheist. Thank you, Mr.
Vander Lenin, please keep your comments to yourself.
Uh, next, that is the end of Audience Council
response to audience
a Hearing None.
Next item, motion to adjourn. Support. Support, Mr. Boche.
All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
We'd adjourned. Thank you.