I am now calling to order a regular
meeting of the city council.
Tuesday, January 14th, 2025 at 7:00 PM Please stand
for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance
To the flag. Flag of
the United States of America, and
To the republic for Which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, liberty,
with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call Madam Secretary
Councilwoman Rogan C.
Here. Councilman Dwyer? Here. Councilwoman McGee. Here.
Councilman Bokey. Here. Councilman Nunan. President.
Councilman Lafferty. Here. Councilwoman Moore is present.
We have a quorum.
Thank you. Next item. Next item is adoption
of the consent agenda.
So moved. Support Lafferty.
Uh, discussion. Hearing none? I'll 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 adoption of the agenda.
So moved with discussion. Support.
Support Bokey. Discussion. Madam Secretary.
Thank you. Um, we have a couple of items to add.
The, um, first is, um,
under council business 13 D
proposed settlement in the matter of James Rush, the
13 e uh, proposed settlement in the case
of Deborah Hutcherson.
And the third 13 F is a,
is a pre-litigation proposed pre-litigation, uh, settlement
in Wezel, Wezel, the Wezel case
also under council business.
And we're adding an item as 13
G, um, which would be a request for the mayor to,
uh, declare an emergency, um,
based on the weather that's coming up.
And as item, uh, under the, um,
announcements, um, we have a
resolution in support of DOT's raise program
that will be 10 B.
And,
um, that's it.
That's, that's the reason.
Any other discussion? Are the makers
of the motion comfortable with the amendments?
Yes. Mr. Bokey, you good with the amendments? Pardon?
Are you good with the amendments? Yes. Thank you.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Newan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is calendar pending matters.
Um, and, um, I keep forgetting to remove this,
but the item from 9 10, 20 24 should be removed.
Any other discussion?
Receive and file?
Yeah. Motion to receive and file. Thank
You. Support. Anyone?
Support. Support McGee? All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is seven a approval of the minutes
of the regular meeting of December 17th, 2024.
So moved. Support
Dwyer.
Discussion. Hearing none, I will call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Mr. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is seven B.
Approval of the meeting, minutes of the special meeting
of December 19th, 2024. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Discussion. Hearing none?
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is? Yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is eight.
A approval of the bills of the general revenue funds.
So moved. Support Lafferty.
Discussion, hearing honor, I'll call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee and Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is eight B.
Approval of the bills of the water
and sewer system. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Discussion. Hearing none.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is audience participation for agenda items only.
Thank you. Members of the audience who want
to address city council this evening may do so
by filling out an audience form located at
the right side of this stage.
Uh, this is for agenda items only.
Everyone has three minutes. Ms. Harris, you are up.
Hi, my name is Lori Harris
and I started getting involved, uh, with City Council
about seven years ago
because of marijuana in my neighborhood, uh,
that was inappropriately being grown in an empty house.
Um, I know that we've moved past these things, sort of, um,
I still have that problem in my neighborhood,
but I wanted to talk about the administrative hearing
and the request of Soso Health
to appeal an administrative ruling denying their renewal
of their marijuana license.
My understanding is Soso Health was, uh,
given an at given an attestation, uh, inappropriately
by someone in the city administration, uh,
and opened their business, uh, there.
And I do, uh, recall that there were some issues
with them maintaining, um, the, um,
odor, like do following the guidelines to, to be compliant.
I don't know all the issues,
but I certainly hope that they don't get their way
and get to have their license.
And I'm tired of the marijuana industry
bullying the city to get what they want.
Thank you.
Thank you. That is the end of audience for agenda items.
Next item is 10, a presentation by Plant Maria.
Uh, good evening Counsel.
My name is Bill Brickey with Plant Moran.
With me today is my associate Josh Edie.
And we're here to talk about the audit
for the year ended June 30, 20, 24.
Uh, the deliverables, deliverables that we have related
to the audit that you would've received.
Uh, we have the annual comprehensive financial report,
the Audit of Federal Awards, which is our,
our audit of your grants.
We have our report to mayor and council.
And finally we have the graph presentation, which we'll go
through, uh, in just a moment.
So we have covered all of these documents in
detail with management.
Our goal tonight is to provide you a high level summary
of those items and also address any questions
that you, that you may have.
Uh, before we get started, just wanna take a brief moment
and really thank your entire finance team
for their assistance throughout the audit.
The audit does take about three months from start to finish,
and, and we appreciate all the assistance that they provide,
uh, throughout that process.
So I always like to point out that the city does continue
to prepare an annual comprehensive financial report,
which is more than required by the state of Michigan.
Uh, your financial statements are submitted
to the Michigan Government Government Finance
Officers Association.
They review them and provide you, uh, an award.
And for the 19th year, the city will receive that award.
And to me, it really just shows the city's commitment
to overall quality financial reporting.
So when you look at that document that you have,
the financial statements, uh, it will,
will look different than a lot of other communities
who just do, uh, a basic financial statement.
Um, included in that document, uh,
is our opinion on your financial statements as your auditor.
That's really my, my primary deliverable to you.
It's in, it's on page one.
The city did receive an unmodified audit opinion again in
the current year, which essentially means the financial
statements are in compliance with all the rules
and regulations, uh, and, and can be relied upon.
So it's really the highest level of assurance
that we can provide, uh, on a financial statement.
Uh, I wanna talk just for a minute on,
on the other audit report we have.
So in addition to the financial statement audit,
we also performed an audit
of the city's compliance with federal grants.
So you have a report
that's titled Federal Award Supplemental Information.
So during the current year,
the city did receive just over
$4.7 million in federal grants.
And the details of those grants can be, um,
seen on page seven of that report.
So we specifically tested the city's compliance
with the COVID-19 coronavirus state
and local recovery funds.
Those are what we often refer to as the ARPA grant, uh,
and the housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Grant,
please report that our testing on that, uh,
we did not identify any non-compliance issues.
So our, our report
that you have there just basically says you complied
with all the rules and regulations related to those grants,
uh, and spent the money, uh, appropriately.
So we have no findings on,
on our, our issues with the grants.
Uh, also included in that report on page 11, we did,
we did identify one financial statement audit
finding in the current year.
So during our audit testing,
we did identify certain adjustments, uh,
that required changes to be made to the numbers
that were provided to us.
The adjustments are related to changes in the capital asset
calculation that's included in the financial statements
and some adjustments to grant revenue, uh, and receivables.
So when we identified these items, brought it to management,
they made the required corrections.
So that's why we're able to provide you the un
unmodified audit opinion.
But we are required to report that issue to you, uh,
given your role, uh, as counsel.
And so that's really what that finding on that, uh, on
that page relates to.
I, I will point out that there were some significant
retirements in the finance office this year
and some change in duties and responsibilities.
And, and I really think those findings really just related
to some of the transition
and people kind of getting up to speed in the department on,
on their new, new responsibilities.
But again, the details of that are on page 11, uh,
of, of that document.
So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Josh.
We're gonna cover the end of audit letter
and finally wrap up by going through some
of the financial highlights, uh, in the graphs.
Thank you. So, as Bill said, I'm going
to cover the end of audit letter.
So this is the bookend to the letter that we would've sent
to this body before the audit began.
And so this letter can be very perfunctory, um,
if nothing, uh, came up.
And so that is the case this year with the exception of, uh,
the finding that Bill mentioned earlier in terms
of the entry that we had to make there.
So other than that, uh, the audit went very well.
So there are a lot of nos in here.
So no major disagreements with MA management,
no difficulties, things like that that you would expect
and hope to see nos to.
Um, the rest of the letter, it does include some legislative
and informational items.
So I will leave these to you to read at your leisure.
Um, if you have any questions on those, we'd be happy
to help discuss those, um, as well.
The other item then in front of you is the, uh, slide deck.
So this is the graph presentation.
This is going to cover, uh,
the financials at a very high level.
Uh, but if you have any questions, happy to address those.
So if we go to the next slide,
This shows the general fund revenues over four years.
And as you can see, revenue increased 7.6% this year
to 133 million $153,000, uh, large.
Largely that's due to increasing property tax revenue.
So the first line there is up $4.3 million year over year.
And that increased largely due
to property tax values continuing
to increase within the city of Warren.
Uh, the other significant change there is investment income
that is within the other revenue line.
That's the fifth line,
which increased about $3.3 million in the current year.
Uh, the other item that is not reflected here,
but I did wanna point out is there is, uh,
still about $17.9 million remaining to be spent
of those ARPA funds.
The next slide then shows, uh, total taxable value.
Since property taxes are the most significant source
of revenue for the city, this shows the change in the city's
taxable value over 10 years.
The blue line represents real property.
The red line represents personal property,
and the green line is the combination of the two.
Now, this value fell from its high in 2008, uh,
with the rest of the housing market, but
otherwise has been steadily increasing.
But keep in mind that this increase is limited to the lower
of 5% or inflation on existing
property due to the Headley amendment.
Uh, so in order for these values to recover, um,
it will take some time
or significant new construction to, uh, continue
to drive these values up
further than they're going at the moment.
The next slide then is the other side of the coin.
So this is the general fund expenditures over
the last four years.
And you can see that expenditures in the current year
increased 5.4%
to $126,267,000 in the current year.
And most of that is due to increases in public safety,
which is up, uh, $5.2 million in the current year.
Uh, and much of that is due to increased headcount
and wages as well as increased capital outlay in
fiscal year 2024.
The next slide shows general fund expenditures
for this year, just in another format.
So this shows the breakdown by percentage,
and you can see here that public safety continues
to be the largest expense category with 71 cents
for every dollar in the general fund going to public safety,
which is consistent with prior years
and shows the city's continued commitment to public safety.
The next slide shows general fund expenditures compared
to the, uh, actual the budget on a budgetary basis.
So the general fund expenditures finished the year
approximately $31.1 million under budget in which all
departments remain within budget.
So the variances were largely due to the timing
of equipment purchases and variances in positions.
Then the last slide shows the general fund fund balance
of $95 million.
This is an increase of $6 million from fiscal year 2023.
Now of this unassigned balance unassigned fund balance
of $24.3 million represents about 19%
of fiscal year 2024 expenditures,
and the remaining is assigned
for various other future expenditures within the city.
And with that, we'll take any questions,
Colleagues, ma'am, chair, I would make a motion
to receive and file
Motion support anyone
Support lab support lty with discussion,
Discussion, Mr. Lafferty
And me as well. Okay,
Thank you.
Mr. Lafferty. Might get most of our questions out. So
I was limited to, Mr. Fox told me I was limited
to 22 questions this year.
So good evening, sir. Thank you for being here tonight.
Uh, great reading as always.
Uh, to start with your letter, your introductory letter, uh,
page three, you have, uh, a comment
that the most sensitive estimates affecting the financial
statements were the city's portion
of the environmental remediation
and post closure care reported
by the South McComb Disposal Authority
and the net pension liability and net ope liability.
Can you speak to the, the sensitivity?
What, what's significant about that?
Why, why is that called out?
So tho those are called out.
So obviously when we do accounting, we don't
actually know the answer to your, your re your,
your retiree healthcare library liability, for example.
So you, you, you hire an actuary
and they do their calculations to come up with,
what do they think the value of that benefit
that you're gonna provide in the future is gonna be?
So because it's, it's, it's not a a, a number that we can
absolutely tie out to an invoice.
Uh, it's an estimate. And so what we do when,
when there's situations with estimates is we when test the
inputs and the logic behind the calculation there.
And so because those numbers are so large, we have
to call it out that those are significant estimates
because you're recording expenses every year as
that liability goes up,
even though you're not gonna pay them out until, you know,
people may retire 30 years from now and you,
and you may pay that benefit.
So all that's meant to do is say,
not everything in here is a known number.
Some things have to be estimated.
And what we do is we audit, uh, the way you estimate that
or pay a third party to estimate it.
Thank you. Uh, moving on to page seven,
you have a comment about, uh,
under capitalization thresholds
and that it may be a good time for the city
to reevaluate the capitalization thresholds related
to federal grant compliance.
And given the finding, did you have any additional
insight on that particular line?
Uh, I, I think our main point there is is, you know,
obviously when it comes to what you capitalize, um, that,
that is the city's decision point.
So you could, you know, you, you could buy a microphone
and that's gonna last five years,
so you could capitalize it, but if,
but if, if it costs $50,
that might not be the most efficient thing to track.
And so we,
we would just think it's an appropriate time based on, um,
some of the federal changes of, of what they require you
to capitalize when you're spending federal grant money on it
to take a look at what is your threshold.
Do you only capitalize things over $5,000, $10,000?
What's the threshold? Obviously given the size
of the city's budget, you don't wanna track every little
thing, but it would be a good time just to take a look at
what is the minimum value of a capital asset
that you're going to, to capitalize
and record on the books versus expense.
So it really has nothing to do
with approvals or anything like that.
It's really more of an accounting task
of when do you capitalize it
and depreciate it over the estimated life.
Okay.
All right. And then,
Uh, Slightly below that, uh, below the chart
for pension and ope liabilities, the,
our historical performance has remained quite steady.
Uh, are we presently positioned to continue
our current funding approach
or should we consider alternatives?
It seemed the reading suggested that there were alternatives
to consider and that you were offering assistance.
So I think it's just important to, to again, continue
to monitor these unfunded liabilities
for both pension and healthcare.
And, you know, you, you've really, uh, committed a lot
of resources to, in many, in many cases over the years,
putting more into the retiree healthcare
and the pension system than required, um,
by the actuary to get these numbers up.
Plus the last few years we've seen obviously nice investment
returns that have, again,
increased your funding percentage there.
So I just think it's an important thing to continue
to look at what actuarial assumptions are used to determine
what you're required to put in.
And then certainly it's your decision whether you want
to put in that amount or an increased amount.
And so, um, you know, you really have made a lot of,
like you said, positive progress in funding these
liabilities, you know, over the years.
And I know that's not a, you know, easy,
easy decision to make.
So I, so I think we pointed out just to say,
because this is such a, such a substantial item
for the city's budget and such a substantial liability,
it's just something to make sure
that you're looking at a budget time to figure out,
you know, should we put in more than required
or are we comfortable with, um,
following the actuary's recommendation?
Because if you follow what the actuary says,
you will get funded eventually.
It's just looking at what assumptions are they using
to come up with that number
and are you comfortable with the timeframe in which you'll
be funding those liabilities?
Thank you. Uh, moving into
the audit, page seven, under management discussion
and analysis, uh,
at year end general fund expenditures, I'm sorry,
under budgetary highlights at year end general fund
expenditures were almost $31 million under budget.
And this was great note.
It was due to careful spending by department leaders
and delayed capital expen, uh, equipment purchases.
In my professional career, one of the metrics
that I'm held accountable for is how close
to an estimate on a particular project a contract
did I arrive at, either at, uh, on a quarterly basis,
midyear or at, at the, at the end of the year.
And I was, I was curious,
is is being $31 million under budget
a good indicator?
I, I know we manage, we manage very well, Mr. Fox, Mr. Knapp
and Ms. Battle, uh, keep it, you know, run a tight ship.
I'm, I'm curious if we should be focusing on, you know,
narrowing that, that field,
should we be a little bit more conservative
in at budget time and pulling back 10, 15%?
Uh, I, I would tend to agree with you.
Typically, you know, I would like to see,
you know, that a little tighter.
We're we're, again, you're closer to what you budgeted
because obviously when you adopt a budget, that's
what you want to have happen.
Um, and,
and I think a lot of it, you know, could come down to,
you know, taking a look at, uh,
budget amendments throughout the year
and seeing if there should be more amendments taken so
that when you get to the end of the year, maybe that
that number's a little, a little closer to actual now,
you know, certainly we understand that a lot of the things
that you wanted to do, you, you know, with projects
and things like that you weren't able to do just related to,
you know, the back stock of the market market.
And it's hard to get, you know,
construction projects underway and things like that.
But, but I tend to agree that, you know, you know,
having a positive budget variance like
that is a great thing from a financial standpoint.
But when you adopt a budget, you know, you're, you're trying
to do, uh, certain things
and you wanna accomplish, you know, certain service levels.
So I think it would, you know, potentially be appropriate
to look at those budget amendments
more closely throughout the year.
So at the end of the year, you're closer than,
um, than that.
Okay. And my, my second one was, uh, regarding the,
the budget amendments, because I, I said that would, uh,
having a more conservative approach would likely, uh,
include an additional appropriation throughout the year.
So you're, you're going exactly where I was gonna go
with my second question, so thank you.
Uh, let's see here.
And my second to last question on page 43,
and I'm not sure you can answer this, uh, it may be a,
a question for Mr. Fox, uh, which doesn't have
to be answered tonight, under water
and sewer bonds, last sentence, the,
the series bonds, uh, 54 0 1, uh, at, uh,
June 31.1 million and change,
however, this issue is subject
to 40% principle forgiveness at closeout of construction
and is reflected in the balance statement.
I was curious about the, the principle forgiveness
and why we had that.
And I'm not sure that that's a question for you to answer.
And perhaps more for the controller.
Um, I think I would punt that one to the controller.
I don't know off the top. I can't remember off the top
of my head why you, you're getting that forgiveness.
I'm sure it was part of the original issuance.
Rick, I don't know if you,
Oops. Richard Fox,
city controller. Good evening.
Uh, I have to put on that one tonight too.
I don't know off the top of my head what that's for,
but I'd be happy to supply your a report on it.
Thank you. You're welcome. Alright,
And then finally on page 11
of the, the Federal Award supplement.
Uh, and you spoke to the, the finding
and noted that it had already been corrected.
And my question was, is, was a remediation plan,
uh, in from a risk modeling, was there a remediation plan
that was presented to you, uh, by the city, uh,
noting the revisions to the process?
And then was that reviewed and then accepted by you?
Was there some sort of letter, uh, exchange?
So we do, we do receive a corrective action
plan from the city.
We, we do not test that.
What you say you're gonna do, you did.
I think what we do is, you know, next year we do our work
and, um, you know, kind of test everything all over again.
Um, but the city is required
to submit the corrective action plan, um,
as part of this document.
So that is uploaded, um, to the state and things like that.
But again, we don't necessarily test
that it was corrected right now,
but we will in next year's audit
because again, we'll be, we'll be looking at this.
Um, and, and I would point out just on this finding, just
to put some context around this.
So the expectation is when we come out to do the audit is
the numbers we're provided, we don't make any changes to it.
We don't find any errors, we don't find any issues.
Um, which is a, a very low bar from an audit standpoint
because it, it can be quite common when you're looking at
the sheer dollar amount
and number of transactions
that the city has that we find things.
And, and so this is a situation where we did find some,
some errors, uh, brought them to the city's attention.
They totally corrected it.
And as I mentioned before,
there were some new people in some positions this year
doing this for the first time.
Um, and so, so our suggestion was, you know,
maybe a little more review of, of that work
by those newer people.
And, and I think that's the plan.
But again, we, we didn't test that that actually happened
yet, but we will in next year's audit.
Okay. But in, in light of the unmodified opinion,
one couldn't ask for better Correct.
Better management than that. Correct.
So, I mean, findings happen.
We manage them and it's a good thing.
That's why you're here, you're here to help us ensure
that the, the numbers are right all the way through.
So finding is not a, not a bad thing, right.
But, you know, on top of an unmodified opinion,
I I couldn't be, you know, happier with it.
So well done. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Excellent job as always, you and your team. Thank you.
Thank you.
Uh, secretary Moore. Thank you.
Uh, Madam Chair, it's probably for Mr. Fox.
Can any of the, um, expenditures, um,
being under budget be explained by transferring any
of those expenditures to the DDA perhaps?
No. Basically the largest share of that was,
as you recall, the, the equipment
that was put in the budget this year, which,
or the last year was substantial.
And so then we turned around
and did a bond issue in order to finance those.
So the timing of the equipment purchases then got postponed.
Okay. And that's why they, okay.
So it was just because we paid for 'em in another way.
Exactly. So we still, okay. Alright. That's what I thought.
Another, um, question, um,
I noticed in, um, I think it was page one.
Um, and this is, this is something we're not, I don't,
we're probably not gonna have an answer today,
and maybe we can have a discussion later
'cause it probably goes deeper than us today.
But the fines and fees, uh, show or licenses
and permits show a 12% decrease.
And that's sort of a red flag to me
that we have to watch that.
'cause that looks like, you know, you know,
development is down and things like that.
So I'd like to maybe see where we're at this year with that
to sort of track that, just to get an idea if that's sort
of a harbinger of things.
Uh, also, um, Mr. Fox
and I actually talked about this earlier this week.
Um, I found in the charter a timeline
for the independent audit.
That's, um, and I'll talk with Mr. Schroeder about this,
and it's very unreasonable to meet that.
So if that's the case that that timetable is in the charter,
maybe that's something that, um,
we will discuss in the charter review to, um, get
that more in line with what's reasonable.
So we'll look at that later
and make sure I'm right about that.
Right. Thank you. Any additional,
Madam President, if you would indulge me,
Mr. Nunan.
Um, let's see.
On page, uh, three of the, uh, the letter,
um, it says that corrected
and uncorrected misstatements, it, it, um, it ended with,
uh, including increasing the capital assets within the
governmental activities for assets acquired
during the current year by approximately $5.1 million.
Um, that seems like a lot of money to me.
Can you explain what that was about a little bit?
Because I didn't really understand it too well.
Professional standards require us to accumulate all known
and likely misstatements identified during the audit.
Why was there a misstatement to the tune of $5 million?
So, so this is the, the situation that directly relates
to the finding that we talked about earlier.
So this was the, the primary, uh, point of that.
But essentially what happened is,
the way the accounting works for the city is, you know,
you buy capital assets, um,
and those are expensed as part of the budget process.
But then there's another section of this financial statement
where those items you buy are then capitalized
for this report, although they're budgeted as expenses.
So there were items that were purchased
and all of that went well.
It's just when the city goes back through all
of the capital items that were purchased
and puts 'em into their fixed asset module,
there was about $5 million of asset additions
that were not in there, that they were missed
as part of the review process.
Some of those assets related to items that were purchased
by the DA but then given to the city, um,
as city assets.
So really it was more of an accounting function.
It wasn't like you, you, you didn't pay $5 million
or you missed $5 million of expenses.
It really was the, um, year end closing process
where you take the items you bought, figure out
what should be capitalized and put them into your module.
Would, would you say that that has to do
with the depreciation of the assets for having, um,
been used for a given amount of time or something like that?
Th this was actually before they get depreciated.
This was the original identification of items
that you purchased, what should be capitalized.
So it really related to, to that process of what did we buy,
how much are we gonna capitalize versus, um, expense.
So it was that determination that, um, the air happened
where there was items that just weren't put into the fixed
asset module as part of the year end close process.
I thank you. I think that's about
as clear as it's gonna get for me.
Okay. Which is to say,
actually not very clear, but it's not your fault.
It's my, I don't, I don't have enough background on, uh,
information on that in my head. Right.
So maybe I can explain a little.
So I had an employee retire, um, this year,
and the other employee now that's doing that
missed those DDA purchases.
Didn't think that about the, the looking to the DA
for the purchase that they had.
So the process that we implemented to correct that is,
I'm gonna have another staff member review all these items
that when they're capitalizing,
have someone take a look a second look at everything so
that we don't miss these items.
Uh, okay. Uh, I I like that. Thank you.
And then, um, maybe this is along the same line.
Um, on page eight, there were significant GA b
proposals worth watching.
Uh, the revenue and expense recognition project aims
to develop a comprehensive accounting.
Um, we strongly encourage the city
to monitor developments of the standard.
Um, the,
the GA SB has issued a preliminary views document
that proposes a new categorization framework
that replaces the exchange non exchange transaction notion
with a four step categorization process
for classifying a transaction.
So would that be like all the codes of the city have
to change for how they categorize things?
I'm, I, I was going,
So if you're, if you're thinking about the chart
of accounts and the way you budget
that this should not affect that.
Um, at this moment, the, this is a proposal, um,
this is not issued yet.
The GSB is still working on the final wording of this
and exactly what it will mean.
This could be a significant change in two way this document
looks in terms of the way we're presenting things.
Okay. But it should not, uh, at least at this point,
affect kind of the economics of the city.
It should not affect the way that you're looking at things
on a budgetary basis, on a day-to-day process.
Okay. But if, if that does, we will,
um, definitely be having this
Conversation. So if it's not a drastic
change to,
to the controller's office's process
Yeah. In terms of
way that this all gets reported.
Okay. It just, I, I read that I got scared.
Sure. This is, this is, this has the potential to be a,
a rather significant change
to the way that this report looks.
Um, but like I said, that's still in process.
They're still making changes, so we don't know
exactly where that's going to land.
So, thank you. Um, my last thing, uh, you know, that, um,
$31 million of less spending than the budget.
Um, I, I, I think it might have to do
with the way the city is looking at, uh, fiscal conservancy.
And I'm a fiscal conservative.
I like to be taking in more money
than we're spending all the time.
And, um, it's interesting.
I don't know whether this is like, I think Jonathan, uh,
Councilman Lafferty was speaking
to having a good fund balance.
And I don't know what our fund balance balances exactly
in uh, percentage terms.
It's probably in here somewhere.
But do you know hap happen to know what that is offhand?
So are you talking about the, uh, percentage
of unassigned fund balance that is, uh, represented by, um,
as it relates to the, uh, current year expenditures?
Uh, yeah, for the general fund?
Yeah. So that's 19% this year
that the unassigned fund balance represents
about 19% of current year
Expenditures, nine 19%.
So that, it seems to me that
that's a pretty high fund balance.
Like maybe we could lighten up a little bit in, in, uh,
in terms of going ahead
and spending money for salaries, uh, a bit more maybe.
Um, but I, I was looking at, um, this city
of Warren fiscal year ended June 30, 20, 24,
annual comprehensive financial report.
And under economic outlook on page three,
going into page four at the top of page four, really it's,
it's, uh, talking about the inflationary effect
of federal government assistance for citizens
and businesses over the past year, while needed,
has energized additional government intervention
and the economy through interest rate hikes.
The city needs to continue to be vigilant
and responsive to economic changes
to avoid impacting essential services
provided to our citizens and businesses.
The many challenges for weakening the economy, um,
may force the city to cut future expenditures
through staffing level reductions in labor contract savings.
It seems like we're already doing that to a high degree.
And that would probably account for the $31 million
that were, you know, that are actual budget is below.
Um, what was budget budgeted
Again? The largest
portion of that was the capital expenditures.
The other area that was were savings were
vacant compositions.
I, I'm sorry, I didn't really hear you
because I you're not really speaking very well into
the microphone as far as I know.
Okay. So as I stated
before, the largest portion
of the difference was capital expenditures for equipment.
Okay. And so that was, I I'm thinking somewhere
around $18 million.
And then the other balances are just, uh, each department
didn't spend all their dollars, which is what we want.
We want them to manage their funds and then,
and save the city as much as possible.
And the probably the biggest in each department was
vacancies that they had within their department.
I, I guess I'm, I'm not trying to say
that it's, it's good or bad.
I'm just saying I think that our overall philosophy is
that we're in fairly tight economic times
and we need to, uh, be very fiscally conservative.
I think that's, that's the, the consensus. I agree.
I Don't, I don't. And I think
that should be an initial of, of this.
So I'm saying it. Okay. I'm done. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other discussion?
I have one or two questions.
This is the 24.3 million
that we increase in revenue tax,
revenue investment earnings, and grant revenue.
It's on page six roughly.
Rick, what is the breakdown of that 24?
I assume a lot of it is tax revenue
because property taxes are, so
Property tax revenues, and then we recognize some
of the grant revenue as grants as revenue.
And then we did have a big increase in
the, uh, interest income.
'cause the rates have been up and,
and we've captured, you know, a good amount
of money in interest income
because of the dollars
that are sitting invested in the banks. Okay.
Thank you. And then my other question is, we, um,
the 95 million fund balance, that some of it,
what was the assigned amount for this year?
Well, I can actually give, I
can give you a breakdown of that.
I, I mean, I, off the top of my head, I,
but we have various items that we assign.
And so give you an example.
Um, the council during the budget said they, you, you wanted
to have $5 million set aside for mm-hmm.
The, the home program with the down payment assistance.
So that's one of the assigned items in fund balance.
The other thing that council, uh,
wanted reserve was 2,000,750 for parks and recreation.
So that's another item which I'll, I'll,
I'll actually send you an email
with those items that are assigned.
But those are just two examples.
Okay. Thank you. 'cause it is often talked about,
we have this very large fund balance,
but I don't think people realize that a lot
of the money is committed Correct.
Already for a future project or a future year.
Like the fire truck where we have to order it two
or three years in advance,
that money gets assigned in the fund balance.
So when I look at this, the fact that we only have,
I don't know about 20 million unassigned could, is more
concerning to me than the 95 million.
Right? Like 20 million is not that much money unassigned
for a city of our size with a budget of our size.
Is that an accurate
Well, I, I mean, I think the unassigned, you know,
percentage being around 20% is, is very adequate.
I mean, what you're trying to do is,
is maintain a few months
of operating just in case you have an emergency.
But the, the key to fund balance is
that is like a one time item.
So it's for a capital item
or a expense that's gonna happen one time,
you certainly don't want to increase wages
and then have a, a three
or $4 million increase one year
that's gonna be every year, and it's gonna keep going up.
Mm-hmm. And your fund balance will be wiped out. Yeah.
So it's, it's really more of a one time item
where you've got, you got something that you,
you gotta purchase like a capital
and you use fund balance to do that.
Okay. Thank you. That was the only questions I have.
Anyone else have additional questions? No.
Okay. We have a motion to receive and file.
All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
Thank you so much. Next item.
Next item is 10 B, um, resolution in support of
DOT's raise program.
I think this was your item. Could
I make a motion? Pardon
me? Can I make a motion? No, do you want, okay.
You wanna explain? I didn't know
if you wanted to explain it. Yeah, you
Can explain it. Okay.
So, uh, the
County Road Department reached out about a letter of support
for, uh, development of Quida Road, uh,
to apply for a grant from 6 96 to 14 mile.
And they requested us submit a letter of support
for their joint application.
Quida is a huge source spot in the community
as far as construction.
It's both owned by or oversaw by Oakland and Macomb County.
It becomes a whole thing.
So, uh, the letter is to submit with a grant
that is due before the next time we meet.
And so we're adding it at the table so
that the County Roads Department can submit the grant
in time with our letter of support.
Motion to approve Support. Lafferty. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Yes. You wanna say? All in favor?
All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Motion carries. Next it.
Thank you Madam Chair. Um, uh, another sad note.
Um, Kathy Stevens, um, a Warren resident wife
of former Councilman Scott Stevens, uh,
passed away this past Saturday.
We'd like to extend our condolences to,
um, her entire family.
And a moment of silence, please.
Thank you. Thank you.
Um, on another note last night, um,
we had a very productive meeting counsel, um, members
of the administration, police and fire.
Um, some residents were there, um, discussing the, um,
unhoused or homeless situation in light of, you know,
the cold weather coming up.
And as part of the discussion, um, uh, one
of the lieutenants mentioned that, um,
there are certain times of the day where shelters close.
They may take their may,
their intake period may be from seven to 9:00 PM Um,
some shelters only take men, some maybe take women,
you know, some take women and children, some take families.
Um, but not everyone does everything.
And sometimes places are full to do one or the other.
And sometimes the only option police officers have is
to take whatever population that is
to local motels.
And I have actually a list here.
And, um, if anybody is so inclined, if you have the means
to do so and, um, you would like to help with this problem
and keep people out of the cold, you know, on the streets,
and it's gonna be freezing the next couple weeks, um,
that would be much appreciated if, um, you would be so kind
to go to one of these hotels
and perhaps purchase a gift certificate
or, you know, um, gift card
or make a, um, drop off funds
to the police department for that.
Um, um, benefit.
Um, you could contact any of us on council,
and we would find a way
to get whatever help you have to the right people.
You could take to the mayor's office,
I'm sure the treasurer's office, any,
and that will get to where it needs to go.
And the, um, just the suggestion.
The, um, hotels, the Quality Inn at 3 0 900 Van D**e.
Um, that is from 50 to $75 a night.
The Holiday Express on, um,
11,511 mile, that's 129,
um, dollars a night.
And then America's best in 25, 800 Tonder.
That's $65 a night.
Um, at this point, um, we'll also put these, um, um,
facilities on the council's Facebook page if,
or you can call the council office
and we can give you that information.
But that would be, um, much appreciated.
If you wanna help, that's a great way to help.
Um, um, it's gonna get awful cold.
And I, I just hate the, the idea
of people being on the street.
We all do. And that's what we're,
we spent a lot of time last night.
We don't have all the answers yet, but we're working on it.
And I think we had really,
really productive meeting last night.
And, um, I wish we could handle everything like we
did last night.
We could get a lot farther, I think, in, uh, our, uh, goals.
So, um, thank you very much.
And those are all the announcements for me.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. Any other announcements?
Okay, I have two.
Uh, there's a point in time count,
which is an annual census required by the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development, which is being coordinated
by Macomb Action, I believe in the county.
It is on Wednesday, January 22nd at, uh, seven to 11:00 PM
Volunteers will go and count folks who are homeless
or unhoused, collect that information.
It helps determine funding
and a variety of other things at the state
and federal level helps us locally understand the
scope of the problem.
Uh, if you can't volunteer to go out
or don't want to, you can help volunteer care bags,
like hygiene products, uh, blankets, things like that,
that will be distributed as a part of the point in time.
Um, you can go online, uh, point in time in Macomb County
and you can find the link to volunteer.
There is second announcement is the, uh, planning department
and the city has presented their preliminary plans
for the active mobility plan.
Uh, while the open house has concluded,
the city is still gathering public input
through the project website.
Uh, there is also a open house presentation, um,
and you can share feedback via the online survey.
You can go to Walk Bike
Info slash Warren for more information.
Sorry, I have one more, uh, notification.
The crime commission is
collecting donations for Now.
I've forgotten it. Who's on the crime commission?
Mr. Councilman Dwyer. I believe
They're collecting something.
Um, during January, the month
of January. I'm drawing a blank now.
I don't, not to my knowledge.
I will share it next week. Thank you.
'cause I can't find it. That is all the
Angela text us. Angela
President. Ah,
yes. The, uh, crime Commission has boxes to collect.
Uh, thank you coats and mittens and things like that.
And I'm trying to remember where all the locations are. The
Community center was one.
Okay. And I think one of the libraries. Um, but
I'm, I'm Fortunately the main library here
at the Civic Center's
Civic Center and it's civic center.
Thank you. We cobbled together that announcement. Thank you.
Okay. Appreciate it. Yeah. Any other announcements?
Okay. Hearing none. We will move on to the next item.
Next item is 11 A, which is an administrative hearing, um,
request of Soso Health Inc.
I dunno if this is received in file.
Um, Mr. Schroeder, I think motion to table.
We have a motion to table.
Madam, Madam President Mr. Lafferty, uh,
Before I make a, a motion,
unless you're making the motion,
I just made it. Nobody seconded.
Okay. So I'd like to, uh, introduce this
because this is a little different than
what we've done in the past
and through the wisdom of Mr. Schroeder.
Uh, last month, at our last meeting,
you appointed me to conduct a, a meeting
between the attorneys for the City of Warren,
representatives from the building department,
public service, and then the attorney for Soso.
And, uh, one of their representatives.
Uh, I chaired the meeting,
and when I opened the meeting,
I made it very clear there were no decisions being made.
It was fact finding,
and it was to go through the detail on both sides.
I was not acting as a judge and jury.
I was simply going to collect the information
and bring it back to counsel in a full report
with a recommendation.
Uh, Mary, I think the, the totality
of the meeting was nothing short, almost just short
of three hours long.
We met it, it was a very lengthy meeting
and there was a lot of detail shared.
Uh, I can only imagine, had we held
that meeting here tonight, uh, we would, based on all
of us listening
and asking questions, we could have all gone out
to breakfast the tomorrow morning
because we would've still been here.
Uh, with respect to what was, uh, brought forward.
It was realized by both parties that
the issue that is, was requested of us
as an appeal, an administrative ruling denying the renewal
of a marijuana license was not really the issue at hand.
And there were some underpinning issues that needed
to be resolved first.
And so, Mr. Schroeder, the attorney for the City of Warren
and the attorney for Soso, are in the works
of a resolution that resolved this issue.
Uh, take it away from an administer, uh,
administrative hearing, and we will take it through a series
of other steps that need to be exhausted first.
And so, from my standpoint, I have
exhaustive notes that I've taken.
Uh, they are not ready for prep for presentation tonight
to you, but as promised, I will, uh,
deliver my notes to the council.
Uh, after they have been cleaned up, uh, there were like,
like I said, three hours worth of notes, needs a little
finesse before I present them.
I have some high standards to follow.
And with that, uh, a motion
to table is an order.
Uh, and that will resolve the issue for this evening.
Before we make a second, do you have anything to add, Mr.
Show? Oh, okay. I made the motion to table.
I will second the motion to table.
We'll call the question
A Yes. Is to table
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer?
Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. The table Rogan C is a yes. Motion here.
Items table.
Next item is 12 A, which was table 12 17 20 24.
Proposed resolution authorizing quick claim deed to City
of Warren tax increment finance authority
for real properties at
seventy six hundred and seventy six zero, seventy six oh eight,
continental Warren, Michigan Consideration
and adoption of a resolution.
Excuse me, what did you say at the end?
I'm sorry. Did you make a motion? No. Oh,
Okay. I did not. We need a
motion to remove
it from the table before.
Oh, okay. Motion to remove from the table. Thank you, Ms.
Support. Thank you.
Uh, all in favor to remove it from the table? Aye.
No One? No. Uh, Ms. Moore?
Yes. Uh, all right.
Is there a motion for the purposes of discussion
or motion to approve? Thank
You. Motion, uh,
support with discussion.
Discussion, Mr. Newan?
Yes. Uh, thank you. Well, I was reading through this,
uh, this is about the, uh, TO, um, looking
to get the two properties from the city of Warren at, uh,
seventy six hundred and seventy six oh eight
Continental Warren, Michigan.
And, um, let's see.
I'm here on page 4 86 of our agenda,
if anyone wants to follow me.
Um, the project is eligible for GAP funding
with the grant from the Michigan Economic Development
Corporation, MEDC, in an amount of 1.2 to $1.8 million.
The TFA wants those, uh, two properties conveyed.
Um, and it would help the, uh, sale and project development
and the revitalization of the Van D**e corridor,
the Van D**e corridor plan.
And then, um,
so I put it in my, uh,
Over here,
Uh, page 4 86 work packet presents the sales
of these two properties to the tfa,
anticipating the, all that I just said.
But then on page 4 91, oh, that's, uh, the grant from MEDC
to help create a won, uh, wonder Ascension.
A wonderful ascension, my Health Urgent Care facility.
But the June seven, uh,
it says the June 17th, 2024 letter from MEDC.
Um, and then look to page 4 92, requires a letter be signed
and dated no later than June 24th, 2024.
And, uh, page 4 9 2 so that the, so
that document documentation can be complete
by July 31st, 2024, or else other consequences will ensue.
Um, so I'm wondering, what's the deal here?
Has the Warren Office
of Economic Development blown this opportunity?
Can it be repaired? I don't know what the case is.
And I, I has, has the, uh, Warren Office
of Economic Development already acquired
that grant
and now is, look, I was looking kind of retroactively
to get this, uh, the letter wasn't signed in our document,
so it didn't look to me like, uh, the grant had been gotten.
Good evening, sir. Happy New Year.
Tom Rio, economic Development Coordinator.
Um, to answer your question, the,
the grant has been awarded, uh, we, we have a, uh,
milestone meetings continually with the MEDC.
Um, and we are on track.
We're actually ahead of track with their, uh,
their milestones.
Um, our next phase is to get site plan approval, uh, which,
um, we're hoping to get on the, uh, uh,
the next planning commission meeting.
Part of the process is to
Combine what is right now six properties.
Uh, three of them that run along Van
D**e that are commercial.
There's one, uh,
and three that run along Continental of the six properties.
Two of them are titled in the, in the city of Warren.
The other four are titled in Warren tfa.
Um, as our assessor says, same pants, different pockets, uh,
they're all owned by the city essentially.
Um, but in order to combine them at the county,
the county is asking 'em for to all be in one entity.
So what we're asking for is to simply
transfer those two lots to TA TFA will then finish the
site plan approval,
and then with, uh, all the proper documents being finished,
uh, we will then sell the property to the My Health people
so they can invest and build the building.
So the, um, the dates that looked like the,
it looked like the doc, the pro, the, these, the things
that, the obligations that needed to occur by these dates
actually did occur, even though the documents in our agenda
didn't show signatures or dates, uh, signing off on them.
Like
Yeah, I, I, I'm not sure exactly which document
'cause there's a lot of them, but we are compliant
with the MEDC, so I'm sure that, that, that
that document was signed, that's primarily that.
The, um,
Okay. Well I'm
glad to hear that.
I'm glad to hear that you've, uh,
haven't blown getting that. Yeah,
No, no, we're On. Okay.
Because it looked like it looked that,
and then I was wondering if, if,
and, you know, so there are a lot of questions arose
around for me over that.
In general, I like the project.
I think that's, that's something that's gonna be good
for the VanEck corridor, the TFA area.
Um, I don't know what the,
the city council might need this.
I, I, I feel an interest in
like just tabling this and forgetting about it.
And I, I don't think that that's what you want.
And so I'm curious as to answer
That would then throw us behind on our, our milestones
with the state and we probably will lose the grant.
I cant hear you very well. If, if we continue
to table this and, and we can't combine the locks
and finish the site plan approval, that will,
that will throw us behind our milestones with the state.
Well, yeah. Yeah.
I'm kind of, I guess it's, uh,
I don't know what, what's next?
Uh, city council. I, I guess I yield
Mad chair. Thank you
President. Uh, Ms. Moore.
Um, you know, with all due respect, Mr.
Bato, I think part
of the reason this was tabled last time is you are not here
to answer questions that the council
Had. Yeah, I heard that
tape.
Yeah. So it's, I think it's on us about that.
My concern is that we are transferring property with a value
from the city to the TA
and I believe that if TFA is selling that,
that money should go back to the general fund. 'cause
That's fine. We've, um,
I've been before this body four
or five times about different transfers like this.
Um, we just did it, we're working on one
for the fire station right now.
Yeah. Um, we did one a while back for a parking lot
behind what's the old Louise bar.
Um, so this is not out of the ordinary.
What we're asking the sale price of the property in,
in total is five grand.
So, uh, I'm sure the tiff, a board would be happy to, to
Yeah. Reimburse the,
I mean, it, it might have happened a million
times, but I'm only one person
and we get thousands of documents that come across
and none of us can look at every single line item.
And we miss things. We miss something about, you know,
at DDA expenditures and city hall and furniture.
We totally missed that, that mistake that was made.
And we, we are not perfect
and, you know, we can just do the best job we can.
I just wanna make sure that we're falling
because the DA funds the tfa, so, right,
Sure.
Right. Why do we transfer money?
Well, we don't transfer any money. We stop that.
Yeah. Richard Fox city controller.
So the TA actually has its funds, um,
and they capture their dollars to DDA A.
Oh, okay. But we did the, the DDA can Right.
Make, uh, contributions to the tfa. Okay.
Okay. Okay. All I stand corrected. All right.
I just wanna make sure the, the fund balances.
Yeah. And, and if, if the property sold in the 5,000,
I mean, I'm sure it'll get back into the general fund.
Okay. We'll make sure that, thank you. That was my issue.
Thank you. And I think to clarify for Mr.
Nunan, the document that you were referring
to was dated in July, that's six months ago.
So when it had the dates of when the,
Um, yeah, it's confusing.
Right. And it probably should have been updated
to make it clear for, yeah.
Okay. Um, Madam President, I'm curious as to
what the next thing would be for this.
Mr. Lafferty has the floor after Ms. Moore.
Okay. Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Bato. Good evening.
And, and I'm not certain I heard an answer to
Councilman Newnan's initial question.
Did the city receive the grant funding
from the MEDC?
No, the grant funding goes to the end user.
The grant funding is on milestones.
Once they, once they get 50% completion on construction,
they'll be able to draw 50% of the grant loans.
Once the, once the project is completed, uh, they'll be able
to draw the other 50% of the
Grant. Okay. So we're
acting as the necessary,
or the TIF is acting as the entity between the MEDC
and the borrower?
Yes, sir. Our office did a, uh, overall, uh, five
requests for five properties for these grants.
And we were awarded one of the five properties.
So we acted as a joint applicant with
the individual bit landowners, um,
supporting the project.
And so Tiff thought kind of owns what we thought all
of the land, but we're missing two.
But, so we are acting as trying to, um,
kickstart the development.
Um, so we, we worked with the My Health people.
So the grant is technically to the My Health people.
And like I said, it would be, it's only paid out
after they expend the funds.
Understood. Alright.
And then just to the, the zoning of the,
the properties on Continental,
I would imagine those are zoned R one P?
Yes, Sir. Okay.
And the properties fronting Van D**e are commercial?
Correct. So are you going to have a uniformed rezoning
Proposal? Uh, no. I think
the plan is to combine the lots
and leave them the way they are,
because the, the, the way the site plan is drawn,
the three continental lots are, are parking,
so the R one P is a parking designation.
Um, and then the three along, uh, van D**e are commercial,
and that's where the building will set.
And then I think there's a couple of variances, um,
because there's living above the building.
Okay. I'm, I'm not so certain I would agree
with you on that. The,
Yeah, that wasn't, that, that was planning, uh,
suggestion planning and zoning. So, okay.
Well, planning, because the, the tenor of,
of planning has been with, along with the master plan
to uniformly zone properties in, in lot combinations
of, of this type.
So along with our univar, our universal
zoning strategy.
And so it, I just find it counterintuitive.
They would leave it, leave it that way.
I'll, I'll follow up with Mr. Wirth on that.
Yeah. I think it's primarily because it's zone parking
and that's what it's what planned to be used for.
But the, you're not com you're not doing
an official lock combination though.
Yeah. It's, it's a mz a mixed zone. Uh,
A mixed zone. Yeah. Okay.
Alright. And then, uh, thank you Mr. Bato.
Uh, Ms. Moore, did you want an amendment to the resolution
for the transfer of $5,000? Just
To make sure it goes back to the general fund?
Alright, so I will propose an amendment to the, uh,
therefore it is resolved that the City
of Warren authorizes the transfer
of its interest in properties
to the tax increment finance authority represented
by a transfer of $5,000 from the tax increment finance
authority to the City of Warren General Fund,
which are legally described as follows, support. Thank you,
Mr. Nunan, you
previously supported. Okay.
So do you support that amendment? I do. Okay.
And to answer your question, we, Mr.
Lafferty made a motion, you made a support
for to approve this item.
So we're gonna vote to approve. Good.
The VI folks will vote to approve
or not approve this particular item.
Excellent. Any other discussion? Okay.
Hearing none, I will call the question. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes.
Mr. Bokey? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12 B.
Request from MedStar Ambulance to renew annual license
for operation of ambulance services
within the city of Warren.
So moved.
Support Lafferty. Thank you. Discussion? Anyone?
Hearing none? I'll call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr.
Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan?
Yes. Mr. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item
12 C, request from Universal McComb Ambulance Service
to renew annual license for operation
of ambulance services within the city of Warren. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Discussion. Anyone? Hearing none?
I'll call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Brogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13 a Council Secretary Mindy Moore.
Discussion and reappointment of one council representative
to serve on the Planned Unit Development committee.
Motion to approve with a placeholder for the person
until I discuss this.
Support. Support Lafferty. Thank you Mr.
Lafferty discussion. Madam Secretary. Thank
You. Um, the
way the, uh, PUD is set up, uh,
counsel has some oversight that it,
that's a little particular for that situation.
And from time to time, um, there are developments in that,
um, heritage Village
or in the, that area of the Planned Unit development, um,
that requires, uh, a council person.
Um, I think in the last term, I think Mr. Green might have,
uh, been the person doesn't come up very often,
but, um, we just need someone to go
and meet probably once or twice.
And, um, I don't know if anybody's interested in it.
Madam President, I'm, I'm willing
to sacrifice myself to the zone.
Okay. So then I would modify my motion to appoint Mr.
Nunan to the PUD committee.
And they have a meeting coming up soon, right?
Yeah, I think it's the 20. It was moved
to the 23rd, I believe.
Okay. I better, I better go into my notes here. Third.
Okay. Mr. Lafferty, you supported that motion.
Are you comfortable with the amendment? Without objection.
Thank you. Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none.
I'll call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yep. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Um, 13 B. Council Secretary Mindy Moore.
Discussion and Rea appointment of two council members
to the Land Bank Authority board of directors.
Motion to appoint Councilman Lafferty and Councilman Moore
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? Yep.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next
Item. Next item is
13 C Council member Jonathan Lafferty.
Discussion, Ray Mayor Stone response to land bank questions
during the December 30th, 2024 news report on
Fox two, Detroit. So moved
Support Lafferty with discussion. Discussion.
Mr. Lafferty? Thank
You.
Uh, I was hoping for a quiet, uh,
December 30th 31st,
and then Fox two rolled up in my driveway asking for
a comment on a news story relative to the Land Bank.
And so I responded with some, uh, comments
and I was very surprised
and, uh, by some of the, the comments offered
by Mayor Stone.
But in, in rewatching that,
that news story, I was shocked by
the callous response.
And, and the reason
why I wanted to bring this up was we, we really need
to examine what happened here and what the true result was.
And the fact of the matter is that the state
of Michigan Land Bank, uh, had funding upwards of $1 million
available to the city of Warren
if they had an eligible land bank agreement.
Eligible meaning the city council passed
an intergovernmental agreement
and it required the mayor's signature.
Everything that we pass on these agendas.
If it requires the mayor's signature,
the mayor has a 96 hour period to veto those actions.
If she disagrees with it for any reason,
she has 96 hours to veto it.
If she doesn't veto,
it means she consents to that action.
Well, she didn't. And so
after our August 27th meeting,
that agreement was sent to the mayor's office.
The 96 hour period of veto expired,
and she chose to let that agreement rot on her desk
for over 100 days, signing it on December 10th.
But by that time, it was too late.
The eligibility period had ended,
and the state funding, as far
as Warren was concerned, evaporated.
And along with that $1 million
could have jumpstarted an economic revitalization
in the State Land Bank.
Now, with 2025 upon us, we're going to have to start over
and, and apply for 2025 funding.
But what a great position we could have been in Mr. Fox,
I'm sure would've made room in the budget for $1 million
of funds from the state of Michigan.
But what I found most incredible was when
the mayor came face to face with the camera
and she was asked the question, did
her inaction cost the city $1 million?
She laughed and said, absolutely not.
Ladies and gentlemen, she laughed.
This is not a laughing matter. Neither is lying.
I don't find the, the loss of $1 million in state funding
to be a laughing matter.
But I do. Question one more item relative to this story.
Citizens deserve the truth.
Madame Secretary, has the council been presented
with a resolution to receive funds from the state
of Michigan and deposit them into an account for 2024?
No. Have we authorized the opening of an account
to receive any funds from the State Land Bank in 2024?
No. Mr. Fox has not presented us with a resolution
for $1 million from the state of Michigan.
The mayor. Plain
and simple, the mayor had six months to ask questions.
We started these discussions a year ago.
We first presented this in March,
and it was not until August when we approved the agreement.
Where were those questions and concerns?
Where were her requests for a conversation then?
She was hoping to have a conversation.
Well, 96 hours came and went and then 100 days went by.
There was nothing further the council could do.
And that agreement that she signed 100 days later
did not change between the end of August
and December 10th when she finally pinned her signature.
So I want to clarify for the record that only one
of two things can be true.
One, the mayor is hiding $1 million
of State Land Bank funding in her desk
or two, the mayor lied to the taxpayers
of Warren. Thank you
Madam Chair.
Uh, Ms. Moore, I just, I see Mr. Bato there, Mr. Bato.
Um, I'm surprised that you weren't jumping up
and down on the mayor's desk begging her to sign this.
Because of any department in the city, you are,
um, going to benefit probably the most from the
actions of the Land Bank.
It's gonna make your job a lot easier.
It's gonna help economic development in the city.
And, um, I'm sure we're gonna be working together very
closely, um, you know, in the next year on, you know,
economic development, whatever the Land Bank
can do to help the city.
So anyway, that's just my comment. Thanks.
Uh, I just had a note.
Um, 'cause I went to look, I can't remember
where the million dollars was,
where we originally came up with that.
It's an email from mr. Yeah,
so I'm gonna read the email 'cause I just went back to it.
So thank you for con contacting me.
Related to the State Land Bank Authority Blight Elimination
Program funding SLBA.
As you may know, in fiscal year 2023, governor Whitmer
and the Michigan legislature appropriated 150 mil million
dollars to address blight across the state.
70 million, 75 million
of the funding came from the federal ARPA sources.
The balance coming from the State General Funds,
SLBA allocated the funding in four rounds
with every state Land bank receiving a minimum allocation
of 700,000.
The balance being competitive,
all funds were initial allocated,
initially allocated by June of this year.
However, as proposed projects have moved forward,
not all allocated funds were spent just last week.
SLBA reallocated 2.2 million for blight projects to several,
several of our local partner land banks.
Obviously, as Warren has not officially formed a land bank,
they were not considered for the funding,
although the original Blight Elimination
program has been allocated.
I have some confidences.
L-S-L-B-A were receive several million dollars in additional
blight funding early next year.
Of course, Warren would need an active land bank
to be eligible for those future funds.
I've had multiple conversations
with Representative McKinney about the funding opportunity
for Warren and have appreciated
his support in the legislature.
This is from the executive director of the Land Bank, so
a minimum of $700,000 for blight related programs.
I just wanted to clarify that.
I don't know that a million, I think we've stuck
to a million, but I don't, that wasn't,
that wasn't communicated in anything
that I've ever received.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
That impressive Ms. McGee.
So if we weren't already established,
we could not receive those funds.
It sound like that's what it's saying. The 700,000,
So this is dated November 19th,
so we wouldn't have been able to receive them
because the mayor wouldn't sign the Land Bank agreement.
We would've been eligible to Mr. Lafferty's point. Mm-hmm.
I, I guess I'm clarifying that it wasn't,
we did not get a letter from the state of Michigan
that says you're going to get a
million dollars million dollars.
I think it's just important to clarify why agree with Mr.
Lafferty. It is a shame that we've lost funding
with this particular endeavor
because we've waited so long, we were not
guaranteed a particular pot of money.
And that it stated specifically from the executive director
of the Land Bank that we would've received potentially a
minimum allocation of $700,000
and that this was for their Blight
Elimination program funding.
Specifically. Happy to forward this on to the whomever
Wants ma'am chair. Mm-hmm.
I think you had further conversations maybe with,
um, director Rivett
Had many conversations with Director Rivett,
representative McKinney, our state representative, um,
council president, council secretary.
You were both involved in those conversations.
I think, um, there's a, there would've been a potential for
up to a million dollars, certainly the 700,000.
Um, we just don't know.
I had many conversations with Director Rivet in
October wondering if this thing was gonna get signed.
So they, he said he was holding back some money
for Warren specifically said that.
And, um, you know, it got to a point
where it was getting late in the year that they had
to disperse these monies to other communities
because the agreement didn't get signed.
It finally to get signed in mid-December.
But by then they had to, uh, allocate these funds by the end
of the year, especially the ARPA funds.
There was that issue of, you know, committing it
by the end of 2024.
24. So we certainly did miss out.
We can debate the exact dollar amount.
It could have been a million. Um,
we didn't have a specific promise,
but we certainly weren't eligible without
that signature on the agreement. So,
But it would've been seed money Yes.
To get us started. We wouldn't be behind.
We would've, you know, we would be able
to start off this year with some funding.
Now we're gonna have to scramble and get the funding.
And it was my impression from the director
that they are very excited about us having a land bank
and they want to help.
This is the, you know, they wanna in Warren, pardon me?
Yeah. He grew up in Warren.
Um, so yeah, I think we're gonna get a lot
of support out of that department.
Mm-hmm. Going forward. Thank you.
Mad chair Mr. Bokey. Uh,
Question for attorney.
Mr. Schroeder. Uh, you said the funding up
to a million dollars or a minimum of 700,000,
but in reality it could be more than a million.
Mm-hmm. Correct. The bottom line with this,
whether it's 700,000 or two, $2 million, we didn't get it
because the merit didn't sign it.
Right. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Motion to receive and file sufficient. Mr. Lafferty? Mm-hmm.
M Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Next item
13 G.
Let me find my D Yeah. 13.
Sorry. 13 D Um,
resolution approving proposed settlement in the matter
of James Rush versus City
of Warren Macomb County Circuit Court case number
20 23 0 0 4 2 4 8.
No, Michigan Court of Appeals number 3 7 3 1 7 9 Pursuant
to the discussions held in closed session, so moved.
Support Lafferty. Uh, call to question Ms. Moore?
Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Nun? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13 F.
Proposed settlement in the matter
of Deborah Hutcherson versus City
of Warren Senior Housing Commission.
Macomb County Circuit Court case number 2 2 4 0 0 2 0 2 9
Pursuant to the terms discussed in closed session,
So moved.
Support. I will call
the question Mr.
Lafferty? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Grogan C as a?
Yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13 F.
Resolution Approving proposed pre-litigation, um, dispute.
Um, motion to, uh, this is in the Weell case.
Uh, motion to approve pursuant to the, uh,
terms discussed, uh, by Ms.
Michaels.
So moved.
Support. Thank
You.
Recall the question, Ms. Moore?
Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey?
Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is? Yes.
Motion carries. Next
Item. Next item is
13 G, which is a request to have the mayor,
um, declare a, um, um, a state of emergency motion
to approve with discussion.
Support. Lafferty Discussion. Madam Secretary.
Thank you. Um, the weather forecast is calling
for potential Sub-Zero temperatures
with even colder wind chill temperatures on Sunday
through Wednesday of next week.
The city has experienced a growing problem
with homelessness, and we do have local agencies
available to assist.
The city Council had a special meeting committee meeting a
whole, uh, yesterday to review a number
of proposed solutions.
One of the major obstacles to addressing this problem is
that our zoning ordinance does not recognize
or allow for emergency shelters or homeless shelters.
There was an analysis done that compared homeless shelters
to hotels, which would require special land use approval
and a hearing before the planning commission.
We don't have time for this,
therefore, I'm requesting
that the city council request the mayor to issue a state
of emergency to help provide for the health
and safety of those out in the extreme cold conditions,
including allowing
for temporary shelters in reasonable places without the
necessity to obtain a special land use permit.
Under the Emergency Management Act,
the mayor can only declare an emergency
for a seven day period,
but such an emergency declaration can continue
beyond the seven days.
Therefore, I make a motion
to approve any mayoral declaration of a local state
of emergency for the purpose of the health
and safety of individuals exposed to the ex extreme
cold conditions in the city
until the next council meeting on January 28th, 2025,
where we may consider any future action.
This shall include the permission
of emergency shelters in reasonable locations without the
need to obtain any special land use permits.
Um, as part of that, um,
I don't know if we wanna add at this time that we need
to visit our, um, the zoning.
And I don't know if we send that to planning Mr. Schroer.
There was a thought that the zoning ordinance needs
to be updated to properly classify what zoning districts
and under what conditions a emergency
shelter can be operated.
Um, and that would have to start with planning
and come back to council for final approval
to amend the zoning ordinance.
So perhaps a, a letter from the council office, uh,
and, you know, to the mayor
and the planning department requesting that, um,
this, uh, be undertaken.
It, it will take time, you know, to do that.
So I did do some research
and see that other communities, especially larger cities,
do address shelters, homeless shelters
or emergency shelters in their zoning ordinance.
Um, we simply don't have it in our zoning ordinance.
So, someone I maybe is the planning department looked at
and said, well, it's like a hotel.
A hotel, you have to get all these different
approvals, special land use.
It's, you know, it's a business.
It's, you know, there's all kinds of things.
Whereas an emergency shelter is addressing
a different type of an issue.
So, um, I would recommend that note.
In addition, with this emergency declaration,
we also discussed the issue of, you know, city funds
of going to nonprofits.
And that certainly if a nonprofit is in the city
and it is providing a service, um,
the city could help under a contract
and agreement to provide a service to help with the health,
safety, and welfare of those in the community.
Um, but not necessarily make a donation to a nonprofit.
I don't know if you wanna include that in your
emergency declaration.
You may want to include that so that, um,
there may be some ability to, to address that funding
Part. Well, to enter into a
contract with, with some group
or entity to provide a service to provide a service
to our homeless population.
Yes. Right. Okay.
So we send that to,
and we probably can't get it done
for this cold season through planning.
I don't think there's enough time. Um, this is January.
It takes 15 days notice for,
you know, we're already talking to Mo.
You know, so this is for probably for, um, later, uh,
in the winter months, you know, December
of this year probably.
And January, maybe we can have it done
for the next cold season.
Um, but at least it'll get us on track for,
make things easier next year, um, for planning things.
Um, yeah, I mean, we have a lot of things to discuss.
There's a lot of issues.
It's, you know, as we all know, there's not no easy answer
to any of this.
Just to clarify, if I may, just, the part
of the emergency is to allow the, um,
a sh a temporary shelter
or shelter to occur, um, in a reasonable location
so they're not having to come get a special land use permit.
So under the emergency circumstances, you're allowing for
that to happen, but it has
to be under reasonable circumstances.
You know, we're not gonna, um, trespass
or allow anything like that.
But, um, you know, I talked to, I reached out to a number
of different attorneys in this area today,
and it seems like this is our, our best route
to actually give the city the ability
to address the problem quickly.
Uh, we just don't have time
to amend the zoning ordinance. Right.
And, and we've gotta do something by Sunday, basically.
Mm-hmm. If we're gonna do something,
I have a question.
Um, Mr. Sch shorter, maybe you can answer.
So we're approving, uh, uh,
in advance an emergency through the next council meeting.
Let's say the city or an organization sets up, uh,
a shelter temporarily.
What happens if we don't reapprove?
Most warming centers go till March 31st ish.
So what do we do? I can't ex I can't think
that we would expect people to open up a warming center
and close it periodically throughout the cold season.
And if we're only renewing it every two weeks, what do,
what is the option for those entities?
We can, the, it can be renewed through the March 31st,
but what we're doing now is we had the meeting last night,
the mayor's gonna have to actually declare the emergency
under the Emergency State Emergency Act.
The mayor can only declare such a local emergency
for seven days with,
and then the council needs
to approve any period of time beyond seven days.
So we're giving a window to go to the next meeting,
and then, uh, the administration can come back
with a proposal at the next meeting to extend it
to March 15th or March 31st under certain circumstances.
So, um, this is not gonna have to be a constant revolving
approval process for the emergency.
But in the meantime, um, the city has time
to address the underlying problem, which is
the zoning ordinance lacks some clarity on shelters.
We've never even recognized
that these exist in our zoning ordinance, but okay.
We can address that. And then some
of the other funding issues can be addressed
as well in the meantime.
Okay. Thank you, Madam President.
So, uh, an example of a, a likely place might be Owen Jacks
or, um, the Fitzgerald Community Center.
No, Owen Jacks,
I'm not prepared to like, talk about specific locations.
Oh, okay. That would have to be something It was last night.
The administration Yeah. Figures out we're,
we're just trying to, I missed it.
Set the process forward.
So someone's not gonna say, well, sorry,
our zoning ordinance doesn't recognize a shelter.
We're gonna call it a hotel. And you can't operate this.
Right. So I, I I think this would require a nonprofit
to step forward to actually run it.
And, um, they might, they might need some money
because if you have a warming shelter, you have
to have people there to operate it. And then
Mr. Mr. Noon, I think you need
to listen
to the audio from last night.
Yeah. Yeah. I think a lot of these things have been,
you'll probably get a lot of out of that.
I just really would like this to work, that's all. Yeah.
I guess that's the only thing I really wanted to say.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Moore, Just on this emergency,
if I remember correctly, Mr. Fox will remember during the,
during the pandemic, we, the mayor issued an emergency
that we kept renewing.
And I, I think that allowed purchasing to be,
we could bypass the purch the purchasing agreement
for emergency purchases and things like that.
So this is not unheard of.
That was done during the pandemic.
I don't know if you remember, we kept renewing it. Yep.
And sometimes we didn't. Okay. Yeah.
I just am looking at Mr. Maselli
and I can imagine having to like, build a shelter
and collapse a shelter over a period
of time would not be something Hi, like the city and
or anyone else would wanna be doing.
So I just wanted to make sure that we were clear
that there was a mechanism to go through the cold season.
Okay. And that there wouldn't be,
you know, immense disruption.
Madam President through the chair.
Um, Mr. Dwyer,
Now I'm assuming that we will be, be outlining limitations
as to where these warming centers can and can't be.
You know, as far as libraries
we're here at the community center.
I mean, that would be part of what we'd be looking at.
Correct. Okay.
Any other discussion? Okay.
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
14. A request from
the budget director
to decrease the previously approved ARPA revenues
and expenditures due to project scope
and funding modifications approved by, uh, December nine.
Counsel, December 19th, 2024.
Consideration and adoption of a resolution. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion.
Hearing none. I'm sorry, Madam Present. Mr. Lafferty?
Yeah, I just wanted to, uh, thank, uh, Mr. Fox, Mr.
Napp, for taking the time to go through this with me.
It was, uh, a little bit more complex,
so just wanted to thank you.
Okay. Any additional discussion? Hearing none?
I'll 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
14 B, request of the sanitation division
and the public service director
for an additional appropriation of funds in the amount
of $65,000 to cover the increased cost to purchase two
Ry right hand automized garbage trucks
and 2 20 24 Mac chassis adoption
and, uh, consideration, adoption of a resolution.
Motion to deny Did I get his attention? Motion to approve
Support Dwyer to approve
Any discussion?
Hearing, seeing none? I will call the question Ms. Moore.
Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Lafferty? Yes.
To approve Mr. Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 14 C requests of the sanitation division
to approve the purchase of two sanitation vehicles from
Frederickson Supply in the total amount
of $794,382. So moved.
Support Dwyer Discussion.
Anyone hearing and seeing none? I'll call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan?
Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item
14 D, a request of the police department
for an increase in budgeted appropriations in the amount
of $7,586 to cover costs associated
with the Civil Defense Department's budgeted sergeant
position being promoted to lieutenant consideration
and adoption of a resolution so moved much deserved
Support, support, Dwyer,
Support, Bokey discussion,
hearing, and seeing none.
I'll call the question Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Ancy is a yes. Motion carries. Next,
Next item is 14 e Consideration
and adoption of resolution approving fiscal year 25 grant
agreement between the state of Michigan, Michigan,
Indi Indigent Defense Commission, department of Licensing
and Regulatory Affairs, and the City of Warren Center line
through the 37th District Court.
Motion to approve with discussion
Support Lafferty with discussion.
Discussion Ms. Moore. And then Mr. Lafferty.
Um, thank you. This is something we, um, do you know,
every year, um, Mr.
Uh, Nik, um, contacted me
and, uh, said he would be on vacation and wouldn't be here.
Um, but I told him I think that'd be a problem.
'cause we do this every year. And
same thing with the next item.
We're not spending money, we're taking money. So,
Mr. Lafferty,
Thank you, uh, through the chair to Mr. Fox.
Oh, Jesus. Why does I static? Yeah.
The electric personality.
My question, uh, was on the letter from Ms. Battle
and it says, this grant requires the use
of fiscal year 24 unspent grant funds
of $2.5 million in change.
The, the question I had was that the grant award
was 2.1 million
and I couldn't reconcile the difference between the 2.5
and the 2.1 being requested.
I think it's remaining funds in the prior year.
But I, I, I'll have to review it,
but I can get back with you on it,
but I think that's what it is.
Okay. Yeah. It, and it wasn't on the, the plan
and cost analysis.
Okay. And I, unfortunately, I forgot to ask
during our meeting to, to go to the next item,
and you were gone by that point.
So
I will give you a call on,
That'll follow. Thank you. You're
Welcome.
I yield Any additional
discussion, hearing, and scene?
None. I'll call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Noonan Is, is absent for the moment. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Next item.
Next item is, um, 14 F Request
for an adjustment in budgeted revenues
and appropriations for indigent Defense Special Revenue Fund
in the amount of $295,848 53 cents.
This Budget amendment accounts for the receipt
of the indigent defense grant agreement
and to transfer budgeted appropriations in the amount
of $123,769 6 cents to comply
with state law consideration
and adoption of a resolution. So moved.
Support Lafferty Discussion?
Anyone hearing and seeing none? I'll call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Newnan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item
14 G. Appointment
of Michael Wigan
to the Downtown Development Authority for a term to expire.
June 30th, 2028. So moved. Support Dwyer.
Discussion. Anyone hearing?
Seems none. I will call the question. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr.
Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is audience participation
regarding general topics.
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.
You have three minutes. This audience is for general topics.
First up is Lori Harris and then
Joel Vander Lin.
Okay. Hi there. I wanna talk about, uh, listening
to the Plant Moran, uh, um,
presentation and $31 million.
$31 million that wasn't, uh, spent, that was budgeted.
Or, you know, just in general.
So I wanna know how much of that is
because we haven't hired our police officers.
I wanna know if that's because we haven't hired people in
the city, in the departments.
I it, you know, I'm sorry that they left.
So I couldn't talk to them. Mr. Fox and Mr. Knapp.
Because being happy that you have that money and it's really
because you're not filling
positions, isn't helping the city.
Um, I wanna know why the applications
for police on the city website lead only
to a very old 1990.
I say 1980,
but it's probably 1990 typed paper asking, uh,
if you heard about it through the Detroit News
and the Detroit Free Press, that's unacceptable in our city.
I saw a beautiful layout that the police had, um,
with union information and contract information.
And I, you know, probably from some other place that they
advertise, why can't the city figure out how to link to
that, uh, to that, um,
uh, document?
It, it just doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense why we are living in 1990 in our city.
Um, I wanna talk about the mayor, um, not responding to
my letter to her, uh, that her outreach director, again
breached, uh, illegally used
personal emails to promote his business.
That is not right.
An employee of the city should not be taking information
that they got from something that I did at the city
by signing up for something, uh, um,
and using that for his own benefit.
And I, and I have notified hr,
I have notified the attorney's office
and I've notified the mayor.
This is the second time that the mayor has not responded.
And the mayor was the first person I contacted
before I actually went and did anything else
or went public with it.
So this is not acceptable, mayor Stone, uh,
that you still have an employee
that has done this twice now.
Um, and I also want to, uh, remind everyone
that a DA is a civil rights law.
And hello to Tony and Dorothy and keep fighting.
Don't give up Tony,
because what you have to offer is amazing. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Joel Vander Lemon.
Oh, I'm getting old Joel, longtime born resident.
Recently. I've been filling out a lot of fos, trying
to find out a lot of answers to a lot of questions.
And one of the first fos I got, I asked about, uh,
who all applied for the police chief's position
and it was declined.
And they gave me all these
Michigan code things, whatever.
I looked them up. They have nothing to do with it, nothing
to do with it at all.
In fact, applying for the position
and administration is just like running for council.
All your, your name, your address, your phone number,
all your stuff is put out for the public.
And so should it be for the police chief
or any other position within the city.
Now, another thing I put a FOIA out for was the atrium.
How many people have used
or rented out the atrium
in the last year under Mayor Stone?
And how much were the, did they pay?
What was most interesting was not that what was given to me,
what was omitted
and what was omitted was, uh, the atrium was rented out
and used by May, may, it's not in there.
And I, I was looking under the gay parade
and stuff like that, and it's not in there either.
So why are certain people being charged
and why are certain people not being charged?
And in, uh, going back on what, uh,
Ms. Harris said, they were talking about this money
and all these jobs not filled and well, permits
and stuff are down
because you don't have the people to do the inspections
as people has left.
Those jobs have not been filled by your intern, director,
whatever, which should never be.
And I, you know, you can sit there
and look at, there's no teeth in these ordinances.
This console isn't gonna push through it and do it.
Now, if you really wanna get Ms. Stone, you do, according
to the city charter,
and I looked it up today, you can do a tribunal.
That means four out of the seven agree
that a tribunal is done.
You bring up charges, you take a vote, you send it to the,
uh, governor, and you have her behind. Booted.
You're almost at time. Mr. Vander Linney.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. That is the end of audience.
Next item, council response to audience. Madam Chair
Ms. Moore, This is really, um, response,
but someone contacted me
and shared a, a post with me on Facebook.
Um, uh, hey neighbors.
The Warren Fire Department was just here.
They installed smoke alarms in my hall, all three bedrooms
and the basement, and a carbon monoxide detector also in the
hall, all for free.
They told me to spread the word. So here's the info.
Schedule yours today. It took 10 minutes. Be safe.
The number is 5 8 6 7 5 6 2800.
That's for the Warren Fire Department.
Tell them you're interested in the smoke alarm program.
And then other people chimed in that they had also, um,
had smoke alarms, um, installed in their pa in their homes.
Please, if you need a smoke alarm, you don't have them,
you need them replaced, please call the fire department.
They'll come out and install them.
The, um, equipment, the hardware is free
and the labor is free, and they're glad to do it.
So please take advantage of that program we have. Thank you.
They were at my house today installing smoke
alarms. Amazing. That was
Great. Good.
Take some time. We, we,
The batteries last 10 years.
It's fantastic. We installed them.
Yeah, it's fantastic. Ms. McGee.
Um, I wanted to add to what, uh,
secretary Mindy Moore has stated
regarding the homeless shelter
that they are also in need of beds.
So you could go online, um, to order them yourselves,
like cots and beds on Amazon, and they also take donations.
So once we finalize where those, um,
homeless shelters will be
or warming centers, um, they are in need of additional beds.
Um, the second item is on, um, January 20th.
As you know, we celebrate MLK day
and that, uh, we will be celebrating that, um, in the city
of Warren, um, at the, uh, civic Center from 11 till three.
It will be a service day.
So we welcome you all to sign up online and be a part of it.
Thank you
Madam President through the chair.
Mm-hmm. Mr. Dwyer.
Yeah. Um, just to bring everybody up to speed. Um, yes.
Many, many positions within the city continue to be
unfilled and left open
and that certainly has something to do with the $31 million.
But as far as, uh, it relates to the police department,
we are still currently 22 officers down.
And the only advertising we're doing is through MCOs.
We're not doing social media, we're not doing academies,
we're not doing job fairs, we're not doing any of that.
So it's gonna be very hard to bring on board qualified good,
um, officers to this department.
Um, we did towards the end of the last year, uh,
start up four officers in the FTO program.
An additional officer is going through the academy
and it is my understanding that there is five, um,
applications in process.
So we are making some movement, but I don't think enough.
That's all I have. Thank you
Dole. To leave
anything further. Okay.
Next item. Motion to adjourn.
Support. Support. Support. All in favor, aye. Aye.
Any opposed? We are adjourned.