Line up.
How many seconds? Okay.
Well, I've gotta hear my mouse.
I am now calling to order a regular meeting
of the city Council Tuesday,
February 25th at 7:00 PM Please
stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge all, all to the flag.
To the flag of the United States, America,
and to the Republic for wishes stands, one Nation, nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
For all.
Roll call Madam Secretary
Councilwoman Roy?
Here. Councilman Dwyer? Here. Councilwoman McGee? Here.
Councilman Bokey? Here. Councilman Nunan? Here.
Councilman Lafferty. Here.
Morris. Present. We have a quorum.
Thank you. Next item.
Next item is for adoption of the consent agenda.
So moved with discussion
Support Lafferty with discussion,
Uh, discussion Ms. Moore?
Yes. Um, I would like to add is item four wide request
for the engineering division to award bid
and approved contract for city project
WP 24 8 1 9.
Discussion, Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you. And I would like to remove, uh,
item four D is in Delta the while renewal
of cable franchise fees
and four H the inside out website contract.
Any other discussion makers
of the motion comfortable with those amendments?
Yes. Okay. I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr.
Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Um, next item is approval. Adoption of the agenda.
So moved with discussion.
Support, Lafferty. Discussion Ms. Moore. Thank
You. Um,
first under 12
CI would like to add discussion.
Um, Ray, the 20 25, 20 26 budget
as item 12 D.
Discussion Ray litigation as item
13 B.
First reading of the proposed ordinance, amendment
to the nuisance ordinance.
Article two, noxious weeds
and rubbish as item
13 C.
Request to approve the renewal of the city's 2025 to 2028.
Environmental liability, underground storage, tank insurance
as item 13 D will be.
What was four D on the consent
and what was four H will now be 13.
E
What was the last one?
Um, what was four H will be 13. E.
Thank You madam. Um, MS. Camp, have I covered them?
Yes. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Okay. Uh, let's see. I will call the question.
Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Lty? 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 six.
A calendar of pending matters motion to receive
and file support.
Lafferty.
I have a couple notes.
Um, there was a Detroit News article
that was put out about Borg Warner's decision
to close two facilities in Metro Detroit,
one of which is in Warren.
And it appears they occupy a building
that was constructed by North Point.
So I'm not sure if there's any abatements
or any entitlements that they have,
but if someone could research that
to see if there's anything from a, that has
to be clawed back, that would be one request.
And then that's it. Actually, take
That back.
Any other discussion? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Um, I looked,
and I didn't see it's on the, on the bills list of bills
yet, but when we were in, uh,
committee meeting the whole last week, it was, um, brought
to our attention that an emergency purchase had been made.
Um, and, um, on the 19th we were,
during that committee meeting, the whole, we became aware
of an emergency purchase for sewage sludge,
incinerator cleaning and clinker accumulation removal.
Um, on from the documentation,
it looks like on February 4th,
the facilities engineer contacted vendors.
And on two seven Brinks Works environmental submitted a
cost per proposal.
And then on the 10th, um,
the wastewater treatment plant division had submitted a
request to the mayor to approve an emergency
purchase acquisition.
And on two 11, the City of Warren issued
that a purchase order to Burke's Works environmental.
Um, Council was not informed of
that emergency purchase.
And it's my understanding that we are to be
notified immediately.
Mr. Schroeder can speak to the legal terms,
but I believe that's correct.
At no time between February 4th
and two 19 was counsel advised
of this alleged emergency and no time.
Um, when apparently the emergency was discovered in 2010
when the purchase order was issued,
counsel office was not notified of a request
to convene an emergency media counsel to address the item.
Um, I think this is a violation of the emergency,
um, purchase.
Um, and you know, it, it was something,
I don't have any problem that it was, um, something
that needed to be taken care of,
but there was a matter of, you know, seven
or eight days there that we could have, um, dealt with it.
And, uh, we certainly should have been notified immediately.
Um, and I just wanna remind the administration that, um,
and, you know, the ordinance says
that the purchasing agent is supposed to notify counsel.
Um, and also
the emergency purchase is supposed to be approved by,
I had a copy somewhere here.
It's supposed to be approved by the controller.
And I didn't see any approvals by the controller.
I saw an approval by, um, the purchasing agent
and the budget director, but none by the controller.
The documentation,
there was a request from the wastewater treatment head
asking the mayor to, um, uh,
authorize an emergency purchase.
And there was a signature under a concurrence.
And I'm not sure what that means,
what the mayor was concurring to, um,
because it wasn't clear that there was actually, um,
you know, emergency approved.
So I just wanna remind the administration
that we do have an emergency, um, ordinance
that should be followed.
I mean, nobody has a problem that this stuff had to be done.
You know, we, it's about $40,000,
but we're gonna have to spend about 75 million
to fix the big problem.
So anyway, that's, that's all I have to say on that.
I suppose that Bill will come over on the next list.
Thank you. Any other items?
Madam President? Mr. Lty? Thank you.
Uh, I'd like to get a status on an item that was added
on February 11th.
That was the request by initial request
by the Land Bank Authority, then to counsel
for an appropriation
of $25,000 in essentially starter funds so
that the Land Bank Authority could get moving.
Now we're quickly approaching our second meeting.
And I, I wanna make a comparison here.
Immediately following our meeting,
there was a press release issued
where the mayor was quoted saying, the creation
of the land bank represents a tremendous
opportunity for our city.
You can't operate a tremendous opportunity
for the city with no money.
This isn't, are we back to fighting
for money for the Land Bank?
First it was a million dollars. Now we're asking for 25,000.
Can we not find the checkbook in the mayor's office?
This is a letter. The only thing that needs
to come across is a letter from the mayor asking
for an appropriation for counsel to approve.
This is not something that is unobtainable,
but for us to have to wait now four weeks
is completely unacceptable.
The mayor's office, by our rules, has 10 days to respond
to our requests.
She's already passed that.
Do we have to go back
and ask for a circuit judge to remind her
of her responsibilities?
I hope it doesn't come to that. Thank you,
Madam President.
Mr. Newnan. I'd just like to raise my voice, um,
in approval for what, um, Councilman Lafferty has just said
and hope that the mayor will indeed
take quick action on this
and future, um, in future follow these, these, uh,
rules of the city.
Thank you so much.
Any other Madam Chair? Mm-hmm.
Um, just to follow on a little bit with, uh, Mr.
Lafferty's comment, the request was just
to front the money to the Land Bank.
That would be, that it would be paid back.
This was just a matter, and I would've thought it was only
fair since she stopped us from having any opportunity
of getting a lot of money to start with,
that wouldn't be such a big deal to, uh,
approve a request to front $25,000.
But anyway, I guess it was. Thank
You Madam President, Mr. Lafferty.
And as I guess as a footnote, it's important to
also state the mayor was in attendance at the meeting.
She heard us make the request of co of City Council.
She was there watching, she was taking notes
and so she's very well aware of this.
So there's no possible way that this was a miscommunication.
Something was missed along the line.
She knows that this is a request. Thank you.
I will call the question. All in favor of the calendar.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.
Motion to receive and file. We're on General fund.
Did we do that? No, we did not do.
Oh, thank you. We're still the calendar. Okay.
Alright. Next is approval of bills
of the General Revenue Funds.
I was ahead of myself. That's
Okay. Should have, should
have,
Um, motion. Motion
to approve
Support. Anyone?
Support. Support. Dwyer Support. Uh, sorry. McGee.
Got you first. Mr. Dwyer. Uh, any discussion on the bills?
Hearing none, I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is approval of bills
of the water and sewer system. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Discussion,
hearing, and seeing none.
I'll 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 for Agenda I.
Items only,
Uh, members of the none.
Oh, okay. It's a first. Next item.
Next item is announcements. Madam Chair,
Uh, Ms. Moore. Thank
you. Um, I would like to, um, uh,
congratulate the following individuals
on their appointments.
Um, Craig Bankowski
of the police department has been appointed to captain
of professional standards.
Uh, Ashley White
and Jeffrey Milk were appointed to the beautification,
and Marilyn Kay was appointed, was reappointed
to the beautification, and Shabi Khan was appointed
to the Sidewalk and Tree Commission.
Uh, congratulations to you, Paul. Thank you for stepping up.
We appreciate it. Um, heartfelt thank you to everyone
who came out to support the Warren Police Department in the
battle of the badges against Chesterfield pd.
Your cheers and encouragement meant the world
as we came together for a great cause,
supporting police officer Nick Kott
after his devastating hunting injury.
Um, the event became even more special with appearances
by the Warren Police Department, honor guard,
the Metro Detroit Police and fire pipes and drums,
and our own councilman, Jonathan Lafferty,
who sang the National Anthem.
Your kindness and generosity, everyone is truly appreciated.
Um, the score you
Gave, Pardon me?
The score. Oh, we won eight
to seven in a shootout, right?
Mm-hmm. Um,
and next, um,
the Warren City Council proudly recognizes
and honors police officer Raymond Hanky on the occasion
of his last roll call today, marking the conclusion
of a remarkable 25 year career dedicated to the service
and protection of our community.
Since first taking the oath,
officer Hanky has exemplified honor, integrity,
and commitment in his role
with the Warren Police Department.
Over the years, he has served with unwavering dedication,
ensuring the safety of our residents,
and upholding the highest standards of law enforcement.
Most recently, officer Hanky played a vital role in fleet
maintenance and abandoned auto management, ensuring
that the department's vehicles remained in top condition,
and that our streets were kept clear and safe.
His expertise, leadership,
and work ethic have left a lasting impact on the department
and the city as a whole.
As he embarks on his well-earned retirement,
we extend our deepest gratitude for his years
of selfless service and dedication to the city of Warren.
Officer Hankey's contributions will not be forgotten,
and his presence in the department will be greatly missed.
On behalf of the Warren City Council
and the entire community, we wish Officer hanky a happy,
healthy, and fulfilling retirement.
May this next chapter bring him the joy
and relaxation he so greatly deserves.
Thank you, officer Hanky for your service.
That's It for me. Any other announcements?
Okay. Hearing none. I will move on. Next item.
Next item is 10.
A public hearing request to approve the demolition
of a house and garage at 14,217 Marshall
through the Nuisance Abatement Program.
Mr. Za, can you summarize this item for us?
Oh, Oh yeah, go ahead.
Hello. There we go. Good evening. Alright.
This home at Marshall, the owner is,
uh, deceased at this home.
This home is severely neglected.
The garage is complete, a complete loss. It's about to fall.
It's completely unsafe.
The home has rotted, exterior framing, it's rotted,
the siding, the roofing, some very,
very poor neglected condition.
This foam, unfortunately, it's another one
where someone has passed home, is set vacant.
Nobody has claimed it.
And now it's, it's beyond repair, in my opinion.
It's terrible home in really bad condition.
Thank you. Is there anyone from the petitioner
that would like to speak?
No. Okay. I will open the public hearing.
Is there any audience who would like to speak on the matter?
If you could give your name and address for the record.
Sure.
My, my name is Sarah and my address is, I'm new.
It's my first meeting. Yeah.
Welcome to 9 4 7 2 Palomino.
Um, my question is, what happens now to the space,
to the, to the land?
What happens?
Mr. Schroer, can you perhaps give us nuisance demo?
It'll be demoed and then the cost of the demolition,
if I'm correct, will be put on the tax rolls.
Is that right, Mr. Lae? Yeah. And then what happens?
I have what, what happens
with these properties after the demolish?
That we will place a public service.
We place an SAR,
basically a special assessment on the property
for the cost of the demo.
And then most likely the property will sit,
taxes will be unpaid,
and it'll probably most likely be
forfeited back to the county.
To the county? Yes.
It's probably, it's, I mean, due to the, um, death,
the deceased of the owner, it's
probably on its way back to the county right now.
But it's 'cause obviously taxes have not been paid out
of taxes are delinquent and due
and it's sitting there in this poor condition right now.
Thank you. But that's how it usually works. We tear it down.
S CRG gets placed on the property.
Thank you. Any other questions? No. Okay.
Thank you. Uh, let's see. We'll close the public hearing.
I'll entertain a motion for counsel. Motion
To approve Support Lty.
Any discussion,
hearing and seeing 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,
10 B public hearing request to approve the demolition
of a house at 72 50 15 Jackson
through the Nuisance Abatement program.
Mr. Lizza, if you could summarize this one.
Yeah, it's kind of a long story on this one.
This house was, I previously had this home in nuisance
and the owners came to, um, came to the council meeting
and they ended up donating the house to the city.
They didn't have nothing to do with it,
it was in poor condition and they donated it,
but we didn't do anything with it.
And then I got another complaint
to place it back in the nuisance abatement under the
city owned property.
And so I did. And here we are now.
The garage was dilapidated at the time when we got it
and we ended up tearing the garage down
'cause it was very unsafe.
And now the house sits.
So I brought it back in the nuisance.
'cause we, we did not, I thought it was gonna go
to a veteran's program or something,
but I believe the house was in pretty poor condition.
We didn't have the funding to repair it,
so I brought it sit vacant.
So I brought it back in the nuisance to address the issue.
Thank you. Is there anyone from
the petitioner here to speak?
Okay.
Um, these two gentlemen came
to our last public hearing at the city council.
They're licensed contractors
and they expressed interest in repairing this
house and saving it.
Okay. Let me open the public hearing.
Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak?
If you could give your name and address for the record.
You all can speak
How How's doing?
My name's Dane Cress. I'm at, uh, 96 Northbound Grasshop.
We own a, uh, construction and demolition company.
And we've looked at the home
and, uh, we can, um, make it habitable again.
Get it back on the tax rolls and,
and make a nice house for a family.
Thank you. Um, you can have a seat sit, stick
by, um, nearby.
Is there anyone else who would
like to speak from the audience?
Ms. Harris?
I do find this interesting that
the city got a property that could have been rehabbed
and it sat there and I thought we had money set aside in the
budget for this program where we were going to help
renovate homes or work on neighborhoods.
But I also find it very interesting that the city, uh,
uh, donated a house to Judge Toya's wife,
Uh, let it pass a lot of inspections
and let it be sold to somebody who can't live there.
I mean, we, we can't, like,
we can't be talking outta both sides of our mouth here.
This is, this is like outrageous. It's really outrageous.
If the house is, is able to be, uh, uh,
repaired, it should have happened.
But it's also interesting, this circle that keeps happening
of people getting rid of their house
or selling it to somebody else.
And then it just lingers in this limbo of,
and those poor neighbors have to put up with it.
So those are my comments.
I, I just think this is a travesty all around. Thank you.
Can I add some more to this conversation?
One second. I'm gonna close the public hearing
and anyone else in the audience that would like to speak.
Okay. Gonna close the public hearing
and turn it over to counsel for action.
And then we'll have Mr. Lizza share
Motion to approve with discussion
Support.
Uh, okay. Mr. Lizza and then Mr. Lafferty.
Yeah. So this house was donated
'cause it was beyond repair for the people who owned it.
It was just donated. So we, the city, I think,
assumed this house at no cost
and realized it was economically not
feasible to repair this house.
Some of these houses are gonna take thousands
and thousands of dollars to repair.
They're economically not feasible for the city to,
to repair these houses.
You know, we can't, you know, we get these houses.
It is not just houses where you go
and paint, put some carpet and put new cabinets in.
These are houses are gonna need some really major repairs
from somebody who was actually a licensed contractor
to repair that was willing to put a lot
of funding into these houses.
So obviously when we got this house, it was,
it became economically not feasible
for us to rehab these houses.
You know, the houses that we can are economically feasible.
We can go in, we could put a roof on a house,
we could do some interior finishes, some repairs.
This is a big repair.
This requires a real, a licensed person.
So that's why it's where it is. Where it is where we're at.
We took the house for free thinking it was,
but obviously it was a little bit more than we assume.
Obviously the city assumed.
So that's why we're back here right now at this point.
I like that, that we have, that these gentlemen came forward
that are actually licensed builders.
And they actually have saved a house
that I, a fire damaged house.
I recognize them. I had a house
that was fire damaged on 10 mile severely fire damaged,
and they ended up purchasing from the
owner and rehabbing it.
So that's, that's the kind of person
that needs to take this house. It's,
Thank you Mr. La.
Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you. Uh, through the chair to Mr. Laze. Uh, to Mr.
Cress and the, the gentleman behind you. Yes.
Uh, have they obtained, uh, title
to the property as of yet? Or is this
No, the last discussion I had
with them was they approached, um,
Tom Bato, economic developer.
'cause they have to go through him to purchase the property.
They came to a hearing
and said, I see the city owned house we're interested.
I go, well, you're licensed contractor should approach
our economic developer.
And I believe they had a meeting with them
and they're in process with that to,
to obtain this property.
I like the idea that they're actually licensed
contractors for a change. It's not,
Are, are these contractors, uh, per chance on the, uh,
building department approved list?
Have they done work with the city
Before? No. I, yeah, I,
the only reason I was familiar,
'cause I had a home that was in nuisance a while,
some years back, and they purchased it from an owner
who didn't want it, and then ended up rehabbing the whole
house back to basically new again
and selling the home to a homeowner.
Okay. So they do have good quality
history then behind them
At least. Yeah. They're, they're licensed with
the state
of Michigan as contractors.
That's what I like about this.
Okay. Um, That's, that's what we like to see.
We like to see people who are gonna purchase these
properties actually be licensed contractors with experience.
Of course. Of course. Oh, I,
I would much rather see a house get rehabbed than tear.
I hate tearing down ho houses. Yeah.
And I, my myself as well. Okay.
Uh, from your, I'm, I'm sorry, I'm not done with you yet.
Uh, as far as the timeline, I'm looking at, uh,
making a motion to table this, uh, counsel
as we've done in the past for acquisition of the property
and obtaining permits.
What's the, what's the lead time?
Yeah. See, what I, what I'm unsure is on the lead time on
how these houses are purchased.
That, that's, that's something I do not deal with.
So I'm not sure how long that takes, that process happens,
but once that happens, you know, whoever I believe to, uh,
Tom Bato handles that end of it.
I, I'm unaware. I don't really get involved with that.
I can, once I, once permits are issued, then I'm involved.
Then I, then, then the building department takes,
is is it on the, so right now, if let's just say,
I'm not sure the timeline,
but you know, then it would be six.
I mean, then the permits are good for six months.
Anybody granted additional six months on top
of the sales on that?
I'm, I'm willing to give an, you know, at
Least we could revisit it in six and see what happens.
I'm, I'm, I'm fine with that.
That's where I'm at. I'm, I'm willing to give
six months initially.
And if, uh, we come back in six months
and they are well underway and need additional time. Right.
I'm willing to extend it.
I think that's more than reasonable.
Okay. Yeah. I will, I'll hold,
I'll yield if there are other comments
and if not, then I'll make a motion to table
Any other I'll support tabling.
Okay. So I will make a motion to table this item
to August 26th, 2025.
Support. All right.
Motion to table. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. To table. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes.
To table. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is Yes. Motion, uh,
item is tabled. Next item.
Next item is 11.
A consideration and adoption of a resolution
to authorize execution of agreements
with McComb Intermediate School District
and McComb Community College.
Taxing authorities to collect current
and delinquent property tax.
2025 through 2026. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion.
Anyone hearing, seeing another will 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. Next item is
11 B.
Request of Aspen Extreme LLC located at 26 4 0 3 gross back,
highway four 60 day extension
of marijuana license. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion, hearing, and scene. None.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 11 C.
Request of Dank headquarters,
LLC located at 12 8 28 East nine mile
for a 60 day extension
of their TMA adult use license. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion, hearing, and scene. 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 12 a Council Secretary Mindy Moore discussion
and Ray rescind resolution amending the Downtown Development
Authority bylaws to allow participation in meetings by
telephone conference call from October 24th, 2001.
So moved with discussion
Support Lafferty.
Discussion Ms. Moore. Uh, thank you.
Um, um, I was going through documents of the DDA
and came across these, uh, resolutions.
And it was apparent to me they needed to be rescinded.
Uh, perhaps Mr. Schroeder could explain why.
Um, Madam Secretary, I saw your item
and, um, did the research.
Um, back in 2001.
Let me start by saying the DDA has a set of bylaws
that govern their procedures
and how they run their meetings.
These bylaws need to be approved by the city council.
That's in the ordinance creating the DDA.
In 2001, the city council
approved a bylaw allowing participation
by teleconference at DDA meetings saying
that it was within the spirit of the Open Meetings Act.
There were no limitations on
that other than you could participate telephonically.
There was a period of time where there was a thought.
A lot of municipal lawyers in Michigan felt, well, as long
as there was a quorum present, that you could have
a few members participating by teleconference.
'cause the quorum is present. Um,
and this doesn't even require a quorum there.
But that all changed during COVID.
And then the sort of reaction to the covid rules.
Remember, during Covid City Council,
all public bodies were allowed to meet remotely
during the pendency of a public health emergency
as determined by state and local government.
And at the end of that, the Michigan legislature came in
and amended the Open Meetings Act and effective,
and we advised this body at the time,
effective January 1st, 2022, the only legal basis
for a member of any public body in the state of Michigan to
participate in a meeting video conference electronically
basically remote, is that you need to be an active
military duty service
or you have to have an approved a DA com accommodation.
And the Attorney General issued an opinion
that's very lengthy on that.
I recently dealt with something
that we thought was a disability
for somebody at another client at a
public meeting, and it wasn't.
So it's not easy to meet that deposition.
So by virtue of the
Michigan Open Meetings Act
and the amendments that took place in 2022,
this is all invalid.
You can't participate remotely, let alone not have a quorum.
So I think that it's appropriate for the council to vote
to rescind this because it's in conflict
with the current state of the Open Meetings Act.
Again, there was a period of time
where there was some thought, there was some debate
about it, if there was a quorum.
Now there's no, the legislature put an end to that.
So I think this is very appropriate.
Thank you. And the, the same discussion's going
to go for the second item.
Any other discussion? I was at a DDA meeting
and thought it was weird that folks were calling
in via phone. So
Just to, there wouldn't be anything wrong for someone
listening in by phone,
but just cannot participate as a member in the meeting.
For instance, if, um, say somebody was in the hospital
and you wanted to hear a
committee meeting of the whole mm-hmm.
You could have somebody on. We've done that.
When somebody's not there
and they listen, there's nothing wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with somebody listening in,
in a committee of the whole, you're not really voting
as a body, you're just having discussions.
But participation means you are participating.
That could include discussion.
So there's nothing wrong with listening in, um,
but certainly casting a vote, voting on something
remotely, telephonic video conference, it's not permitted.
Um, unless those two conditions, one
of those two conditions are met as of January 1st, 2022.
And no matter what, city council is not the body to decide
who could appear telephonically
Or not. No City
council wouldn't be able to decide it.
But City Council does have a role in approving these bylaws.
Right. So, yes.
Thank You. Can
Mr. Newnan
Would, would this retroactively?
I'm not, would this invalidate their votes that they made
with someone
voting remotely?
This act by itself would not invalidate those votes.
Um, we're not going there on this.
Um, this is just an attempt to fix the issue moving forward.
That would be a completely separate question.
Um, that would've to be looked at.
Okay. Just, it just seems wrong.
It, it does violate the statute as it is now. Yes. Okay.
Thanks. Madam Chair.
Mr. Wiki, Uh, directed to Mr. Schroeder at, uh,
last DDA meeting.
I don't know if this would apply to it.
Uh, I was present there.
Uh, the previous two meetings were canceled
because they couldn't get a quorum during the discussion
with one of our city employees, uh,
we found out the bills were paid, uh, quite a few of them.
And, uh, I questioned that, um, it was done telephonically
by two members of the DDA.
And, uh, uh, I asked Mr.
Ba, uh, is that in the bylaws? He said it is.
Uh, I couldn't find it in the bylaws.
Would this be addressed in that?
I I actually think Council Secretary Moore has a little
bit on that and I can follow up if
Needed. So we
have been talking about this issue.
We brought it up, I think two weeks ago.
And it's my understanding
that the controller's office is working on a procedure
to handle payment of those, um, um, the bills on the list
of bills that will satisfy everybody.
Of course, any by any change to bylaws
to the DDA council has to approve.
But I think they're working on it.
I've, I've had some discussions with Mr. Knapp
and, um, Mr. Fox. Okay. So, and then
Whatever's uh, they, they come up with will
Be put in a bylaws?
Correct. Okay. Thank. And then we'll, we'll vote on first
and then it'll be incorporated in their bylaws.
Madam President again, Mr. Nunan?
Yes. Uh, I'd like a copy of the DDAs bylaws.
Is there any chance we could get a copy of that for, for me
Request?
Right now
I have them.
Okay. If I could have a copy, that'd be great.
I have the Gold State copy.
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.
Next item is 12 B Council Secretary Mindy Moore.
Discussion in Ray rescind resolution to amend bylaws
of the Downtown Development Authority to allow participation
by communication equipment from
September 27th, 2001. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Support Mr. Lafferty discussion.
One question, uh, through the chair to Ms. Moore.
Will we be sending correspondence to the DDA indicating
that they are required to, uh, amend their bylaws pursuant
to our rescissions?
Our, um, results letters go out on Friday
and the, the, um, city attorney's office gets them.
And Mr. Nap, did you wanna say something?
It's okay.
Well, like you said earlier, we are working on getting
that other issue about the payment.
And in as a part of that, I'm asking,
we're sending over a recommendation
that they set up a committee, uh, composed
of somebody from our office,
somebody from the City attorney's office, and,
and a representative from council to review all the bylaws
and come up with a recommendation for an update.
I think it's been these,
these look like they were the last times they were changed,
which was 24 years ago.
Yeah. Yeah. So we're, we're working on that.
They'll be aware of this if for no other reason from
what I'm presenting to them for their next meeting. Right.
Thank you. Does that answer your question? Thank you.
Any other discussion? Hearing and seeing 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 the next item.
Next item is 12 C. Um, discussion Ray.
Budget 20 25, 26. Madam Chair,
Ms. Moore. Um, thank
you. I'd just like to tell, um,
give everybody a heads up.
Um, uh, what the budget, uh, schedule is this year.
The budget is due to council on the 14th of April.
Um, our first budget hearing will be 4 26.
Um, and the next one will be 4 28
and 4 29 if it's needed.
And adoption of the agenda will be May 13th, 2025.
Um, we would request of the administration
that organizational charts with the actual name
of the person occupying the position except for police
and fire, uh, including part-time and temporary positions.
It was unclear to us last year if positions
were really filled or open.
And if we actually have the name
of the person in the position
or no name, we'll have a better idea what those numbers are
and what the situation is.
Um, we, um, um, we've request
that all appointed positions be footnoted in the budget.
A copy of all notifications from the mayor's office
to the clerk's office announcing appointments to employment,
not commissions, but in anyone that's been a appointee,
been appointed to work for the city.
Um, and as a reminder, per the charter, uh,
provide the departmental budget requests reflecting
personnel contractual services
and capital improvements detail as submitted
to the controller
or the budget director, including backup documentation
and schedules.
And if there's anything else anybody wants,
we can over the course of the next month
or so, anything that we wanna request ahead of time,
you know, we will get that over to the controller's office.
Thank you. Motion receive and file
Support. Ty.
All in favor? Aye.
Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12 D.
Um, discussion, Ray commence. Legal action.
I would make a motion to authorize Plunkett
and Cooney to commence litigation
regarding the matters discussed in closed session
20 20 20 25.
25, 2 25, 25.
Sorry. That's my motion. Support.
Anyone? Support, support, uh, support Newan.
Call to question Ms. Moore.
Uh, do we need a roll call? Yes, we do need roll call.
Right. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Newan? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr.
Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13.
A request for increase in budgeted appropriations
for the 37 district court fire department
and the administrative allocated in the total amount
of $170,859 to cover increased costs
for postage auditing services.
Contractual obligations of signed and ratified contract
after adoption of the fiscal 2025.
Budget consideration and adoption of a resolution so moved.
Support Dwyer.
Discussion, hearing, and scene?
None. I'll 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 13 C.
Request to approve the renewal of the city's 2025 to 2028.
Environmental liability, underground storage,
tank pollution liability insurance
with Beasley Insurance Company in an amount not
to exceed $66,623 $98
for a three year period.
So moved with discussion
Support Lafferty And discussion Ms. Moore.
Thank you. Um, I've,
Sorry. We've forgotten
noxious weeds.
That is, Is that what you're saying, Dave? Yeah.
Oh yeah. 13 B, sorry. Missed it. Okay.
13 B proposed ordinance amendment to the nuisance ordinance.
Article two, noxious weeds and rubbish.
Chapter 38. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion. Madam Chair. Yes.
Um, just to let everyone know, we had a very lengthy, uh,
discussion at a, uh, committee meeting the whole last week.
Um, this is the first reading, um, hats off to Mr.
Elli and his team, um, for putting this together.
This is a long time coming
and I think it's gonna be a really good thing
and we'll discuss it more, I think when we get
to the second reading.
Thank you.
Any other discussion? Okay.
Hearing and seeing that 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
13 C was the request to approve the renewal
of the insurance for environmental.
Um, Madam President. So moved.
Support Lty. Discussion.
Discussion. Thank you. I just have discussed this with Mr.
Um, Fox. Um, he explained the background on this.
We have a lot of, uh, underground storage
or, uh, above ground and, and the underground.
And we're moving them up, right? Yeah.
We have underground, they're,
You know, They're, they have a potential to leak.
We're probably gonna get to the point
where we're gonna have them above ground.
They're like 30 years old
and he is suggesting that we take the three year insurance,
not the one year, so that it buys us more time.
Um, for risks, it's better for us. So that's it.
Any other discussion, hearing and scene? 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.
Okay, next item is, where am I at?
13 EE is.
13 E is four D on the consent, consideration
and adoption of a resolution approving renewal
of cable franchise for wide open West Michigan,
LLC Under Uniform Video Services Local Franchise
Act. So moved
Support Lafferty with discussion.
Discussion. Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you. I had some concerns about this.
Uh, there was a, uh, news release back in mid 2023
from Wide open West that indicated that, uh,
they will be exiting the cable TV business
now while they will remain a provider, uh,
for streaming services and broadband internet services.
Uh, this is the reality of where this industry is going.
This is probably not the first, uh, not the the last, uh,
provider that is going to do this.
Uh, I've read a half a dozen articles.
Uh, YouTube TV surpassed 5 million subscribers last
year and pegged, its total about 6.3 million with months
to go before Sunday ticket deals kicked in.
And this, uh, article, uh, is from a couple of months back.
But the, this is all indicating
a major shift in franchise fees.
That's why I'm bringing this up.
We're being asked to renew an agreement.
But what I'd like first, uh, since there is time on this
and I don't, uh, see a need unless, uh, Mr. Knapp
or, uh, Mr. Fox can tell, or Ms.
Camp, I'm sorry, Mr. Knapp or Ms.
Michaels can tell me that we need to do this tonight.
Uh, I would like to understand a breakdown
of the franchise fees from Wide open West from Comcast,
Xfinity, and at
and t to understand if, uh, wide open West is going
to exit, uh, cable tv, uh, subscribing.
Then we're going to see an exit of
franchise fees coming in from one of the, you know,
as a third of our budget for the communications department.
So my request is to,
uh, Uh, Ms.
Michaels and the controller's office
to provide a financial report
and breakdown of all franchise fees,
funding the communications department,
and also understanding how the planned exit
of Wide open West, uh,
may affect the renewal of this agreement.
Communication directly. Is that in, uh, in addition to
the approving it?
Well, actually, I'd like to make that my motion
and then I will ask the table this for two weeks. Yeah.
Madam Chair, just If I can thank please Ms. Moore.
Um, I was looking through some notes of last year at the,
uh, budget hearings and things that came up.
And at that time, um, you know, we discussed that, uh,
because of the situation with the franchise fees decreasing,
um, it was clear to us
that we figured about another 18 months
that there would be enough money
to keep communications going the way it was.
And at that time, we had asked for a plan, um,
what the plan was to address that situation
of the decreasing, um, franchise fees
and, um, what they were going to do to save money, cut costs
so that they could extend the amount
of time we did not ever receive that.
Um, so I,
and I certainly, I've certainly not witnessed
with my own eyes any, uh, reduction in, um, coverage
or, um, anything that makes me think
that anybody's trying to save money.
Money. But we'll discuss that at budget time
and I'll support your table. If
So, your motion is to restate it. Please request
The request of the City Attorney's office
and the controller's department
to provide a financial report
and breakdown of the franchise fees
from all three providers.
And, uh, that funding up to the communications department
and a, uh, letter from the City attorney's office
to indicate, uh, if there are any changes necessary
to this agreement, uh, given
that wide Open West has announced its its exit from
the cable TV business.
Sure. Ms. Michaels, do you have something to add?
Did you table I think he was tabling.
Thank you. Madam President Council, um,
wide open West does not have any plans to leave Warren.
There have been changes in shifts in the,
in its business plan,
but as of this point, at this point, they're not leaving.
Warren, I think I would respectfully request
that council, um, proceed at least with this franchise
to allow us to at least
invoke whatever advantage it gives us.
There is streaming. Councilman Lafferty are accurate.
The trend is to move to streaming.
We are a member, Warren is a member of ProTech,
and there's going to be, um, a request to communities
to address and lobby our legislature for some changes
to make sure that we,
there's a revenue stream from, from streaming.
Mike Watson is the cable attorney who
advises ProTech and I know Ms.
Kayton and I will be returning to counsel very shortly
to become a part of the movement, the lobbying movement
to see some change that would advantage all of us.
But at this point, it's in the city's.
I think it would be more advantageous to proceed tonight
with this agreement,
which at least would bring 15,000 in administrative payment
to us, plus the franchise fee plus the PEG fee.
And I could give you a ballpark tonight about
what WOW has been paying at franchise fees.
Madam Chair. Mm-hmm. Alright. Thank you Ms. Michaels.
Thank you. A couple of, no, no, a couple of questions.
The, the necessity to,
uh, approve this, is there a timeframe that this has
to be approved by?
No, there's not a timeframe,
but currently Weill pays the 5% franchise fee
and they'll continue that.
This agreement also includes 2% PEG fee. Mm-hmm.
Which we are not currently receiving.
Understood. So my, my questions at, as I've listed
to them already, I, I have additional questions
that I'd like to understand how this will progress
and mature in the future.
And while I've listened to the arguments at, at the,
the state level about how we're going
to replace this revenue stream,
because we're not receiving, uh,
where people are cutting the cord
and they're moving to broadband, they're moving
to streaming services, uh, that is not a process
that is going to happen overnight.
And so that is a, that's going to be a very lengthy lobby,
um, the proverbial sausage making in Lansing
as, as it will be.
Um, I'm, I'm hopeful to maintain some
level of revenue from, uh, these three companies,
but I'm not at all convinced that, you know,
as we en envision it today,
that it's going to come to fruition.
So what I'm asking for,
if we can afford a two week delay without any, uh,
negative impact to either the budget
or to the agreement with, with White Open West, uh,
giving your office time to provide a letter to us
with everything that you've stated
and some additional backup material, uh,
I think we can safely bring this back in two weeks.
Would you, would you agree with that? I, I,
I do. May I offer
a perspective, please, Madam Chair,
as you're aware, Councilman Lafferty, um, there's a state,
there's a state Act, act four 80 communities used to be able
to have leverage and negotiate franchises.
That ability has been taken from us.
Our only leverage Milwaukee going into the WOW agreement is
that they have not been paying the PEG fee.
Mm-hmm. And that has been our only leverage, which is,
which is why we've been able to obtain some terms
that are greater than the state terms we delay.
And there's really no disadvantage other than the,
the void in receiving the PEG fee.
Alright. Well, there's, well delaying two
by two weeks in danger of that PEG fee.
We wouldn't, we'd probably lose a month
or two of the PEG fee
because they would have to, I could reach out
to the WOW attorney and ask that they would still agree
to the retroactive PEG fee, but I can't promise
Madam Chair, I'll, I'll yield if any other
council members have questions.
Anyone have any additional questions? Mr. Bokey?
Uh, if Mr.
Councilman, uh, LAER, he doesn't mind his request
for the other cable services, those doc documents,
if we could get to expiration date of the renewal?
So we're aware of when they're finished. Just had the date?
Yes. Expiration date of the, our
Contracts, if I may. Madam
Chair, Ms. Michaelson Comcast expires,
I believe in 2027.
It's coming up 2020, forgive me.
2026. Okay. We renewed the,
If the paperwork that Mr.
Lafferty's asking for the dates
Mm-hmm.
She, Mr. Bokey is just asking if you can put the
expiration dates in the paperwork
that you'll eventually sent to Mr.
Laffer? Yes. I'm sorry,
Mr. Bo, anything else?
I yield. Okay. Mr. Nunan.
Right. Um, Ms. Michaels, I have a question.
I didn't really quite hear you very well. Sorry. I'm sorry.
I, everyone else seems to hear well with these microphones,
but I don't, and I got, I have, I've had my hearing checked
and that's good and my brain seems to still be working.
But could you just repeat again what you just said to Mr.
Lafferty approximately? Like, kind of summarize it,
Just summarize this, A city
and a cable provider would enter into a franchise under
terms prescribed by the state of Michigan under
what is called Act four 80 2006, public Act four 80.
We used to be able, able to negotiate franchise terms
and provide for equipment and an institutional network
and lots of things to help the community that,
that has been taken off our table.
We don't have that leverage any anymore.
What are capable provides in lieu
of those negotiated goodies
that we would like is a 2% PEG fee,
which supports public educational governmental programming.
Right now, we are not receiving that 2% PEG fee under this.
We're, we're not receiving the public access. We do not,
We receive the channels,
but we do not receive any extra payment in
support of those channels.
Okay. This agreement provides for
the PEG fee, it would provide the city
with the PEG fee, 2% PEG
Fee, PEG Fee paid quarterly.
Right now we receive about 95,000
in franchise fees from Wow.
So I think that would equate to about 30,
an extra 34,000 each quarter,
but I could actually quantify that in more detail.
And how many, um, cable companies are we working with?
Three at and t, which pays a 2% franchise fee
and Comcast and wide open West.
So the, there are three cable providers.
Okay. And, and, uh, those are all going away in 2027 or
No, I'm sorry. Comcast
expires in a couple years.
Okay. Right now Comcast pays a 0.5% PEG fee, but they also
provided the institutional network free
for another two years.
Okay. So, um,
it would behoove the communications department
to cut their costs, wouldn't it,
For the revenue to have the revenue stream? Correct.
Yeah. And uh, what I'm, what I'm noticing is that,
for instance, at the DDA, uh, meeting,
they still have three cameras with operators
and more crew in the room.
Um, when it seems like a very simple, um, uh,
one camera operation would pick up, uh,
the conversation quite well.
Um, and, and that would reduce the cost.
And we haven't seen any plans for reducing the cost
yet, as far as I know.
Have you heard of any?
No, sir. I have not. Not you haven't In operations.
Not operationally. So
Just, um, Ms. Clayton, certainly you can come up
how this is, um, that is more of a budget Right.
Thing what we're talking about is revenue
to the communications department,
which is the franchise fees. That's what Ms. Michael is,
Right? Well,
the, uh, secretary brought up that we asked for.
Yes. Um, so I just was trying to reiterate on her point,
would you mind if Clarissa go ahead, uh, goes ahead
and explains this, what's, what's happening here
and what we can hope for?
Yes. Like Ms. Michael said, first
of all, hello to everyone.
As Ms. Michael said, uh,
we're talking two different things here.
Okay. We have three cable operators, at
and t, Comcast,
and Wow, if we postpone this tonight,
we're gonna miss out on revenue.
Okay? We're not, we're not getting what we need to get.
We do not need to delay this as for tonight.
Now the things that, uh, Councilman Lafferty are requesting,
we can still give him that information.
But what I'm asking is trust our judgment on this.
You do not need to delay this.
What you need to do is pass this,
and then at this point we can get you the
information that you're asking.
It won't change anything.
But by postponing this, you're taking money off the table.
They could change their mind
and then we walk away with nothing.
Okay. Well, And that's as
Far as Far, sir, that, as far as
what we're talking about here.
Right? Okay. Now what you're talking about as far as
how many people operate a camera
and what it takes to do a production,
that's two different things.
And we can, if you don't mind, okay.
Well, I discuss I Didn't during,
I didn't, I wasn't trying to force
that down your throat or anything. No, I just,
No, But we're just talking about two different things.
I was hoping, I was hoping Can we trust
that we'll get a plan as to how your
Department Will reduce Definitely its glos.
So that it'll Yes. Be able to continue functioning because
We need To Function right table,
when we come back to the table
during the budget, you will see where we have made cuts
because we have been making cuts internally
because we want, we want to provide a service.
And that's what we've been doing. Okay.
And, um, so we've been making some cuts
and we can provide that information during the budget
and hopefully you guys will be, uh, pleased with
what we're trying to do because we wanna provide a service.
We understand, uh, what's going on with our city.
It's not only here, it's throughout the, the country.
It's not just with, uh, with the state of Michigan.
But what I'm asking is that you approve this
so we can move on, so we can continue to get revenue in.
And then at that point we can also
discuss these other things as
Far as production. I think we're
about to do that. And I, I see you all doing,
uh, fabulous jobs, uh, with communications,
videotaping and, and all that good stuff.
And I don't mean to be critical in, in that regard at
All. I don't take it that
way. Okay.
But I know the discussion was about, uh, wow.
And we moved over into another discussion about production
and they're actually just two different topics.
Okay. That's all. I
Thank you. I think the council agrees
with you. I'll, I'll, I'll, uh,
Thank you.
Um, turn to Mr. Lafferty. Mm-hmm. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr.
Bokey. And then Mr. Lafferty, then we're gonna call the
Question. This is for Ms.
Michaels.
Uh, this is pertaining to the contract here.
Um, I'm saying, I'm reading here, as council may be aware,
the PEG fee and franchise fees may be,
may legally be passed out along to the subscribers
and may be itemized on a bill while currently item, while
currently itemizes the franchise fee,
the 2% PEG fee will appear
as a new charge on subscriber bills.
So this is an increase.
That is correct. Yes. That that is correct. That's
Federal law. Yes.
And we're getting this today.
And you're tell, I'm just as for this, uh,
or this for the IT representative communications,
Ms. Caton.
Yes. We're getting this today
and you're telling me that we gotta vote
for it today or we're gonna lose it.
That is not the way to do it.
I don't think we Understand. That's what you said.
That's, that's, if we don't go along with this,
we're gonna lose out our money. Listen,
Good. Explain, sir.
And I, I, I don't like to be put under a gun
to do something like that.
I understand. I wish you guys had actually come to, uh,
one of our tours because we were actually explaining all
these things at the tour.
Oh my God. What, what has happened is, is the law,
this law has been in place for how many years?
Over, over, even longer than that.
Over 20 years. Over 20 years. Okay.
And so what has happened is,
and I just don't feel comfortable, um,
I wish we could had a closed session
or something like that to talk about this.
Would've Well, maybe would've been good because you're
negotiating a contract here.
I don't want to negotiate the contract, sir, you
Don't. There are fees that are gonna
be passed on
to the citizens of the city. Award it.
No sir. And we should be able to You don't understand.
You don't understand, sir.
It's such a passed out subscriber.
Lemme explain this to you. If I can Go
Ahead.
Um, I guess that
what, what's going on here is it's the law.
And the law states that any time
a person orders cable, just like when you go
to the grocery store or you, you buy something,
there are certain fees that are passed on
and it's based on what a person orders.
If I were to order, uh, let's say, uh,
cinema Max or HBO
and things of that nature, my bill would be higher
because I ordered more things.
If I decide that I don't want those things,
and I take those off my bill, my bill goes down.
The thing is, years ago,
this franchise fee is based on what a person orders.
This is nothing new.
This has been in place for over 2001,
2001 over 20 years.
Okay. The issue here, unfortunately,
and this occurred before I got here.
Okay. Um, wow.
And the city of Warren went into a negotiation.
And then at that point, they were at a point
that they could not agree,
and Warren was trying to force something on Wow.
That the law actually said that they couldn't do.
Now, while that happened, I couldn't tell you. Okay.
But the law states that anytime you order cable,
there are certain fees based on what you order.
That's automatically passed on to the subscriber.
Comcast is doing it, at and t is doing it,
and they've been doing it for over 20 years.
Who's not doing it is Wow.
What we're trying to do is just bring
everybody to the table.
And when I say everybody, wow.
To the table to meet what everybody else is doing.
That's what this is. But it's the law.
Nothing can be changed.
Nothing is being forced down your throat
because it's been there for over 20 years.
Two, it's just that the two percentage, any, the 2% is Well,
the, yes, the 5%,
it's the franchise fee the 2% is the peg fee,
and that has been there for over 20 years.
What we're trying to do at this point is bring wow in
to match what everybody else has been
doing for over 20 years.
That's what's happening here. Okay.
So I, I'm sorry that you
and I understand If you don't,
you don't know what you don't know.
And that's not to put anybody down
saying it's not what I saying.
I don't know if you would've had a
committee meeting with us.
You know, we could ask those questions. Councilman Laffer?
He's asking for the other contracts.
Maybe that's why he wants to look at 'em.
And that's fine. He can look at those things. Don't, but
You Know, like I said, but if you don't, and I,
and I have no reason to lie, I have no reason to try
to get over on anyone.
I'm just trying to educate you to let you know
that if you put it on hold at that point,
we lose out on money.
But that's your call because my job is to come
and tell you the truth and then you
decide what you want to do.
Okay? So I'm asking that you all go ahead and,
and, um, this,
How long have you known about this?
I'm sorry? How long has you been preparing for this?
It's been a while because,
been a while. They could not agree.
And again, We didn't tonight to pass.
We didn't have anything, sir.
We didn't have anything to bring you.
But it's nothing new under the sun. This is nothing new.
You, you make it sound as if, if I understand correct.
Lemme ask you this correctly. You make it sound,
I make a motion with just bringing something.
I, excuse me. If I make a motion to table this,
are we gonna lose the money?
Yes. Again, we're here at,
We could possibly at the last minute,
we could possibly lose the money, possibly.
Oh, you'll look back. Thank you
Madam Chair. Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you. Thank you, uh,
Through the chair, Ms.
But sir, is your call Mr.
Lafferty, excuse me, ma'am has the floor.
I'm, I'm, you, you, you've said it a couple of times
and I, I like it less each time you say it,
that you're putting the blame on us if we delay this,
that we're going to cause the city
to now possibly lose money.
I'm only speaking the truth, Sir.
This ma'am, ma'am, please don't interrupt me. Respectfully.
I'm asking why this was delayed.
I'm looking at paragraph, uh, section two, subsection B,
paragraph five, if effective,
retroactive from January 1st, 2025.
This is already 56 days in arrears.
If there's been any delay, it's not because of this body.
So this agreement, if it was supposed
to be effective January 1st, should have come to us earlier.
Now I'm gonna ask Ms.
Michaels to address
when the contract was received
to clear up this item first. That, that question,
Comcast agreed to the retroactive payment.
What, why, And West that was part of the term.
And yes, there has been, this has been a long time coming.
There's no question,
but as far as coming to the actual meeting of the mines
and agreeing on things, that was fairly recent.
Alright, so they're agreeing to the retroactive terms.
So if they're agreeing to retroactive terms
and we pass this tonight,
or perhaps members want to wait, learn more about this
and understand it, that clause is still in this contract.
The retroactivity is still in this contract,
and we're talking how much?
$34,000 we're arguing over.
So I mean, they're, they're going to make that much in
a couple minutes with movie rentals.
I am, I, I am not at all ready
to vote on this tonight.
I stand by my motion to table this to the following meeting.
There is information as Mr.
Bokey and others have have asked for this evening.
I, I want to understand a little bit more about
this peg fee, how it's going to be applied.
I'm certain that there will be questions
after this meeting that we're going
to receive from constituents
that are subscribers to wide open West.
They may want, uh, to make changes.
I would like to give them that opportunity.
And with the retroactivity as stated in the, in the section
that I cited, if we wait two more weeks,
it's still retroactive.
It's still retroactive at that point. So,
So Mr. Lafferty has a
motion to table.
Motion to table. Is there any
Support?
Support Mr. Bokey support?
So a yes to table,
uh, Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. To table. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. To table. Let's see. Ms. Moore?
Yes. To table. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. To table Mr. Nunan?
Sure. Ms. McGee? No.
Rogan C is a no item is
tabled. Next
Item. Next item
is 13 E,
which was h on the consent agenda request
of the communications department to waive the bid process
and award inside out design
and development for furnishing developer
and website maintenance services for the city of Warren's
external website for a two year period in an annual amount
not to exceed $15,000 consideration
and adoption of a resolution.
Motion to approve a discussion.
Support Dwyer. Thank you.
Support, uh, discussion Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you, Counsel.
I was reading the, the backup materials,
and I have several concerns, uh, relative to this.
And I did, uh, indicate a couple of these concerns to Ms.
Michaels prior to the meeting.
If you compare the letter from Mr.
Repa, the actual statement of work
and then our resolution,
the information in them does not match.
And so, and I'll, I'll just summarize here.
The, the letter from Mr. Repa indicates that,
and I quote, as the original website designer
and developer has proprietary rights
to the configuration of the website.
Uh, that, uh, end quote
that is not explicitly stated within the contract.
And I don't know about you,
but I'm not ready to sign over exclusivity to city property
to any third party.
Now, if there's a master services contract
that accompanies this, it's not in our backup material
where exclusivity, proprietary, uh, access
or proprietary holding of any information
or knowledge, uh, is specified.
It's not in the contract.
And that contract is not with, with the council office.
The last statement there regarding that item
is a contrary statement that says, uh,
regarding code development, that source code
and database design will be delivered open to the client
that's us and provides ownership
of the code in its delivered state.
You can't be, you can't have one or the other.
You have to have, or you
can't, you have to have one or the other.
You cannot have both. So we cannot say that it's proprietary
and you cannot say that we own it at, uh, at the end
of the day Under monthly
and quarterly health check using a predetermined
amount of hours.
My question is, where are the predetermined hours specified
and agreed to by the city?
The section on review
and approve paperwork under client responsibilities.
What paperwork is the city reviewing
and approving that is not specified?
And the, the term, these, this is for two sites, city
of warren.org and mi warren.org.
The term is from April 1st, 2025 to March 31st, 2027.
It covers 10 hours a month at $1,250 a month.
This does not include hosting,
but it includes basic maintenance
and changes from the communications department.
If you go on the site today,
and it, it says that they monitor it says
that they provide reports and they do these health checks.
I am seeing remnants of the previous administration
all over the website.
During the snowstorm.
I went and visited the, the snowplow, uh, tracker
so I could see where the snowplows were at.
And former Mayor Fouts name
and all of the information was right beneath that.
If they're doing monthly help checks,
if they're doing maintenance,
a simple keyword search would've found all remnants
of the previous administration.
I'm constantly reporting those to the chief
of staff and the mayor's office.
Uh, I would like a copy
of the master services agreement if one exists.
And the go live support indicates if there's an
issue, uh, in scope
or change to the logic that's not documented,
that there will be cost associated with these fixes.
There is no table of related services,
and there is no rate table that explicitly defines the rate
for these services to be charged by the, to the city over
and above this $30,000 for a two year contract.
So, uh, with, with that, I would like to, uh,
make a motion to table.
Uh, I don't wanna make a, a motion for a date certain,
but certainly send this back to refer it
to the city attorney's office.
Mm-hmm. Uh, for clarification,
because the city attorney's office did not read
and concur this, this came directly from purchasing.
So I'm certain with a, a review by an attorney,
they would've found a number of these items.
I, before you make your motion, uh, I also,
I'm confused about why it's a sole source.
Um, there's lots of people that do web development
and the scope of work doesn't appear
to justify a sole source.
So I, that would be also part of the, uh,
the information I would request is why is the
justification of a sole source?
And so for everyone knows,
if you're sole sourcing something, it means nobody else
provides that service
and they're the only person who does it.
And so they circumvent the bidding process.
I have a hard time understanding why a web maintenance
company would have a sole source. So
I agree, Madam Chair.
Mm-hmm. I agree. And, and to that, the letter from Mr.
Trea alluded to it that it was sole source
because they had proprietary con uh,
access to our configuration.
And that's, that's not at all according to the contract.
So again, they're, they're in contention with one another.
Our resolution actually calls out
that they have proprietary access,
but the resolution is not in the signed document.
It's not part of the contract that binds the two together.
So we can say anything we want with our resolution,
but that does not make this contract proprietary.
Well, and what would make a web developer's access
to a public website proprietary?
I guess that would be an education piece for me. I would, I
And me too.
I'm sorry. An agreement between two parties that
I'm your developer, you're my client.
Anything I develop for you, once you hand me the check,
I own it because I'm saying it's mine.
And if you sign in the dotted line that, that completes
that agreement that you are consenting
to me having full ownership of it,
I'm not going to consent to that
Madam President after, Uh, Mr.
Newnan, and then we'll move forward with the tabling motion.
Sure. It seems like they're not doing a great job
based on the numbers of things
that we're finding, not updated.
Maintenance should be thorough update.
If they're the, if they're locked in
and they know they're the sole contractor
and we can't, um, move to another company,
they don't have any particular reason
to honor their contract.
This is money in their pocket. What a lovely deal.
And how whoever arranged that, I, I have
to question their business acumen or their honesty.
So, which is it? Anyways, I yield.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To that point, Mr.
Newan, you bring up a good point,
and I, I didn't mention it,
but it would've been one of the follow up points.
There is no terms
and conditions for termination of the contract als, uh,
either in this agreement. Well,
What a, what a sweetheart deal.
Thank you. Mi Uh, Mr.
Lafferty has a tabling motion. Is there? Support.
Support, Okay.
Mr. Lafferty? Yes. To table.
Mr. Noonan? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes.
To table. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Uh, Ms. Moore? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is audience participation on general topics.
Members of the audience would like
to address the city council this evening may do so
by filling out the audience form
located at the right side of the stage.
Uh, you have three minutes. This is for audience.
This audience is for general topics. First up is Ms. Harris.
I still think that the city should have done something
with that house that got donated to them.
I what an easy way to get outta something. Why didn't they?
Just, the people that owned it, tear it down, sell the land.
Doesn't make sense. But I wanna talk to you,
I wanna remind you about a DA American with Disabilities Act
and the requirement that it's a civil rights law.
And, uh, Tony Baker
did request an update on
how these a DA funds have been spent so far.
Were $4.2 million allotted for a DA compliance in the city,
and about $300,000.
3, 3 80 maybe have been spent.
A lot of it, more than half of it, almost two thirds of it
on plans from a company who did a transition plan.
And very little money has been spent on two braille signs
and doorknobs and things like that.
That's a lot of money
that hasn't been spent in the last year, making our city
buildings accessible.
Um, paying attention to
how parking spaces are striped.
And, uh, because there's a lot of mistakes
that keep happening where the,
where the detectable mats on sidewalks, uh,
lead people into the middle
of Mound Road rather than across the street
to the next sidewalk.
Um, I wanna talk about the police department.
We've had two retirees that we know of,
and that I know of, right?
In the last 10 days or two weeks plus.
We've had an officer injured recently,
and I wanna know how our police staff is doing,
and have we hired any new people?
And I see that there's an add out.
Um, but we need to work on this.
We cannot keep budgeting money and then not fill the spots.
Uh, the DDA is interesting to hear you, um, Mr.
Bokey, I'm glad that you mentioned that.
I know I've posted it on Facebook.
When they cancel their meetings, those agenda items
don't come back up at the next meeting,
and they cancel two meetings in a row.
How do those things get done?
A little, just a handshake, an email. It's not right.
And the incinerator, I saw this on the planning agenda,
and could we please have a committee of the whole, um,
have, or have we had one and I missed it mm-hmm.
Last week? Mm-hmm. Ah, sorry about that.
Um, okay.
Can somebody please write up some information
and put it in a, on a website or on the Facebook page?
Um, because my understanding with Mr.
Clore when he was here is that it was gonna be $70 million
to get this kind of oven, uh, to be,
to destroy PFAS.
And I did not, I was not aware that we'd already gone ahead
with an incinerator plan.
And I see my time is up. Thank you. Thank
You, Ms. Harris.
Uh, next is Tracy Dixon.
Okay. Good evening. Members of the council.
I'm here this evening, uh, not just to question a rule,
but to speak about something deeper, how we engage
with our community, how we foster po po positivity,
and how we work together rather than against each other.
Recently I was informed that I'm prohibited from displaying
flags on my fence facing 12 Mile Road.
The letter I received did not provide a specific reason,
just a citation of an ordinance
and a directive to take them down within five days.
But these flags, they're not just decorations,
they're small symbols of hope
and joy in a world that, quite frankly,
has felt heavier and harder.
Uh, for many of us lately, they serve as a reminder
to see the good around us.
Something that has been increasingly difficult for myself
and my family to do.
One of them in particular, carries a deep personal meaning,
meaning it raises awareness of a LSA disease
that has touched my family directly as my father, um,
is currently battling.
And he was so happy when I sent him a picture
of the flag on my fence.
Displaying these flags has also become a fun thing
for my children and their friends, except
for my 11-year-old daughter, uh,
who currently cannot stand anything I do,
because, well, she's 12,
but for the rest of us, it's been a bright spot, a away
to express joy, awareness, and creativity.
Um, and let's be honest, it also helps to cover up a not
so great fence, a not so great fence
that's kept me up more nights than I'd like to admit.
Um, as a teacher of over 20 years,
someone who's taught government
and deeply respects the need for rules.
I understand the importance of ordinances,
but I also understand that
how we communicate those rules matters just as much
as the rules themselves
and the way the situation was handled left me
with more frustration, anger, and sadness than clarity.
Three fundamental lessons I've learned as a mother, a four
and an educator, apply here.
First, if you tell a child they can't do something, you need
to give a reason that makes sense.
Otherwise, they'll push back until they get one.
The letter I received reminded me of growing up
and hearing my father say, because I said so.
And let me tell you, that never ended well,
for anyone doesn't end well in my house these days.
A rule without clear explanation feels arbitrary
and frustrating rather than fair and necessary.
If my flags truly pose a problem, I deserve
to understand exactly what the problem is so
that I can get on board with the thought process.
Second, when you tell someone they've done something wrong,
especially when their intentions were good,
you should also guide them towards making it right.
My flags were meant to bring joy, not trouble.
If there's a way to comply
with the city's guidelines while still preserving the spirit
of what I was trying to do and doesn't cost me a fortune
because I'm a teacher,
I would love to know what that looks like.
A connection to resources or guidance
or alternative solutions would've been helpful.
But leaving people to figure that out on their own,
especially when they don't fully understand the problem,
leads to frustration, anger,
and often leads to solutions that come from frustration
and anger and make things worse.
Third words matter.
The language used in situations
like this are important. You're
At time. I'm sorry.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
Uh, David Orlowski,
Uh, good evening Counsel.
Um, 30 year resident of Warren
over by Rael Ryan, west of Ryan, um,
moved into a beautiful neighborhood.
And unlike what normally happens where as a neighborhood,
if you go from a young neighborhood to an old neighborhood,
uh, if you go from an old neighborhood
to a young neighborhood, if there's new construction,
people have issues with the environmental damage
to trees and whatnot.
Landscape. In my case, it's the opposite
because I, in the last 10 years,
my neighborhood has been ravaged by the destruction
of the beautiful trees that kept our air clean,
gave us shade, and it really contributed
to the aesthetics and quality of where I live.
And I'm sure the 50% decimation at least,
of our tree canopy on the easements,
not a single tree replanted in, in the last 10 years.
And I try to bring this to the attention
of the people on this council, the mayor, everybody,
and nobody seems to really get it.
I will applaud you, Andrea, uh,
on your video talking about the tree canopy issue.
And you two, Jonathan, you guys are always ready to talk.
You don't cut me short like some other people,
or not even calling me back like others.
Appreciate you. I'm, I'm optimistic,
but cautious optimism about your new tree ordinance
because the, the, the way the power structure is
with these trees, there is such a close relationship
between DPW and the private tree cutters that it's criminal.
There needs to be a criminal investigation
of their relationship
because they have taken so much tonnage.
They've literally mined the natural resources
of our quality wood out of our neighborhoods,
and especially outta mind.
And it's changed irreversibly.
They can never be brought back in my lifetime,
or even your lifetimes.
And I talked to Jonathan on Sunday,
and he was telling me about the ordinance,
but I was telling him about how we passed this ordinance in,
in January and this past weekend,
some Owen Tree service was doing the pick it up.
So I'm assuming they were the ones who cut it down.
67-year-old tree never bothered anybody.
And they cut it down, and I got pictures of it.
Now, there are trees in our neighborhood that are disease
and they need to come down,
but why is it always the largest trees?
And the ones who don't have,
You're at time Signs of disease.
And if anybody wants to see what they did,
You're at time. Mr. Les.
They stole that tree from the people
of Warren in my neighborhood.
Mr. Les here. I'm time. I'm
You're at time. Thank
you. That is the end of audience.
Next item is council response to audience.
Mad president Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you. Uh, relative to Ms. Dixon
and her comments, uh, I spoke to her at length
on Sunday evening,
and I also spoke with the City attorney's office.
City Attorney's office has agreed to provide Ms. Dixon
with a letter indicating, uh, as, as I put it, we do a,
a great job at, at saying what you can't do.
But we do a very poor job of saying
what you can do in these situations.
So I asked, uh, for the city attorney's office
to issue a letter, uh, citing the ordinance that is relative
to the situation, to provide Ms. Dixon
with the correct guidance on how
to express her positive messaging in the neighborhood.
And, uh, that way it is, uh, going to avoid any further, uh,
consternation with the city
and, uh, our zoning, uh, zoning ordinances.
Thank you. Uh, I have, uh, Ms. Harris,
the home repair program
that you're talking about is still being developed.
Ms. Ms. Lafferty and Ms. Moore, thank you.
And I, along with a number
of people from the administration,
we're in a two hour meeting today.
We're meeting every two weeks for two hours
to finalize the program.
And just my colleagues can correct me if I'm wrong,
it will not be able to fully rehab a program like a house.
It is not built to completely rehab a home.
That's not the goal of the program.
So, yeah.
Any other responses?
I, I have, uh, something I'd like to mention,
and that is just a follow up on the cap, RFP.
Um, it's not a direct response to what they're saying,
but, um, we got 12 companies responded.
One was disqualified
and, uh, so we we're having some really good climate action
plan, um, consultants coming forward,
and it looks very hopeful.
Thank you.
Anything further? Madam President?
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes. In response to Ms. Harris
regarding P Police Staffing?
Um, yeah, they are still at least 24
and now possibly 25 officers down.
And from what I understand, there's been no progress
through HR and getting those positions filled.
There's been four, um, applicants
that have been in process for months.
And as far as recruiting
and advertising, again, other than M Coles,
we're really looking at no other avenues
of recruiting and hiring.
So we, we really have a problem there. Thank you.
Okay. Absolutely. Ms. McGee,
I just wanna make the announcement again.
I've been posting quite a bit about I 6 96.
Eastbound will be closed as
of March 1st.
That's coming from Lasher. Mm-hmm.
Um, Southfield area all the way up to Dender.
It will be closed for two years.
This will be a two year pro, uh, project.
So Westbound will be open,
but eastbound will be closed as of March 1st.
Thank you. It'll be due detoured for one year. Yeah.
Anything, anything further? Okay. Next item.
Motion to adjourn
Support. All
in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're adjourned.
Thank you.