Now calling to order a regular meeting
of the city council Tuesday,
July 22nd, 2025 at 7:00 PM Please stand
for the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
Roll call Madam Secretary Councilwoman Roy. Here.
Councilwoman McGee. Here. Councilman Dwyer. Here.
Councilman Bokey. Present. Councilman Newan. Present.
Councilman Lafferty. Here. Councilwoman Moore is present.
We have a quorum. Uh, next item.
Next item is for adoption of the consent agenda. 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 adoption of the agenda.
So moved with discussion.
Support Lafferty. Discussion Ms. Moore? Yeah.
Thank you. Um, we have a few items to add as, um,
13 D um, a request from the treasurer
to open a money market account with JP Morgan Chase
as item 13.
Uh, F That is an alley,
um, request for public alley vacation located
between Globe, globe Avenue
and Nagel Street, approximately 100 feet
south of nine Mile Road.
And then as item 13 G, uh,
resolution approving sale and consumption of beer
and wine in a city square.
Uh, park at the birthday bash authorizing exemption
to Kiwanis Club of Warren, Michigan for the sale.
And I think that is it.
Yep. 13 D
Can you repeat the first one, Madam Secretary?
Yes. 13 D is a request from Treasurer Barnwell.
And just to clarify on, we have 13 D, um, there is a 13 D.
So 13 D? No,
no, it's, it's 11 D.
Sorry. It's 11 D. Thank you. Ah, sorry.
Yeah, I'll, I'll correct something when we get there.
Okay. Any other discussion?
Madam? Madam chair? Mr.
Lty, uh, through the chair to secretary, the
13 f the alley vacation?
Yes. Is that a proposal
for a public, a notice of a public hearing?
No. No. It Didn't request for
Extension.
They were approved in 2020. Okay.
Was there backup transmitted? Okay.
I'll, I'll hold my questions for that. Thank you. Mm-hmm.
Any other discussion? Okay.
Makers of the motion comfortable with those additions?
Amendments? Yes.
Without objection. 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 seven a approval
of the General Revenue Fund. So moved.
Support Lafferty Discussion,
hearing, and seeing none.
I will call the question Ms. Moore. Yes.
Oh, you know, I, I'm sorry. Okay.
Can we go back and I have, I do have a question. Mm-hmm.
Um, I just wanna,
since we've started in our new budget year, this is,
we're on the second week now,
and I would ask, um, um, Mr. Fox, we had
men, some reclassifications promotions
and wage increases that were approved that were
to begin July 1st.
And I'm just wondering if all
of those have been accomplished
and, uh, if not, could you give a report on where we stand
with those reclass and,
and some of those actions that we've approved?
Yeah. Richard Fox, city controller.
Yeah, I can prepare a report.
Push, push the button. Mr. Fox.
Fox, Go ahead.
Is it going now? Yeah.
Uh, it's hard, harder to hear you, but go ahead. It's on
Anyway. Have you got,
um, yeah, I'd be happy to.
Pardon? Thank you for next counseling.
And, and I'll, I'll ask you another question we get
to the, but thank you.
You're welcome. Sorry to interrupt.
I don't know that that's a hundred percent working,
Patrick, but we'll see.
Um, okay. Oh yeah. Any other discussion? Mm-hmm.
Uh, point of where we skipped, uh,
the calendar of pending matters.
Oh, sorry. So let's, let's finish this and we'll go back.
Yeah. Okay. So we are on the general revenue funds. Yeah.
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?
Yes. Mr. 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 Discussion,
hearing and seen none.
Call the question. All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Next item. Next item is seven B.
Approval of the bills of the water and sewer systems.
So moved. Support Dwyer.
Discussion, hearing seen on, I'll call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Uh, Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is, um, uh, seven
D General fund expenditure.
No it's not. I'm on C. Right. Seven C.
General fund revenue report for May, 2025.
Motion to receive and file
Support. Lafferty
Discussion, hearing and seeing none.
I'll call the question. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is seven D General fund expenditure report
for May, 2025.
Motion to receive and file was discussion
Support Lafferty.
Discussion Ms. Moore. Thank you.
Um, so when we get these reports, this is just general fund
and we're not, we don't get the DDA
expenditure report as I understand it.
Mike, am I correct? Mr. Fox?
Yeah. Richard Fox City Control over, yeah.
It's just the general fund report.
Okay. Do is there one kept for the DA?
Oh yeah, we have a, I think I would like to see that.
And you know, I wanna point out, I did, um, um,
have some reports from the last meeting, the DDA meeting.
And I, you know, I, I wanna remind everyone what a,
I know you know what a line line item budget is.
Mm-hmm. And we have a line item budget
and also contractual services, I think, um,
that needs to be looked at.
'cause there was an item that was purchased
that is certainly not contractual services, in my opinion.
It was for sup, what I would call supplies.
It was for, you know, easels
or boards or something like that.
That's not contractual services. 'cause there's no contract.
And you know, as we've made it pretty clear
to the DA at budget time
and anybody else, if we cut a budget, there was a reason
for it because we wanna see what those expenditures are.
Um, because we've had a problem in the past
for expenditures coming out of a line item that wasn't
to do with the item that they were using it for.
And, um, so I just think everybody
needs to be reminded of that.
And if there's an item that is not in an a line item,
all you need to do is bring it to council.
We will put it on the agenda.
And as almost everybody in the city knows,
we approve about 99.9% of things that come before us.
And if not that night,
at some point we usually do with more information.
So, um, we are a very reasonable body.
So I, going forward, if there's any question whatsoever,
if something doesn't fit in a line item, just it's,
it's very easy to do an appropriation of funds or requests
and we're open and, um, to hear all those.
But I just wanted to, I don't wanna get in the situation
that we got into before, um,
when there were things out of the wrong.
That's how we ended up in court.
Um, so I just would,
I hope you would remind everyone of that.
Did you, did you want a detailed explanation?
I, I would like to see that maybe quarterly. Okay.
If we could like, you know, that would be
just so we can, that's a problem.
Track things. That's not problem. That's not a problem.
Thank you mayor very much. Mr. You're welcome, Fox.
You're welcome. Any other discussion?
Hearing and seeing none? I will call the question.
All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Next item.
Next item. Audience
for agenda items only.
First, uh, sorry.
Members of the audience who would like
to address city council, uh, this item this evening related
to agenda items only may do so
by filling out a form on the left.
You have three minutes. There should be a monitor in front.
If you need a one minute countdown,
I'm happy to give it to you.
First up is Mary Mariinski, and then
after that is Gary Watts.
Good evening counsel. The item I wish
to talk about is 11.
A consideration
and adoption of a resolution authorizing the submission
of the community project funding CPF grant agreement
and creation of a special revenue fund in the amount
of $1 million for a DA compliance improvements.
Hi Dorothy. Hi Tony.
Thank you Dorothy and Tony for your years and years of work
and nonstop work to get us
a a DA compliant.
Um, I have a question. I know you can't answer it,
but maybe you'll tell me later.
Um, this is the million dollars
I believe Tony Baker worked on
with Mr. John James to get us.
It's not that million. Okay, well forget that.
Um, I do wanna say something though about the a DA, um,
work going on this last week.
I was honored to be with one
of the coolest engineers we have.
Um, he was working
and I was picking up garbage around Imperial and Aspen.
And I asked him what he was doing
'cause I kind of know him from another incident.
And he said he was trying to
evaluate where I live.
There's a street called Imperial.
It's a very, very big street.
There's no ramps
and there's hundreds of people living in 600 apartments.
A lot of people living in two sets of condos, lots of people
that go to the Islamic Education Center.
The charter school T Oli.
And this extremely
nice intelligent engineer told me that he was trying
to evaluate how they could get imperial to
how to get some ramps.
So people that are wheelchair bound
or, you know, getting off a bus with a bike
and blah, blah, blah, could get from point A to point B.
That's all.
Okay. Next is Gary Watts.
After Gary Watts is Jerry Burden.
Okay,
Good evening everybody. Gary Watts,
I can't tell you how disappointed I am
that I have to stand here
and talk about a consent agenda item that was just passed.
I mentioned it to numerous people and nobody pulled it off.
The agenda. Consent agenda.
4 million plus project on Barn Road is not right.
We're gonna be hitting our third year here shortly.
It's terrible's water leaking through the seams
that gets under the pavement.
Anybody knows that that's dam doing damage to that concrete.
The, the manhole, as I said Mr.
Bokey spoke about it last meeting,
the residents can't even sit out in their yards.
Last meeting, million
and a half project to, to Z niga tonight,
2.8 million to Z niga.
This has been going on for years with them.
It was like that when I was on council
and we continue to award bad work.
Now I have a Ian and I can't wait
because I'm gonna bet a hundred dollars
that they're not the lowest
bidder at the end of the project.
And that's sad that we continue to reward people
that do terrible work.
I don't know who's protecting who,
but I'll be honest with you, I'm disgusted with it.
And the residents of the city deserve much,
much better from their contractors.
We did Glode at the same time we did Barnard.
And let me tell you what, that's a wonderful job.
But we couldn't get that kind of job on there.
And I've been watching Zuniga in my area with some,
some replacement concrete.
Uh, lemme tell ya, it's not,
it's not a pretty picture what's going on with them.
So hopefully somebody will wake up
and resolve this. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Jerry Burden, and
after Jerry Burden is Joseph Israel.
Good evening, counsel. I got a point
of order before I start.
If the consent agenda is printed properly,
you approve an appointment to someone into commission
who expired three weeks ago.
They have the expiration date of June 30th, 2025.
That's three weeks ago.
So if you appointed them, they're already expired.
Thank you, Mr. Burden. And that's Item U
Madam President of Honorable Council members.
Today I rise to speak about the senior services at Joseph
Coach and still Ball Manor.
We received no assistance from Parks and Rec,
however, our recently, our director obtained a bus,
which has been a godsend for the 400 communities.
Seniors living there since then.
One resident in a wheelchair stated at our last housing
meeting because of the bus, she's now alive again.
She can go shopping, she can go somewhere.
Many of our residents have no do not drive,
have no transportation, and no family living close by.
We received no services from Parks and Rec.
Many programs held at our
Facility are set up by the staff and one of our vendors.
Many of our programs are sponsored by the residents, such
as our recent Thanksgiving dinner, our Easter potluck,
of which many of you contributed to
our summer cookout on the patio
with our director cooking hot dogs
and hamburgers in 90 degree temperatures.
We have had Valentine's St.
Patrick's, Halloween,
and Christmas parties all organized
by the staff and residents.
What I'm asking today that the council support
and encourage our bus service for five days a week.
We currently have it Tuesday, Wednesday,
and Thursday for doctors and shopping and so forth.
And as many of you know,
doctors also work on Mondays and Fridays.
So what we'd like you to do is
urge the commission or the administration
or someone to give us our bus service five days a week
and return dignity to many of our seniors.
Thank you.
Thank you. And I'd be happy
to answer any questions if you have 'em later.
Thank you. Next is Joseph Israel, and
after Joseph Israel is, uh, Laurie Harris.
Counsel, thank you for this opportunity
to introduce myself.
I'm Joseph Israel, I'm on the consent agenda, item T
and I'm happy to, uh, be appointed
to your construction Board of Appeals.
I bring, uh, two tons of knowledge.
My uncle Tom was the plumbing
and mechanical inspector for the City of Warren
for many, many years.
He then retired and became the building official
for the city of Warren till his other retirement.
Uh, Jim Cummins.
I entertained him to become a building inspector.
I signed for him at the state of Michigan.
He was my deputy inspector in Almont, Michigan.
Uh, Kurt is now the building official.
I know him very well from COCM and all the classes we take.
And if there's any questions that you have for me,
I'd be glad to entertain 'em at this time.
Thank you. Thank you again, appreciate your, uh, coming
to introduce yourself, uh, Ms. Harris.
And after Ms. Harris is Mr. Vander Lenin.
Hi. I would, um, I had a different, uh,
topic I wanted to talk about,
but I was really struck by, uh,
the general fund expenditure report and Ms.
Moore's comments to Mr. Fox.
Why would we ask someone a group,
the DDA spending a lot of money every month
to only give us quarterly expenditure reports?
Seems to me that that should be included in your monthly
or biweekly, at least monthly, not quarterly.
How are we gonna keep track of anything?
And it, it just, it just doesn't sound right.
It, um, it needs to, it needs
to happen every month.
And Mr. Fox, as the financial director of the city,
you know better and you know what's happened
and we can couch it all in really nice language.
But it needs, we need transparency.
We need it from every department and especially the DA
because they're getting ready to try something else.
And if you're not stopping them,
they're gonna keep doing this.
If you don't tell them, this is the expectation that we have
to be transparent.
It has to go in every month.
We have to provide our expenditures to the city
because I've been to DDA meetings
and if they're canceled the agenda,
that doesn't, the items don't come back on the next agenda.
So somehow money got spent, agreements got made, uh,
motions were passed and not in a meeting.
So we need to do better.
Mr. Fox, the DDA needs to do better. Thank you
Mr. Vander Lenin.
Joel Lan, longtime worn resident
going over the, uh, agenda.
There's a thing there
about a coffee house at City Hall.
Was there a bid process? No.
Why was there not a bid?
The mayor gets to put her own favorite coffee
house inside there.
Maybe if it was put out for bid, we'd have,
uh, better choices.
Maybe Donald Trump would like
to put a coffee house some more.
Mr. Vander. Len. And just as a reminder,
this is agenda items specifically.
Isn't that an agenda item? I Don't believe so.
I'm sorry. I don't believe so.
The coffee house is not an agenda item.
Yeah, it's it's was on the DDA agenda sometime ago ago.
Well, that brings me up to another point.
If you have something related
to the agenda, you go for it.
Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Watts hit on Zuniga.
I think we need to have a, uh, uh, a new point of
reference, whatever that
before you can bid on a contract,
your other contracts must be completed
and approved and fixed.
I mean, this guy's got three, uh, things
that are under warranty but aren't working well.
The roads look like hell Barn comes to mind.
Cosgrove's another one.
Why are we allowing this man to get more contracts?
And whether this other stuff is not finished properly.
I would like to see a change.
I had like to see a change and,
and, uh, some other things too.
One minute. Mr. Vander Lenon.
Thank you. I'm, I'm sorry. You're okay.
I'll leave it at that. It's a shame that you guys voted
for Zuniga again, why it wasn't taken off.
The agenda is beyond my mind
after the stink you guys had last month
or last two weeks ago.
And why this coffee house is not bided out properly
to all the Warren citizens.
And I personally think the DDA should be in an elected
position because there's taxation without representation.
Thank you.
Okay. That is the end of audience. Next item.
Next item is nine A
a DA 35th anniversary resolution.
Motion to approve support Lafferty. Thank you Madam Chair.
Ms. Moore resolution commemorating the 35th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Whereas on July 26th, 1990,
president George HW Bush signed into law the Americans
with Disabilities Act, landmark Civil rights legislation
that prohibits discrimination against individuals
with disabilities in all areas of public life,
including employment, education, transportation, and public
and private places open to the general public.
And whereas the A DA has served as a national mandate
to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities
and to ensure equal opportunity, full participation,
independent living and economic self-sufficiency
for all individuals regardless
of physical or mental ability.
And whereas the 35th anniversary
of the A DA offers an important opportunity
to reflect upon the significant progress
that has been made in removing barriers
and increasing access
and inclusion, while also recognizing
that the work toward a more accessible
and equitable society continues.
And whereas the Warren City Council is committed
to upholding the principles and protections of the a DA
and to promoting policies, programs,
and infrastructure that improve access, inclusion,
and opportunity for all residents, including those
with disabilities.
And whereas we recognize
and celebrate the advocacy contributions
and achievements of individuals with disabilities,
their families, and the many organizations
and allies who have fought tirelessly
for equal rights representation and dignity.
Now therefore, be it resolved at the Warren City Council on
behalf of the residents of the city of Warren,
does hereby commemorate the 35th anniversary
of the Americans With Disabilities Act
and reaffirms its commitment to ensuring a community
that is accessible, inclusive,
and welcoming for people of all abilities.
Resolution declared, adopted this 22nd day
of June, 2025.
And I would note that, um, today we have on our agenda, um,
a program, uh, to improve the infrastructure, uh, at
how much park to it is, how much isn't it?
How much park, um, to, um,
offer accessibility, um, to those with disabilities.
So it's very fitting that that's on our agenda tonight.
And of course, I can't talk about a DA ever without
mentioning Tony Baker,
who has been certainly the most vocal advocate in the city.
Um, of course, Ms. Harris helps them at the meetings, um,
by bringing that to our attention so that we never forget
that we have an obligation to make our city, um, accessible
for everyone with a disability.
So for all of the, the work that everyone does, um, trying
to, um, help with compliance
and, um, letting everybody know what they need to know
and especially to, to Tony for certainly personally all
that you have done to educate me.
Thank you. You're here. All in favor? Aye. Aye.
Any opposed, Madam Chair? Yes.
Uh, I would like to announce that, uh,
we have discussed this
for several years, or I think several.
Um, the library at Underwood Park has been approved
by the Library Commission,
and so we hope, uh, it's over on our next council agenda
to, uh, for of council to do the final, uh, vote for that.
So I am, uh, anxiously awaiting that so
that we can get rolling on that.
Those people have waited for a long, long time, uh, for this
to happen, and it's, uh, very exciting to me.
Certainly. And I think everybody up here
that's been involved for certainly at least three years,
I think, maybe more so.
Thank you. Any, any other announcements?
Madam Chair? Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you. I'd like
to announce the Warren Civic Theater will be a featuring
everyone's favorite ogre on stage,
and it'll be Shrek the musical
that will be taking place here in the Warren Community
Center auditorium, uh, August 1st through third
and eight through 10.
Uh, so two weekends in a row.
The show's on Friday and Saturday are at 7:00 PM
and the Sunday shows are at 3:00 PM Uh,
this is an all ages show, uh,
all ages on stage and in the audience.
And tickets range from $10 to $20.
You can purchase your tickets as always.
and@warrencivic.org, get them fast.
This show will sell out guaranteed. Thank you.
Any other announcements? Yeah, I'm sure Ms. Moore,
just a clarification if I could.
Mr. Burden, you were entirely correct.
There was a typo on the agenda
and that, uh, uh, expires in 2028, not 2020.
It was just a typo, but thank
you for pointing that out to us.
Thank you. That's all. Hearing and seeing.
No more announcements. Next item.
Next item is 11, a consideration
and adoption of a resolution authorizing the submission
of the community project funding grant agreement
and creation of a special revenue fund in the amount
of $1 million for a DA compliance improvement.
Motion to approve with discussion
Support. Lafferty.
Discussion Ms. Moore? Thank you.
I just wanna clarify that, uh, we actually had, uh,
the incorrect backup, I think that went online
and we do have the correct, um, backup.
Now, I gave a copy to Mr. Um, uh, Lafferty as well.
I think he's on the Parks and Rec Commission.
Um, and he might have something to say about this,
but, uh, just to clarify, um, this is,
um, we had the wrong backup.
Thank you. Any other discussion?
Madam Chair? Mr. Lafferty?
Uh, Ms. Moore, the, uh, $1 million, this is through,
uh, we have the a DA compliance
and we also have, uh, parks
and rec improvements for $1 million.
So are those, are those two? Are we recognizing ask Mr.
Castana Or Rick through the chair?
Two, Mr. Fox, Mr. Fox.
Just wanna make sure we're, what we're voting on here.
R Richard Fox City controller.
Yeah, there was confusion in this.
Uh, parks and Recreation is a separate one.
This particular revenue source is the, is through HUD
and the A for a DA compliance.
So it's just recognize putting the, uh, fund together
and putting the revenue in there.
Okay. And that, thank you.
And then I'll ask for, uh, detail from Mr. Casa.
Good evening. Good evening, sir.
Uh, so with the, the $1 million, uh,
that has been received, uh, what are we going to see
at, at Helme Park?
Okay. Um, the grant that,
that we're talking about now is gonna be an upgrade
of the playscape removal
and replacement of, uh,
a DA compliant playscape at Mage Park.
Okay. That's,
So The, the other grant that is on the agenda is
for a LEO grant of a million dollars.
And that grant, um, is a UN-match grant as well.
And we are going to utilize that grant to,
for three replacements, uh, JC Park, uh, rents Park,
and Ultra Mat Parks place gates.
Okay. And I'll get to that one later in the, okay. Okay.
But this one in particular, just so
that we're not confusing the two, this one's specifically
for the play scape at Helmich?
That is correct. Alright.
And in comparison to, we have several different play scapes,
uh, across the city that you've installed
that are a DA compliant uh, yes.
Licked Lick Park was, uh, one of the most recent.
That is correct, yes. Alright.
And as far as accessibility, right from the, the parking,
uh, the parking area and there's a path, right?
That is right. Alright.
And that path has to have a certain,
a limitation on inclination.
So somebody can roll through with a, a wheelchair
or assisted device mm-hmm.
And then they can access the play area.
Right. What we're the plan is for Helm is
to remove all the play scapes.
There's actually three different play scapes there, uh,
one on the north south and the middle.
The major place scape is the barn structure play scape,
which is the main play scape.
Um, all of this is gonna be removed,
but this place scape is gonna replace the center one
where the barn apparatuses
and we are making plans for connections to the parking lot,
which will be, the playscape will actually be closer
to the parking lot for a DA compliance.
Terrific. So we're looking at about a a million dollar,
$800,000 playscape, which is kind of the,
the going rate these days on these playscapes.
So this one we're gonna, being that is a community park,
we're gonna step this one up a little bit too.
We're looking at designs right now,
but it's gonna be a replacement of that place gate.
Alright. Thank you for the extra detail. You're welcome.
Appreciate that. Welcome. And, uh, I also want
to thank you a number of times.
I get calls from residents that, uh,
live within close proximity to certain parks,
and they are our eyes and ears in the neighborhood.
And I often hear about something happening in a park, uh,
long before, uh, somebody in the Parks and Rec staff does.
And Mr. Cassania, you are always on top of things,
simple text message and it gets taken care of.
So I know that our residents appreciate it.
They are always very happy, whether it's a swing replacement
or a overflowing garbage bin, uh, you take care
of it. So thank you. Thank
You Madam President.
Mr. Lafferty, are
You I'm, I'm mute. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Nunan? Yes. Uh, director Casa Santis.
Thank you. So I, I'm not very, uh, familiar with the prices
of, um, playscapes.
I know that they tend to be expensive.
It seems to me like $850,000 for
the playground equipment
and 150 for administration planning.
Seems like a lot of money.
Can you, can you tell me, is it, is this so that people
with more different types of disabilities can enjoy it,
that it's like actually like a few different types
of play scapes in one?
Or how, how does that come to be?
Because, well, there, I have to tell you, I I'm,
I'm mystified by that.
Alright. Um, any play scape that is built has
to be a DA compliance.
Um, the one
that we just completed at Lake Park is called a universal
play, which has what they call a pouring play base.
So that gives more of a, a drop zone area for the kids.
Um, and basically for every activity there's has
to be one in five for somebody that it has, um, um,
a handicap or otherwise.
So going forward, all the place keeps our a DA,
some are better than others,
but they all fit under the a DA compliance.
So the one that we're looking at to build at
how much will most likely have the drop fault material than
what they call fiber fill.
That looks like, um, like wood chips.
So it's a better system to go through. It lasts longer.
Uh, the technology is a lot better.
Um, it does increase the cost of play scapes tremendously,
but it's, uh, proven to be a better long term, um,
material than just a fiber fill, which is high maintenance.
It has to be replaced every year.
So those additional costs for those playscapes is
because of the drop fault material.
Would, uh, how much, um, a DA compliant playground
be more spectacular
for kids needing such a thing than other
ones in the city? Well,
We, we look at 'em.
We, we try to, you know, I,
this is gonna be I think my sixth I built here in this city,
and we kinda look at 'em to, to offer something
for all the kids and everyone.
So by law, we have to offer from toddlers to the age of 13.
So all play scapes will have that, that ability to do that.
Um, if you take a look at veterans,
it's a little different play scape.
It's like more of a rope challenge course.
And we thought that'd be a good location
because if that's too intimidating, intimidating
for some children, there's short distances to go
to other parks for, uh, the play scape
or using a different play scape.
But we're getting, uh, great reviews
about the one that we built.
Actually, the one at Lick has just been
open about a month ago.
And the one at veterans, we, uh, finished it this spring.
And we're getting rays on both of those place games.
I, I guess there needs to be a guide
so the parents will know, like which one will be the, uh,
the best for them or, or, or, uh,
Well, there, there, every play scape
that we built is there will be play
for any individual child.
Okay. Yeah, for sure.
And that's by law we have to do that. But,
But the one at Arsenal, for instance,
is probably harder to get to.
It. It, it poses more of a challenge,
uh, for the older kids.
But there are apparatus within
that place gate for the younger kids.
Okay. Well thank you for
This. I hope that clarifies
what you're asking.
It's, it's getting me there.
Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
Okay. Field
Anything further?
Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Boye?
Yes. Mr. Noonan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item. Next item is 11 B.
Consideration and adoption
of a resolution approving amendments to 2022.
2023.
Housing and community development action plans, Haua budgets
so moved, support Lafferty discussion,
hearing, and seeing none.
I'll call the question. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Boy? Yes. Mr. Newan? Yes. Ms. Wiki? Yes.
Rogan C is? Yes. Motion carries.
Next item 11 C, consideration
and adoption of a resolution approving network.
Use agreement with Comcast. Motion to table
Support to table Call The question.
This is to table. Uh, Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. To table. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. To table. Mr. Bokey?
Yes. Uh, Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
The table Rogan C is a yes. Items table,
Point of point of clarification, uh, to date certain.
One month. One month.
Next item. Next item is 11 D,
which is authorizing the city treasurer
to open a money market account
with JP Morgan Chase Bank entitled City of Warren,
a RP stimulus funds. So moved.
Support Lafferty. Discussion, hearing scene.
Now I'll call the question. Mr. 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 12 A, um,
which was tabled July 22nd.
20. No, no, it wasn't. Table two. July 22nd, 2025.
Proposed ordinance to amend chapter two of the ordinance use
of the city seal and city logo.
This would be a second reading.
Do we need E? Is that, that's,
That's in, There's
13. Thank you Chief.
Sorry for my confusion. That's fine. Uh,
Madam Chair.
Uh, in fact, uh,
what is the proper procedure?
I have, uh, a number of changes.
I'd like to ret this for another two weeks.
So we wanna take it off the table,
read the changes, and then put it
Back in. Put it back on. So
I'll make a motion to remove from the table. We're
Not gonna make the changes tonight.
No, we're not gonna make changes Tonight.
He just wants to just leave
it on the table. You, I
Mean, well, I guess we can leave it on the table then
I would leave It on the table. Okay.
Okay. Yeah.
Next item. Next item is 12 B.
Request to review
and ratify the collective bargaining agreement between GELC,
supervisors Union and the city of Warren Motion to approve
Support Lafferty Discussion.
Thank you. Madam Chair. Ms. Moore, just, uh, hats off
to everybody that got this done.
I are, we we're, we're over halfway through, right?
Mr. Fox with our contracts, we, what do we have left?
Command and fire.
Oh, did we, did we do UAW?
Richard Fox City controller?
Yeah, we're, we've got four complete
and we've got still command, uh, unit, uh, 35, unit 59.
And um, fire,
What is 59?
35 is city attorneys. City
Attorneys. 59 is more
of the technical people.
A lot of them in my office.
Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Good job.
Thank you. 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. Newan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is? Yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12 C. Counsel, secretary Mindy Moore.
Discussion in Ray, legal opinion on remote participation
and open meetings Act.
So move with discussion. Support Lafferty Discussion, Ms.
Mark. Thank you. Um,
th this issue came up at the DA meeting
and I think it's come up in other commissions, perhaps, um,
of whether someone can participate in a mo in a meeting
and vote remotely.
Um, we can all participate remotely
or by telephone listening, but we can't actually vote.
Um, so I would like to, um, direct Mr. Schroeder
for a legal opinion, uh, about that.
Um, and I, I understand that there are circumstance stances
where you can appear remotely if you have a disability
that's recognized by the A DA, for instance.
Um, but, uh, if we could direct Mr.
I have a preliminary response. Okay. Oh, Mr.
Schroer, go ahead.
Saw this on the agenda. Uh, microphone.
Uh, it says The late, can't hear you. Nope.
This one is a dud. Okay. Use Mr. Latter.
All right. So I did some preliminary
look research into this.
And essentially the Open Meetings Act requires now
participation in person like we have here tonight.
And there is,
there is one exception under the Open Meetings Act,
which is active duty military service.
So that's the only exception.
There was a period of a few years during the COVID, uh,
emergencies where remote participation was allowed.
I first met many of you on a screen, so
that's no longer allowed.
The legislature changed that.
There is the ability, according
to the Michigan Attorney General, for someone
who has a qualifying disability under the a DA
to formally request an accommodation to participate remotely
as a member of that board.
And, um, the board would then have to approve
that request for an accommodation.
It would have to be a legitimate, um,
disability under the act.
I will put this in writing and forward it to the council
for further consideration.
Well, thank you. I, I think we dealt
sometime in the last year,
and I, if I remember correctly,
we had pulled some ordinances from the past
where previous city council had approved, um,
appearing by telephone and we rescinded those.
I think there was some bylaws of the DDA
or some other agency that the bylaws allowed maybe TFA
telephonic participation.
Um, there was a period of time 20 years ago where, um,
there was a line of thinking
where this may have been permitted.
It's definitely not permitted now. So
I think we re we did rescind the actions
of counsel having to do with that.
I think sometime in the last year.
'cause we pulled those old, um, ordinances.
I think there were two of them perhaps.
Um, so we just want to get that clear
because you can't, um,
we can't miss something on this agenda.
And I call everybody
and say, Hey, are you okay with paying Mr.
Vander Linden's refund on his water bill?
You know, we can't make that vote
unless we're together here.
So, um, I don't know if you have a refund coming or not, Mr.
Vander. Linden, I hope you do.
Um, but just let's just get a formal, um, opinion on that,
and then we can share it with all of the commissions
and authorities within the city,
so we're all operating under the correct rules.
I appreciate that question, Ms. McGee.
Uh, you said a board would approve,
what board were you speaking of?
Whatever board you're serving on. Oh, okay.
So if it was a council member, the council would approve it.
If you were on the dda a, the DDA A could approve it.
It's a little bit tricky because you're dealing
with someone's potential, maybe health condition and whether
or not it qualifies under the A DAI will give a written
instructions, uh,
based on the Michigan Attorney general opinion
and related law.
There's federal case law on this as well.
Um, and, uh, I'll provide that to the council
and, uh, I'll talk to Ms.
Michaels about it as well.
Uh, we know are communicating very well. So
Thank you Madam President.
Mr. Nunan. So, uh, the only commission that I know of
that seems to be out of line on this one is the DDA.
And, um, I don't recall ever hearing any discussion
from them as to whether they should allow someone
to participate, um, by phone.
They just, as at the very last meeting,
I think there was one or two people
I wasn't quite sure actually, um, participating
by phone if that was true.
And if that's not legal, I think it's state law
that makes it not legal.
Well, the Michigan Open Meetings Act is the law
that requires in-person, you know, participation in voting.
So it's state law. Yes. State law.
It totally supersedes anything at, at our level. Right,
Right. But a federal
law could supersede a state law,
the American with Disabilities Act.
Okay. Yes.
So, um, if they had someone who,
who couldn't make the meeting for that reason,
they could still participate if they were, if they went
through the procedure that you're talking about
The, through that procedure
and assuming that the condition is a qualifying disability.
Right. Uhhuh like, um, you know,
food poisoning probably wouldn't, that's not a disability.
Right. So I'm just picking something random
that someone might look, I I'm sick today.
I can't make the meeting. I'm calling in Uhhuh,
I want to vote remotely.
That's not a qualifying disability. Yeah.
Just as a an example.
Okay. So probably, uh, this shouldn't be used for the DA.
Well, I can't say it should or shouldn't it.
It's the, it's a very individual
based determination.
And as the legal opinion will show, uh, each fact
and circumstance need to be considered separately.
And the ultimate question is,
do you have a qualifying disability?
You're requesting an accommodation.
So the a DA protects the rights of people
who have disabilities.
Right? Right. And so if I have some sort of condition
that qualifies as a disability,
and I can't come to the meeting to say I have a, a condition
that I'm immunocompromised
and, um, this fits the definition of disability.
Mm-hmm. And if I show to the meeting, up to the meeting,
I'm putting my life at risk because I'm new compromise.
And this is a condition qualifying,
I'm requesting an accommodation as a board member
to participate remotely.
It's an accommodation under federal law.
So it doesn't matter that the Open Meetings Act says you,
you, you have to participate in person.
What matters is you have rights under federal law,
you're requesting an accommodation,
and then accommodation needs to be considered and granted.
Okay. Okay. So, uh, we have a recommended process for
that. Great. So
I look forward to seeing that. Yes.
Madam Chair. Thank you. Just to, I think Mr.
Um, Schroeder will confirm this in the event
that a vote was taken, which violated the Open Meetings Act,
that doesn't negate that vote.
Correct. So we're not worrying about
Well, it can, we've seen that happen here
before with the marijuana committee that met in private.
It can negate it, but there are certain things you can, if
it's an inadvertent situation,
you can certainly reenact the,
the Open Meetings Act has an interesting
provision about reenactment.
So let's say someone participated remotely,
let's say they approved a contract.
Okay. This contract's moving forward,
the city's paying the vendor and a citizen complaints.
They go to the county prosecutor and say,
or they file a lawsuit saying there's an Open
Meetings Act violation.
There's a provision allowing the board to, without penalty,
go back and meet the council, the board, whoever it is,
and reenact their vote in person
as a sort of a corrective measure.
So there is sort of a, a procedure to correct that. Okay.
But somebody that has a contract, for instance Yeah.
Their contract isn't null and void. Right.
Because we find out there was a violation. Right. Not
Necessarily be, and also keep
in mind, if you had a, a board,
I want people freaking out that
If the council, if the council had seven members
and someone was participating remotely, and they're voting,
and the the matter passes seven to nothing.
I mean, but if there's not much harm.
But if it was passed by one vote, if
It was a quorum being made by that one person's
Vote. But the, the issue
with the marijuana committee from 2019
that was found in violation.
They were all meeting in secret.
The whole board was meeting in secret. Right.
So that was the problem.
Madam President. Thank you Mr. Newton.
So, um, if they're achieving quorum by someone
participating remotely who doesn't qualify to do that,
then they actually didn't have quorum.
Correct.
I, that, that's probably true,
Because I think that might've
been happening at the last meeting.
That's probably true. Unless, so
I hope, I hope we get this cleared up.
Yeah. As I wouldn't Yeah.
I I I wouldn't want their process
to be messed up just because of that.
Yeah. Okay. Well, I do it right.
Mad chair, Mr. Wiki,
Uh, for Mr. Schroeder, how does one
prove it's a justified
disability without violating HIPAA laws
and that person's legal, uh,
a right not to disclose it
similar to the care edible,
Certainly. Um,
I talked about a forthcoming memo.
There's a procedure where, I mean,
someone's gonna have to review this, right?
But not necessarily the public.
So there's a procedure where it could be the HR department
or legal counsel,
or somebody who is designated to review, just
to make sure this is a bonafide request.
Meaning there is a true bonafide disability under the a DA,
you're requesting an accommodation.
This happens in the workplace all the time. It happens.
The a DA provides an accommodation.
Uh, but you have to show that you're entitled to it.
And you can protect, for the most part,
the individual's privacy under the health laws.
So, for example, if, I don't know, Mr.
Vander, Linden wanted to FOIA this information, um,
he wouldn't get the health records.
They would be exempt from a foia.
But the fact that you were able to go through this process
and make sure, and determine this person qualified
for the disability before it was approved, that can be done.
Um, it's, you know, we're trying to balance a state law
that says one thing and a federal law that says another.
And making sure that someone's actually entitled to that
is something that the city, the board
or the council will have to go through.
And someone's going to have to look at it
and make that determination, um,
because, you know, food poisoning isn't gonna cut it
or some other conditions.
So if a council member or resident,
or wants anyone wants to challenge you, make a complaint,
you probably should refer it to the City Attorney's Office
and h Human Resources for
Yes. Okay.
Yes. And we can work on a procedure for that
to protect the health privacy of any individual.
But at some point, if you're requesting an accommodation
from a public body, somebody's going to have to review it.
Thank you. You're back.
Thank you. There was an interesting debate in Congress
because historically, the House
of Representatives didn't have women of childbearing age.
And they're trying to allow for remote participation.
'cause they have to travel to DC obviously,
after they've had a baby, and they're not allowing it.
But it was a very similar debate where they were trying
to vote by proxy or by phone, uh, while they were home
with their, their newborns.
So it's happening other places. Great.
Any other discussion? Okay. Hearing and scene? None.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes.
Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item. MS 12 D Council Secretary Mindy Moore.
Discussion in Ray Warren City Charter Amendment.
A proposal to authorize the mayor
to make interim interim appointments
and extend the appointments with the approval
of the council consideration and adoption of a resolution.
So moved with discussion support Lafferty.
Discussion Ms. Moore. Thank you.
Um, uh, a while back, the charter review, um, committee met
and discussed items that, um, we thought we would want
to put place on this, um, year's, um, ballot.
And as you know, all of you are aware, um,
we have been faced with a situation of these
acting positions that we had never really seen before.
Certainly in my time at the city, I'd never really seen
that except for a very short period of time.
Um, and we think, you know, we need
to have a procedure to cover that.
And not everybody that comes in, um, to office, um,
has a team ready to go on day one.
I, you know, most in the past that has happened.
But, um, not everybody's going
to have that network of people.
And so there should be a procedure in place.
So this amendment, um, would allow the mayor
to make a provisional or maybe Mr.
Schroer, you wanna explain it? You're better than me.
Oh, I forgot. You have to borrow your microphone.
I I can say through going back 25 years,
there's been a history of interim appointments,
acting appointments that were very short
to keep the seat warm while someone was wrapping up
their prior job.
When I was in the city attorney's office,
the prior mayor appointed a city attorney.
This attorney had a private practice.
It took three or four weeks to wrap that up
to come be the city attorney.
There was an interim city attorney that was me.
And, uh, so it was a fun three weeks while it lasted.
Um, but there was really nothing in the charter at the time,
uh, to allow for this.
So if you look in the charter, it doesn't say anything about
acting interim appointments.
And so this, uh, formalizes that process.
And we also know that Warren has one of the shortest,
if not the shortest turnaround time
between the election and being sworn in.
Yeah. Week. So that doesn't allow any administration
or new counsel to get together
to make these types of decisions.
So, um, this is was brought up in the,
the March 25th meeting of the, um, charter review committee.
And the charter review committee went through this.
And we looked at other around the country,
multiple municipalities have provisions
for making interim appointments.
It usually involves the executive
and the legislative branch getting together.
This proposal allows the mayor to freely appoint any acting
or interim department head as long
as they're an existing city employee for three months.
And, um, and then if it, it allows
for a three month extension,
but that extension will require council approval.
But the whole idea is that all along, you're doing a search,
you're, you're doing a process to get a permanent person.
And ultimately that individual who is acting, uh,
could also just be appointed to the position.
And, you know, in most cases, the mayor could just terminate
that person anyway if somehow they
found somebody new or didn't like it.
But this is giving like a six month runway
for acting in interim,
which was more generous than most of the ones I saw.
But I, I think the charter revision committee, uh, wanted
to, uh, have something that was gonna be workable
and not, uh, put too many restrictions on
the administration at the same time. Yeah.
I mean, we have, um, you know, we wanna give a, a,
a mayor time that they need, but also put a limit on it
because it also impedes the work
of council when you don't have people permanently in place.
It impedes the operation of the city in a lot of ways.
So I think this is fair to everybody.
Um, I will make the backup.
I, there is a correction to be made.
It does say the 11 4 20 24, um, election,
and it should be 2025.
We're not doing this retroactively. We don't have a Yeah.
So that's that Ms. Pinky.
Um, my only concern is, is
that if we allow those three months time,
what is the average time to to, to locate
or get someone to take their place?
Um, I know we have our HR director here, um, at the time,
it's now taking six months to place someone.
So if we say there's three months
and she cannot find them within
that certain six months time, do we keep extending
for another three months on the approval of city council?
Um, because you, you may not be able to find someone to take
that position within even a year.
I would point out these are for appointed positions,
only appointed for the, um, the, the,
the options are under this pro
proposal is you have six months
and then you can always appoint, as I said,
you could always just appoint that person who is interim
and you can continue your search.
Um, but they have to go
through the formal appointment process under 7.6
where the mayor makes the appointment
and the council has two meetings
to reject it if there's a reason.
And, and they could still sort of be, I mean,
I guess they're all interim at the end of the day, right?
Because the mayor can terminate any
of these department heads, um,
other than maybe the city attorney, which requires counsel,
assessor and assessor.
But all the other department
and division heads, the mayor has the ability to
terminate them for any
or no reason, um, any legal reason or no reason at all.
If it's just not working out, they're not in the union.
They're not civil service. They don't have that protection.
So this is just a way to formalize this
acting interim label process.
Um, certainly if this language is subject to voter approval
as well, this would go on the ballot
and the voters would have to approve it.
If the voters approve it,
it would become part of the charter.
If the voters turn it down, then we would just continue
with this situation where acting an interim doesn't exist.
It's not in the charter. For some, for whatever reason,
they never decided to, to address that issue.
So, um, you know, if you wanted
to continue doing three month extensions, I mean,
that would be up to the council if you wanted to, uh,
amend this to, to add that
keep coming back every three months.
Um, but this is how it came from the, uh,
charter committee. Yeah.
Yes. Madam President,
Ms. McGee, anything further? No, Mr. Nunan.
So I, I think part of this discussion is that it,
the way it's worked out recently is
that it's not always very fair.
Uh, for instance, Mary Michael's, um,
it's isn't that a bad situation?
She's not getting all the benefits of one
or the other really from that.
So I think it's to, uh,
keep the city from being in an awkward position with,
uh, key employees.
Madam Chair, I, I'll actually with the city attorney,
it is absolutely prohibited under the union contract
to have an acting city attorney for more than four months.
So it's not just nothing in the charter providing for it.
It is actually against the, the, uh, in the marketing unit.
Right. So UAW
For a whole bunch of reasons.
Right, right. But that, that's a separate situation. Yeah.
That is the only, and I I'm guessing that that is part
of the contract is
because the city attorney usually is the first appointment
under any administration, usually
the city attorney and the assessor.
Because for some, in the framer's minds,
those were the two most important positions in the city,
city attorney assessor.
The one that takes care of the taxation
and the legal affairs.
And so that typically, in fact, you know, almost every
first night of every council is the city attorney acts
as the chairperson of the meeting.
And, you know, the, the, the potential appointee, uh, acts
as the chairperson of the meeting.
And then once the officers are voted on, then the,
that officer takes,
and then the first vote
of the first night is the city attorney.
And sometimes the assessor, I think usually, um,
and sometimes they're holdover.
You know, there's somebody from one that's like, I think Mr.
Constance was voted for about 20 years.
So five terms of council,
and, you know, um, that's not always the case.
You know, some terms,
I think there were many city attorneys under
the last administration.
So I, but I think this, you know, this is sort of,
and we've talked about this ad nauseum about, um, Ms.
Michaels has been doing the job
for a long time and doing a good job.
She's been very fair to all of us,
and I think we have a good working relationship and,
and it's time for her to be appointed.
Thank you. And I will clarify
that this is 2025, once again on the, the, um,
resolution. Any other discussion?
Madam Chair? Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you. While I, I support the,
the measure going on the ballot, uh, to Ms.
McGee's point, I'm, I'm only in favor of the one extension
of the, the three months.
If, if it's needed for a total of six months not to exceed.
That's, that's the limit.
But this is, this is a grace period.
That's all we're talking about.
This is a grace period from the
beginning of an administration.
I have absolutely zero confidence that
in November, if, if the voters choose to pass this,
that it will compel the mayor to follow her oath of office
and complete her appointments.
I, I can not one single administration
in the history that I can remember of this city
has a council ever faced an incomplete administration.
And we're, we're in 2025.
We're two years, nearly two whole years into
this, this term.
And the mayor has an incomplete administration.
That is completely unacceptable. This will not remedy that.
This allows for provisional appointments
and it codifies it, which isn't, it's a necessary revision.
I absolutely agree with that,
but it's not going to cure this problem.
Thank you.
Any additional discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C is? Yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13 a, uh, which was, uh,
tabled once again on July 8th, 2025.
Proposed resolution providing public notice of intent
to sell vacant tax reverted property at 28 0 3 Wellington,
Warren, Michigan for $1, uh, to be combined
with 2 0 8 0 9 Wellington Approving Sale,
following a 30 day notice period
and accepting grant of easement, rights, consideration,
and adoption of a resolution.
Um, um,
items on the table?
It, it is, but I wanna make a comment
and I don't know how to do it
without taking it off the table.
I don't think you can. I'm gonna take it off the table
for dis remove from the table.
For discussion only support, this is, uh,
a vote on removing the item from the table.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan C? Yes.
Uh, item is off the table. We need a motion and support.
Motion. Motion to approve for discussion support
Lafferty for discussion Only.
Discussion, Ms. Moore? Thank you.
It is, um, often in the city's best interest
to sell vacant parcels of land adjacent to property owners.
As I understand it, each parcel is appraised individually.
Often the property only has value to a neighbor,
whether it's a business or, um, uh, a home.
So, following the appraised value isn't always going
to be the best way for us to base the value we are willing
to sell the property for.
In addition to the appraised value, the cost
of administrative processing
and legal review should be factored into the
final sale price.
We should establish a minimum administrative fee
to be applied to the sale of each parcel.
And Mr. Schroeder, I would direct this to you.
Um, how do we best address this issue
For the $1 sale of
tax Verted property For like a neighbor,
Right. Commercial or residential?
So, you know, it's, it's much on, it's,
it's probably valued at, I'd have
to look it up, but it's got a value.
Um, but there is a cost that the city
attorney's office spends time preparing paperwork
or sometimes plannings involved.
Economic development is involved. So there is a fee.
So there should be administrative, um, fee, a fixed amount,
or based on the value
or some sort of way to come up with that.
There should be a minimum of, you know, whether it's $225
or whatever.
I think, you know, that's, we can figure out
how much time it takes actually.
Uh, I think we could maybe ask for an estimate as to
what the cost is and just add an administrative fee.
It could still be, um, a sale for a dollar with the,
uh, an administrative fee attached to it.
I see what you're saying. Yeah.
But I think it can be a reasonable fee. Right.
Um, you know, I would recommend a flat fee for these type
of things rather than Right.
You know, a separate fee for each one. Right.
Maybe a fee schedule. Right.
Um, and, uh, I, that would be my first thought
On it. Could you maybe work
with Ms. Michaels and, um mm-hmm.
Come up with, sure.
Okay. Yes. So that would be, then my motion would be
to ask Mr. Schroeder to work with the administration
to come up with some sort of flat fee to cover that.
So This is a second motion. This is a, a second.
This is a, you're sending this motion over? Yes.
To the administration. So, yes.
So that's my, I'm making a separate motion to send this item
to Mr. Schroeder to deal with, with the administration,
and then I would go back to the agenda item. Alright,
I'll, I'll second that motion.
Okay. Then we can vote on that. Yeah. And then we go back.
Everyone clear on what we're voting on? Yes. Okay.
Uh, 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 to Table the motion carried.
And motion to table Item 13 A,
Uh, to date certain.
Uh, August 12th.
August 12th. Any discussion? Uh, no.
No discussion on a tabling motion. I will call the question.
Ms. Moore. Yes. Sorry. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. To table.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. To table. Mr. Bokey? Yes.
Mr. Newan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes. Rogan cse? Yes.
Motion carries. Items tabled. Next item.
Next item is 13 B, which we remain tabled to July 8th.
And again, now, proposed resolution, providing public notice
of intent to sell six tax reverted properties
at 23,184 Beerman.
72 75 Dodge and 72 79 Dodge 68 98 Lozier.
68 89 Republic and 68 99 Republic.
Okay, this item stays on the table.
Next item 13 C.
Request to approve an ordinance
for the wastewater treatment, plant improvements
and issuance and sale of public utility system,
junior lien revenue bonds,
and the collection of revenue sufficient
to finance the repayment of said bonds, consideration
and adoption of a resolution.
So moved with discussion
Support, with discussion,
Discussion, Ms. Moore and the Ms.
La Thank you. Um, uh, Madam Chair, I was gonna ask Mr. Fox
to come up and explain what we're doing. Okay.
Good evening Council. Richard Fox, city controller.
So this is part of the process that we've gone through
for the treatment plan for the Incinerator project.
So, as you're aware, we originally were, uh, approved
for a SRF loan for $75 million and,
and just under 10 million was gonna, was forgivable.
Well, as you're aware, the bids came in
and they were more than the 75 million.
So the next process was we had
to get approval from the state,
and if they had excess funds, then we were, we,
we were requesting a hundred million dollars.
Um, they did approve that they had excess funds.
So now we're, um, approved for a hundred million at 2%.
The, um, um, $10 million
that we don't have to pay is still part of that,
um, agreement.
And so this bond resolution is to adopt that ordinance
so we can sell the a hundred million dollars in bonds.
And I do have this evening, Steve Burke
and Ronald Comb from Miller Campfield
and Steve Burke from MFCI.
Um, if there's any more detailed questions.
Thank you. Any additional discussion?
Madam Prison? Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you, uh, through the chair to, uh, bond counsel.
That's fine. Mr. Burke.
Good evening. My name is Ron Lisk.
I'm with Miller Canfield. I serve as city's bond council.
Good evening, sir. Good evening.
And so I'm, I'm looking at the, I'm the, uh,
bond schedule and we're looking at a,
is this a 30, 35 year schedule?
Yeah, the, the bonds were set up
to mature over 30 annual payments.
Uh, but the first payment would not be getting until 2029.
Okay.
And you, and this is fixed at 2%? Correct.
So the state revolving fund? That's correct. The SRF?
That's correct. Alright. So this is a little slightly
different than our, our typical bond bond process in
that we're usually going to a, uh, a federal institution,
a banking institution for, for our bonds.
Mm-hmm. For, for the sales.
This is done strictly through the state
and it's administered through the state?
Yes. The state revolving fund program is
administered through the state.
The, the funding for that comes actually from both
federal and state sources.
Um, but it's intended to provide low cost financing
for improvements to water and sewer systems.
Um, so, uh, this is,
you're not gonna find 2% on the open market right now.
Oftentimes you would go to the investing public
and you would engage in underwriting bank to sell the bonds
for a publicly offered deal.
This is a lower cost way of financing necessary improvements
for public health and safety.
Okay. And so, and,
and the, the, the, the first payment not being made
until 29, but the four year delay, uh,
could you comment on that please?
Yeah, so generally that's gonna be set up so
that the first payment doesn't have to begin until
after the project has been completed.
Okay. So under the program, you have to commence payments,
um, within one year of the initiation
of operation of the project.
Okay. Interesting.
Very good. Uh, I don't have any other questions.
I'm still, uh, tickled about the,
the $10 million write off that the state is giving the city.
Yes. So that's, that's a good deal.
So all in all, 90 million, uh, for reimbursement.
Yes.
Steven Burke from MFCI, uh, good to see everyone again.
Uh, Mr. Lafferty, you didn't ask one question
that I was really hoping you were gonna ask,
but I'm gonna give you the answer anyway.
Go Ahead. The difference
between doing this in the public market
and doing this through the state's program
was roughly $74 million in interest.
So that was the savings to the city by completing this
through the State's SRF program.
And because I know you
and your questions, I had that prepared,
and so I was gonna be
disappointed if I didn't get to tell you. Well,
Thank you.
Yeah, that was worth it. Thank you.
Any other discussion? Okay.
Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes. Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr.
Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee? Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is, thank you. Thank you.
Next item is 13 D, request of the Department of Parks
and Recreation to approve an increase in budgeted revenues
and appropriations in the amount of $1 million to account
for the receipt of a grant from the State
of Michigan's Department of Labor
and Economic opportunity for the purpose of parks
and recreation improvement, consideration,
and adoption of a resolution.
So moved. Support to where?
Discussion. Discussion. Mr. Lafferty?
Thank you. Through the chair to Mr. Cato.
Good evening, sir. Again. Good evening. Uh, alright.
Uh, two questions. One, the, uh, the funding,
are we rece it, it appears
that we're receiving the funds in total ahead of time?
No, uh, this is a non match.
Um, so I believe the funds are gonna go into the parks
account and then it's gonna be in reimbursement.
So it's a non-managed grant, so it's a million dollars
that the state's receiving.
Um, so once we start
making purchases
and then we'll get reimbursement on the grant.
I think, I believe this is how this one works.
Okay. We, we have a section on unobligated funds,
which led me to believe that if so, is it,
we wouldn't need unobligated funds provisioning.
If you're saying we spent a a hundred grand on this part
and 200 grand on this, they're going to write us a check
for exactly what we spent.
So with the reimbursement? Yes.
Okay. Alright. So I, that was the one clarification.
So we're not, we're not receiving a million
dollars in, in the bank.
Correct. Will be part and parcel throughout the project.
Yes. And final question is, uh,
where are you making these improvements?
Um, the, when we wrote the grant, um,
we looked at playscapes, um,
and three other parks that need to be replaced.
One of 'em is alter Mat Park. Mm-hmm.
The other one is jcs Park and Rents Park.
In addition to that, I think there's additional little
funding I don't have in front of me to complete a project
that we start, we starting this year, uh,
with Veterans Park, uh, for, um, uh, pickleball courts
and also, uh, basketball court.
We do have the funding for that.
Uh, we have a few dollars maybe we can put in, you know,
do an upgrade in the bathrooms or something else.
I haven't decided yet, but there is a little bit of funding
for Veterans Park in there.
Alright. Are those replacing the, the old racquetball, uh,
courts that are there?
I don't know if there was racquetball courts there.
These are gonna be new courts where the old pool used to be
Years. Same structure?
Yes, sir. Okay. Alright. Thank you. You're
Welcome. Madam
President. Aye, Ms. Mr. Newan,
I just, uh, wanted to mention that, um, this, this, uh,
grant of $1 million was sponsored by Senator Paul Bueno,
state Representative Donovan McKinney
and state representative Nate Shannon,
and to give them some credit and some thanks.
And, uh, thank you so much, director Casa Santos
for all this great work at our parks. You're
Welcome.
I Yield. Thank you. Any other discussion,
hearing and seeing that I'll call the question.
Uh, 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.
MS 13 E. Request to approve the appointment of Mark Paek
to the Arsenal Alliance Committee.
So move with the discussion.
Support Lafferty Madam
Chair. Discussion Ms. Moore. Thank
you.
Um, as everyone knows,
we have an intergovernmental agreement
with Sterling Heights.
Um, Sterling Heights appointed two members, city
of Warren appointed two members,
and then those four members chose the fifth person.
And that's Mr. Pasek.
Any other discussion,
hearing and seeing none?
I will call the question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty? Yes.
Mr. Dwyer? Yes. Mr. Bokey? Yes. Mr. Nunan? Yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes. Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries.
Next item 13 F, request for public alley vacation located
between Globe Avenue and Nale Street.
Approximately 100 feet south of nine Mile Road.
Section 35, 12,009 mile. Matt Nio.
Um, motion to approve with discussion
Support Lafferty with discussion.
Discussion Ms. Moore than Mr. Lafferty. Thank you.
Just to, um, explain, this is an extension
of a request.
I'm not sure why it's taken so long. Pardon me?
I got detail. Oh, you have the details. Okay. Mr.
Lafferty, you wanna explain it to the public?
So through the, since
We don't have anybody here from the
administration, apparently
Through the chair to Ms.
Michaels, please.
So during, during the, uh, initial portion
of our meeting, I received a message from Director Wirth
Planning department that this had not yet come
through planning department.
And so, uh, Ms.
Michaels, if you could please, uh, advise, uh,
what you're, what you're aware of.
Well, I've become aware that this is an extension.
I believe Ms. Camp has the backup.
I don't have a backup, but when there's a vacation
that's approved by city council, well,
the process is first there's a public hearing
before planning, then counsel adopts the resolution
actually vacating the public way.
Typically one of counsel's conditions is that within a year,
um, the petition petitioner would have to go
to circuit court and perfect the vacation circuit,
circuit court action.
It takes a lot of time. Sometimes the petitioner would like,
would come back to council's.
It'd start with a planning commission usually,
but it's the council resolution.
So in this case, they're going to council
and asking for more time.
I don't have the backup. I'm matter aware of
how much time is being requested.
Okay. But if more time is needed for that purpose,
that's within counsel's discretion.
Alright. Given that, uh, the planning departments, uh,
it, it did not go through planning and
Planning. Okay.
So request Ask us for an extension.
Mm-hmm. Alright, so I'm looking at a letter dated June 10,
request for public alley vacation from the planning
department from the secretary Terry.
And on June seven, the War
and Planning Commission recommended the approval
of the above-referenced vacation.
On August 10th, 2021,
counsel approved the public alley vacation.
And on May 28th, 2024, an extension was granted
to August 10th, 2025.
This letter will serve as notice that the
above caption approval shall expire on August 10th, 2025.
If you would like to reach out to city council
and request, they can grant up to a one year extension
of the public alley vacation approval.
Um, The,
but typically with a request from the planning department,
there's a recommendation if they were, you know,
recommending to approve or deny,
and then counsel will will vote with the, with the material
giving, giving direction.
They are a recommending body they're asking.
So this is really being just set in our lap
without a recommendation.
So is this the proper procedure?
If I may, yes.
Protocol is the Planning Commission made the
recommendation on all the conditions.
So it would be proper for the planning Commission
to make a recommendation on whether one
of those conditions should, should be changed
or altered, which in this case is an extension.
Uh, So according to
the request of the petitioner
from a Mohammed Neo, an associate at, uh,
Warner Norcross Plus, uh,
and Jude, they are representing,
uh, Matt Neo and Golden Wheat in the request
for a public alley vacation.
As stated, they believe an extension will be required as,
and I quote, we were retained
to assist in this matter recently.
It is taking us time to gather the required parties pursuant
to the statute and gather the re uh,
the consent conflict waivers from all applicable parties.
So it sounds like an administrative matter more so than, uh,
any issues with permitting Right.
Of way details. This is more administrative.
Correct. It seems like the law firm may be retained
to file the circuit court action, which is needed
to perfect the vacation.
Given that this appears to be more
of an administrative extension.
I don't have any, uh, any objection to it.
My objection is that this was not published on the agenda
in time and oh,
well, alright.
Yeah, I I won't object to this. I yield.
Thank you Ms. Michaels. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Okay. Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question.
Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Laffy? 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 resolution authorizing exemption
to Kiwanis Club of Warren, Michigan for the sale
and consumption of beer
and wine at City Square Park during Warren birthday Bash.
August 21 through August 24th, 2025. So moved.
Support Dwyer. Discussion,
hearing, and seeing none.
I 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 on general topics.
Members of the audience who would like
to address City Council may do so under the audience portion
by filling out a form, uh, in the basket there.
Uh, you have three minutes. This is for general topics.
First is Gary Watts and then Mary Matuski.
Ms. Sanker, if you want to, if, did you put your name in?
If not, I would put your name in. Thank mm-hmm.
Good evening again. So we'll start off
with last night did a little research.
I don't know the exact number,
but we're somewhere between 20 and 25 police officers.
Short, I searched the city website.
I searched m Coles. And there's not one posting anywhere.
You have to wonder what is going on over there in city
hall in the golden tower.
That's obviously not important to her
to hire any police officers.
Secondly, uh, you brought up about, uh,
the DDA meeting last week, which I was at.
We couldn't even hear the person that was on the phone.
Don't know who it was. Could have been,
could have been a fake somewhere, I don't know.
But onto that, I attended TFA on Thursday morning.
There was no recording of the meeting.
There was no video recording of the meeting,
and there was no one taking minutes of the meeting.
That's concerning. That's very concerning.
Um, have a tiff, a board member who has two properties
that are blight infested.
They look horrible. Parking
semi-trucks on a residential street.
That's terrible. And when I brought that up,
he wanted to engage me.
He wanted to engage me into a, into an argument. Yeah.
I wasn't taking that to be honest with you.
I was a little disappointed in hell.
Hell, he's there as councilperson.
He represents that district.
I haven't heard him say anything
to defend the blight problems down there.
Try to get the blight problems fixed.
It's a mess down there. It's an absolute mess. Disgusting.
You know, and I won't even tell you what one
of the other business owners said about
what the homeless are doing on our property.
Um, the other thing is,
since you bought up the million dollar grant, I'm wondering
where is our million dollar grant from?
John James? Did we lose that
because somebody was playing part partisan
politics over at City Hall?
Haven't heard a word about that. That's disgusting.
How many hundreds of thousands
of dollars have we spent on consultants?
And we haven't hardly accomplished anything on a
DA from that angle.
It's disgusting. Um,
And then recently the city took delivery
of some new ambulances.
And we were, for some of us were fortunate to go over
and do some photo ops and stuff
and get a tour of the new station.
When I was walking through the station,
I discovered something rather odd.
The countertop didn't fit over the dishwasher.
When I looked at the cabinets,
and I've had some complaints about this,
the cabinets are only 18 inches deep.
I was told by somebody
that they're gonna move the cabinets out
and put a 24 inch countertop on it.
I don't know if anybody's ever ate lunch
at the fire station or dinner. You're
At time, Mr. Watts.
Um, but there things are much bigger than that.
Thank you Ms. Mariinski. And then Jerry Burden.
Good evening counsel. In a week
and a day, Warren is going
to have a large celebration at the new station five on
Shaner to south of 13 Mile.
If you haven't driven by there in the last year,
then you're blind.
Um, there's brand new state of the art fire station
that is absolutely gorgeous.
I was there three weeks ago, I think, or two weeks ago,
and I got to look inside it.
And it was as big as a Smithsonian.
It's in, it's higher than the ceiling
and it's 500,000 square feet.
No, I'm, I don't know exactly.
Um, when you walk in the vestibule, the very front door
where everybody walks in on the wall
that you walk right into, there's a beautiful bronze
engraved plaque.
That plaque has all of your names.
Well, not you, Mr. Schroeder. Sorry. Has all of your names.
Minus Mr. Schroeder.
It has the mayor, it has the treasurer, it has the clerk,
it has the company, the architectural company.
It has the designers,
it has the builders.
And it's beautiful.
It's a beautiful plaque honoring our current mayor,
treasurer, city clerk, city council,
and everybody else that was involved in the
designing and the architecture.
But for many, many, many years,
a group of people that we all know
and love worked their asses off to have that
Station five and another station built in Warren,
because our fire stations were 60 years old
and crumbling.
Now, I don't know if it was a mistake.
I don't know if it was a oversight.
I've been told it's protocol. It's the way it is.
But I wanna say this.
Thank you Mayor Jim Fouts.
Thank you, Councilman Council President Patrick Green.
Thank you. Councilman Gary Watts.
Ron Papandrea, Eddie Kazinski for devoting years
of your lives to getting Warren to new
state-of-the-art fire stations.
These people on this lift were lists, were left off
that bronze engraved plaque
because they're no longer in the,
they're no longer elected officials,
but they worked hard day
and night to build Warren two brand new
state-of-the-art fire stations.
Thank you. Next is Jerry Burden, and after Mr.
Burden is Lori Harris.
I wrote my script earlier and left a few things out.
But the bus has transported our seniors to Cranbrook.
We went to the fort house in Sinclair Shores.
We take 'em to lunch on Tuesdays in the morning,
and they go to a Warren restaurant in the afternoon.
They go to a Warren restaurant for dinner.
Everyone has been so happy with the, with the bus trips.
The bus is full every time they go.
And again, I implore you to do whatever it takes to extend
that bus to five days a week.
Those seniors need it.
We got 400 of 'em living in Stillwells.
Joseph coach, many
of 'em don't have cars, no transportation.
And unfortunately, a lot
of them don't have any family close by.
So do what you can for us
and we will do what we can for you. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Lori Harris,
and then Joel Vander Lenin.
Thank you. Hi, Lori Harris.
Um, I have a challenge to Mayor Stone, uh,
at your community.
Check-in, uh, this week,
please cut the one half hour slideshow.
Um, it's repetitive, it's unnecessary.
Um, and it takes away your time from actually listening
to the residents or having a discussion
with them without trying to prove that you know,
the answers to everything.
Listening, active listening, um, is important
and relationship, and I don't think
that happens at these check-ins.
Um, the city website, why are police
and fire considered departments of the city?
Why aren't they considered departments?
They're considered government.
So if you go to the city website to try
to find the fire department
or the police department, you have to go to government.
I'm not sure if that's uh, necessary.
I, uh, it certainly makes it very hard to find things.
But the fire department reports are,
they're from 2014 and earlier.
There are no other annual reports
or anything on the website.
Um, I would think a fourth grader could update the website.
Um, wouldn't this be high on the agenda?
I mean, we're going to have an opening for a firehouse
and you wanna go to the city and get information.
What are you gonna find information from 2010
and 2014?
So, um, I,
that just requires getting the information from the
departments and updating the website.
Uh, the conflict of events this past
weekend was embarrassing.
A festival was approved for, uh, the City Square
and a city sponsored concert at the same time,
the atrium is not conducive to
what should have been an outside concert.
Um, and a third grader could keep up that calendar.
Um, why are people getting, uh, duplicate voter ID cards?
Did anyone see that on social media? Um, some got six.
Um, that costs money.
And what is going on in the clerk's office
that this is happening?
Um, or cards for people that died a long time ago.
And who's gonna look into this?
Who's gonna look into this at the clerk's office?
And, and then, um,
I I really, I know I brought this up before,
but I really have a burden for in our community.
We are, we are seeing a culture that does not respect women.
And yet they are, we are looking to them for their votes.
And I'm wondering how we can do this.
How do you, um, how do we address that?
Um, because
We have value and I don't want our community
to become one where we're not respecting women.
Thank you,
Mr. Vander Linn.
And then Mr. Uh, Ms. Sanker,
Joel Derland, longtime wor resident.
A comment was brought up about, uh, a FOIAs earlier.
I put in a FOIA about, uh, police Chief Hawkins
haven't received anything.
I was denied. I put in for, uh, a hearing.
I was having to look at Sterling Heights
and all the information I was looking for from my own city
is on the Sterling Heights website.
Why don't we have that here?
Why don't we have people that know how
to do a website taking care of our city?
Since then, I have put in numerous FOIAs.
I have not received the, uh, the response that we received,
your foia, uh, so forth, so on.
I even resent them in and they should have been answered.
And I wanna know why the FOIAs are not being
taken care of properly.
I want answers. I think we deserve answers.
Now, the thing with the fire department and the building
and stuff like that brought up a question in my mind.
If we list down all the things that Mayor Stone has done,
both of 'em, compared to all the businesses
that are gone, that left Ward in the last two years.
It's pretty embarrassing. It's really embarrassing.
I think the people here deserve better.
I think you people may try,
but you have to go the extra mile.
You have to try.
The comment was brought up about people in our city
that are not respecting women.
They're not respecting other people.
We had a gentleman that almost got onto the, uh, uh,
the planning commission that wasn't even a,
a American citizen.
Are we checking green cards?
Are we checking to make sure they're US citizens?
Are we checking that these people have our best interest?
I mean, I talked about the coffee house coming
to the city of Warren.
The mayor was here for the budget every day,
but she wasn't there that day.
Why? 'cause she was passing out pizza to people
arguing against President Trump.
15 seconds. Mr. Vander Linen,
Thank you. Mm-hmm.
Is it more important for her to pass out pizza
and look like a, that it is
to get the budget done correctly
and go through the proper steps and do what?
Inform the people what's
Going on? You're at time, Mr. Vander
Linen.
We deserve better. Thank you. God bless America.
Ms. Sanker,
You are, You're out.
Ms. Anchor.
Good evening. I heard on TV
where Christian organizations volunteered
to help the people in Texas with flooding.
It isn't surprising
that Christian groups are usually the first that come
to areas of need.
You don't hear of atheist groups running toward these
catastrophic areas.
Yet our mayor has chosen to put atheists and gay groups
before Christian groups in our city.
She has taken the Christmas manger away,
taken the prayer station away,
and refused to hold the National Day of Prayer.
Even though the anti-Christian groups were recognized
with the Christian groups.
At these events, she has celebrated
with anti-Christian groups, with parades, festivals
and month long proclamations of recognition.
She is the first mayor
that has slighted the Christian community
and their beliefs and traditions.
This is not whimsical,
this is deliberate on her part.
Our traditions are 2000 years old
and the practice of having a manger under the Christmas
tree, a prayer station
and celebrating the National Day
of Prayer is a longtime practice.
Yes, she is entitled to her own beliefs or lack of,
but this should not be forced on Christian taxpayers.
We have celebrated for years in the atrium of City Hall
all of these activities with great success.
It is very concerning what her views are on Christians
and those tax paying residents who embrace the faith.
We have fought too many conflicts for freedom
to have them taken away now, such as the manger,
the prayer station, and honoring the National Day of Prayer.
It is unfortunate we have to question the mayor
for her unacceptable behavior.
According to Warren tv, she is inclusive
to everyone but Christians.
Also, I would like to shout out to Councilman Bokey,
who at the last meeting said he went door
to door in a neighborhood
and asked what they felt about the cement work project.
This is by far the best way
to get information from your constituents.
It is totally reliable,
should be used in your vote when voting on special projects
as Councilman Bokey did.
He voted no while others voted. Yes.
Thank you for consulting the taxpayers who have a, they have
to live with progress or mistakes of those cement companies.
You showed real leadership. Thank you.
Councilman Bokey. Thank you, council.
Thank you. Next Osh.
Next is Curtis Osh
doing a great, I wanna remind everyone
that there's not clapping from the audience
and yelling from the back.
Go ahead, Mr. Oshkosh.
Good evening Counsel. Curtis Osh, a resident
and pastor here in the city.
In the book of Proverbs, it says,
when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice.
But when the wicked are in authority, the people groan.
You know, under this current regime we have,
the people are groaning at a council meeting
just a couple weeks ago.
You guys wanna push the new city
downtown Project forward,
but for four years, you stalled it, tabled it, sabotaged it
because you didn't like the previous mayor.
But that was $170 million project.
Now it's gonna cost many more millions.
It's kind of concerning too, about this
new wastewater incinerator project.
When the previous mayor wanted to put that through,
there was some kind of problem.
It was gonna be a 75 to $80 million project,
so it was stalled, tabled, sabotaged again.
But you guys had a secret beating, I think, right
before the 4th of July
and bonded up to $120 million for the same project.
You know, it's just crazy
how our city can waste all kinds of money
over personal vendettas, over revenge, over nonsense.
And then you guys get all up, up your undies,
all uptight over the mayor having his picture in a thing.
When I was at Speedway Gas Station the other day,
mark Hackle picture was on the little video screen talking
about how great Macomb County is.
I mean, Twice today we gave
Mr. Schroeder and Plunkett Cooney another blank check
to check into something.
I mean, how many blank runaway checks have we got?
We have a legal department.
We ha I mean, you don't wanna call her the acting director,
but I mean, if I was Mary Michaels,
I'd be pretty upset right now.
And then at the last meeting,
Mr. Schroeder said he's gonna start meeting
with Mary Michaels on a regular basis
because they can coordinate things.
I didn't know he was the city attorney.
Maybe he should be our city attorney.
Take a huge pay cut, make 149,000 a year total
and be our city attorney.
Then you're acting city attorney. You act like it.
I mean, you sit up there with everybody.
I was reading also the charter.
It's interesting what the charter says
about the city attorney.
It says that the city attorney shall be directly responsible
to the council section seven point 10 A.
So technically the attorney that's supposed
to represent the council is the city attorney.
Did you guys ever read this? And then it goes on
to say acting as the legal advisor to the council.
Mr. You're at time. Thank you. Have a meeting me two.
Much better. Next item.
Uh, next item is council response to audience. Madam Chair.
Ms. Mark. Yeah, if I could just address, um, I think Ms.
Um, Harris brought it up about the, uh,
concerts in the park, um, that are put on by, uh,
the cultural commission.
I believe last year, um, the same
group that was, uh, scheduled to perform Sunday
last year at the very last minute, they were supposed
to, lemme step back.
They were supposed to perform at, um,
at the city center.
And a couple hours
before they were moved over to the community center,
to the pavilion.
Well, I didn't know we have a
pavilion, and actually we don't.
It's like a, a porch outside, a little bathroom.
It was a horrible setup. The ground was awful.
There was mosquitoes.
They were standing out there not on a stage
in, you know, a hundred degree.
It was just awful. And they were promised they would,
you know, have a good spot next year.
Well, guess what? They were scheduled
to perform this past Sunday.
And once again, they were displaced
because of a, uh, festival that was, uh,
taking place on city property.
And these concerts are in the calendar,
so they are scheduled in the fall, the year before.
So these were on the city schedule back in probably October
or November when the, uh, calendar was put on.
And then this group was put into the atrium,
which is not set up for an outdoor,
you know, band like this.
And I just think that that is so unfair to do to the people
that were coming to see them.
And the, um, group itself.
Um, you know, they were expecting to be outside playing
to people, you know, on the lawn.
And they're inside this atrium.
I just think that is, I don't know who's in charge
of the schedule, but they didn't look at the city calendar
apparently, because these were already booked,
um, entertainers.
And, um, it, it happened two years in a row, the exact same,
um, uh, group mainstream drive.
And I'm well aware of them
because the lead singer happens
to be related to me through marriage.
So I'm very aware of what's gone on.
So we have to do a much better job.
It may be a simple thing, but it wasn't to them.
And it wasn't to the people that showed up to watch.
I think, uh, uh, someone said their neighbors came home
and they were very, very disappointed.
And, you know, there's a lot on social media about it,
but, you know, somebody has to start looking at the calendar
and coordinating some of these things.
And I would, it's also come up this last week about the
encampments, um, at Nile, at the McDonald's at, uh,
Nile and Van D**e.
Um, I think we haven't, Mr. Schroeder, do we? Yeah,
Yeah. We
discussed this earlier, um, in the week, um,
uh, actually working with Ms.
Michaels many years ago, the city passed, uh, an anti,
it's called an anti camping ordinance.
So, um, this has been on the books since February of 2002.
I remembered this. Looked it up. It's still on the books.
So it's really illegal for any person to camp
or use camp facilities, uh, tents, huts, temporary shelters,
camp paraphernalia, cots, beds, hammocks, tarps
in any public area.
Um, certainly, um, there's reasons why this came up,
uh, many years ago.
These issues tend to recycle over time.
But this is, this is on the books.
There's certainly public sanitary reasons for it.
I mean, we're aware of a situation
of a local nonprofit we're suing that allowed camping.
And apparently there was, you know, people using the,
the outdoors as a restroom, you know,
and using it was very disgusting.
But, um, there's a reason for this being on the books.
So certainly someone's doing this.
Um, I think the procedure back in the day was
to issue like a warning.
And, um, you know, certainly they could be ticketed
and re removed for this because
I, you know, some of the businesses down in the area
of Nine Mile and Van D**e have been, um,
complaining about the, you know, people setting up camp.
And in fact, on some of our property, I think
that little pocket park, um, uh, was a problem
that people were camping in there.
So I just want people to be aware that it is,
we do have an ordinance against that.
Um, and I, I don't know, uh, who would, who would enforce
that, whether it's the police
or the, uh, building department.
But, um, there are reasons for that.
So that needs to be, uh, taken care of.
I also, um, there's been a,
a fa this happened in my neighborhood.
I, there's only six houses on my street and,
and three cars were ticketed
because they were parked blocking the sidewalk.
I would remind all residents,
you cannot park your car over the sidewalk.
You will get a ticket if the police come down the street.
There's reasons for that
because it's, it impedes the vision of the people next door.
So keep that in mind. We don't want anybody
to get ticketed for that.
But, you know, try to, um, keep your cars, um,
where they're supposed to be.
And, and my neighbors were ticketed at three in the morning,
so you, you know, you can't think you're gonna get away
with it in the middle of the night if you do it.
So keep that in mind.
Thank you. Any other responses?
Madam Chair, Mr. Lafferty?
I'd like, uh, point out a clarification
that council did have a meeting.
The, uh, the first week of July.
Uh, it was not a secret meeting as it was, uh,
uh, categorized by a member of the audience this evening
during audience participation.
None of our meetings are, are secret.
They're not held in secret.
Uh, they were noticed according to the law, according
to the Michigan Open Meetings Act.
And, uh, it was pertinent to
the wastewater treatment plant.
And we had to vote to keep that project
on track, on schedule.
And we have responsibilities.
Sometimes those responsibilities don't align
with our established twice monthly city council calendar.
And that's why we're here. We can meet, uh,
in an emergency session if necessary.
There are provisions for that.
Uh, we can meet, uh, at, uh, at the call
of several council members requesting a special meeting.
That's what we're here for. We're doing our job.
But I take exception to the fact that, uh,
the accusation was made.
It is completely false. There was no secret meeting.
And in fact, we voted, uh, today on the bonding
because of that meeting.
Again, a regularly scheduled meeting in public
for everyone to see.
And there's a record of that meeting.
It's, uh, published on Vimeo. Anybody can watch it.
There's absolutely nothing secret about it. Thank you.
Any other responses?
Okay, next item, Madam Secretary. Motion to adjourn
Support Lafferty.
All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're adjourned.
Thank you everyone.