Did he die? He also, no.
I am now calling to order a regular meeting of the City Council, Tuesday,
March 24, 2026, at 7:00 PM. Please rise
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 Roggensack.
Here.
Councilman Dwyer.
Here.
Councilwoman McGee.
Here.
Councilman Boike.
Here.
Councilman Noonan.
Present.
Councilman Lafferty.
Here.
Councilwoman Moore is present. We have a quorum.
Next item.
Next item is adoption of the consent agenda.
So moved.
Support Lafferty.
Any discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Let's see. Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boike?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Roggensack is yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is adoption of the agenda.
So moved with discussion.
Support Lafferty.
Discussion, Ms. Moore.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
First off, under item 12,
as
these will be 12 E, F, G, H, and I.
E is Andrea Davis versus City of Warren.
F is Cody Davis versus City of Warren.
G is Ben Saeed versus City of Warren.
H is Linda Devoot
versus City of Warren. And I is Dallas Groves
versus City of Warren.
As item 12J,
discussion from Councilwoman Mindy Moore, Chicago
Road.
As item 11B,
Treasurer Lori Barnwell requests to close the
following banks: Comerica Bank
for Warren Parks and Rec Bingo, Comerica Bank, City of
Warren Parks and Rec Farmers Market, and Comerica
Bank City of Warren Water Payroll.
And
we are removing from the agenda item
12D.
Madam President.
Is that correct?
Mr. Lafferty
or Mr.
Noonan.
Uh-huh.
Mr. Noonan.
Please add a discussion item for myself under
council business for a resolution I would like us to
consider.
Councilor.
Madam Chair, I've had discussions with Mr.
Noonan.
We have tried to have a policy of not putting national
issues on our agenda and things that are
politically divisive. I feel that this
item has taken
sides politically, and I don't think that is appropriate to
put on the council agenda at this time.
Madam President, I beg to differ.
Yeah. So,
Mary, what's the proper situation here?
Would it be a vote to add it to the agenda? Okay.
You first vote on Mr. Noonan's item, and then vote for-
For the full agenda. Okay. Okay. So, Mr.
Noonan, you would like to add an item.
He's making a motion.
Right.
You're making a motion.
I'd like to add a motion. I'd like to move that
I be allowed to speak under council business for a resolution I'd like
us to consider.
I support.
Okay.
Any other discussion?
Okay, I will call the question. Mr.
Noonan.
I want to-
Yes.
Clarification.
Sure.
What are we voting on?
Mr. Noonan, can you clarify the resolution?
No, I'm sorry. We're voting on Mr. Noonan's-
Resolution to-
... resolution first
... to go onto the agenda. Correct. Yeah.
Okay. And that's not-- I'm just asking for a discussion.
I'm not asking f- for us to vote on actually
passing the resolution.
It was on that-
Understood. You want the item to be placed on the agenda.
So we're gonna vote on that being placed on the agenda, and then
from there, the item would
then have its own set of discussions and votes.
I would like
to have the discussion placed on the agenda, not the resolution, not trying to
pass the resolution.
It's the resolution, but yes.
We're on the same page. Mr. Lafferty, you're clear on what we're voting on
presently.
Yes.
Okay. So, Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
You're a yes. Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
No.
Mr. Dwyer?
No.
Mr. Boike?
No.
Ms. Moore?
No.
Roggensack, I will say yes, because everyone's entitled to items on their agenda.
But your item pass, fails.
Failed.
Yeah.
Okay.
Next item. We have to vote.
Vote again.
Thank you.
Ms. Moore. I will get it together here. Ms. Moore.
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty.
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer.
Yes.
Mr. Boike.
Yes.
Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
Ms. McGee.
Yes.
Roggensack is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 6A, calendar pending matters, motion to receive and file.
Support Lafferty.
Any discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, all in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries. Next item. Next item is 7A, approval of the bills of the general
revenue fund. So moved.
Support Lafferty.
Discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, I will call to question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boyke? Yes. Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 7A, approval of the bills of the water and sewer system.
So moved.
Support Dwyer.
Any discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, I will call to question. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Boyke? Yes. Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is eight, audience participation
for agenda items only. Members of the audience who would like
to address city council this evening may do so by filling out an
audience form on the right side of the stage.
This is for agenda items only. There is time at the
end of the meeting for general topics.
First up is Lori Harris.
Hi.
That's quite a few lawsuits that we're going to see on this agenda,
and I'm wondering, do we have a number of how many lawsuits
against the city of Warren we currently have?
And I hope that they're not just...
When people don't get their way in planning or zoning, everybody can just sue
the city. So I'm hoping it's...
Anyway, that wasn't what I really want to talk to.
I'm just surprised that there's that many.
I wanted to talk about on the consent agenda number L,
and that is the request to the wastewater treatment plant to award a bid
to furnish ferric chloride to PBS
Technologies,
for one final year payment from an annual amount not to exceed
$112,000 to an annual amount not to exceed
$268,000. And I'm just
wondering,
clearly you've already approved this, but that's a huge,
huge
increase. And
I'm wondering
if you got the information you needed before you made that decision of
why something would more than double
for that. And did it have anything to do with the problem that we had with the
wastewater treatment plant, the emergency? Okay.
That's all. Thank you.
Thank you. That is the end of audience.
Next item. Next item is announcements, Madam Chair. Ms.
Moore. Thank you. It's a little sad news.
A former
firefighter,
retired firefighter, Warren resident,
Carl Rivard, passed away on March 20th.
He was a wonderful, wonderful man.
Very young when he passed away, only 69 years old.
His wife, Anne, and
very active in... Both of them have been very, very active in the community,
just very involved with their children and their
grandchildren.
My son went to school with his daughter.
And
he was just a wonderful, wonderful man, and he didn't get to enjoy
his retirement long enough. So if we could do a moment of silence
for Mr. Rivard.
Thank you. Thank you.
On a happy note,
we're very proud to recognize and celebrate the
extraordinary career and contributions of Mary
Massaron, whose accomplishments in the legal profession have
brought distinction not only to her firm but to our
broader community. Mary's career is marked by excellence at the
highest levels of the law. She has successfully handled numerous
cases before the appellate courts and the Michigan Supreme Court on
behalf of the Warren City Council, demonstrating exceptional skill,
integrity, and dedication to the pursuit of justice.
Her work has helped shape important legal outcomes and stands as a
testament to her expertise in appellate law.
As we observe Women's History Month, it is especially fitting to
acknowledge Mary's groundbreaking achievements.
After beginning her legal career in 1990 as a second
profession, she rose to become one of the most decorated appellate
attorneys in her field. Among her many distinguished honors, Mary
served as president of the prestigious Defense Research
Institute, an achievement that reflects her national leadership and
influence. In recognition of her impact, DRI
established the Mary Massaron Award for the Advancement
of Women in the Legal Profession.
Her accolades are extensive, including being named among the best
lawyers in America for appellate law for 19
consecutive years, recognition as "Michigan Lawyer's Weekly"
Lawyer of the Year, and induction into the "Lawyers Weekly" Hall of
Fame. These honors represent not only professional excellence,
but a sustained commitment to mentorship, leadership,
and advancing the legal profession.
As Mary transitions into a semi-retirement role at the end
of this month-Remaining Of Counsel to Plunkett Cooney, we are
grateful that her knowledge and guidance will continue to benefit the
legal community. We extend our sincere appreciation to
Bari Massaron for her outstanding service, her trailblazing
leadership, and the lasting impact she has made.
Her career serves as an inspiration to future generations,
and we wish her continued success in this next
chapter.
Jeff, if you want to
give that to her.
I will. Thank you.
Yeah.
Yeah, she really, really did a wonderful job for us and just the
most professional person I've ever dealt with.
Really top-notch. I
often mention at meetings that I listen to a police
scanner often. It kind of gives me a feel for what's
going on around town, police and fire, and things that happen,
and problems, and all sorts of things.
But I also am able to monitor in
real-time, really great things that happen.
And I'd really like to recognize and commend members
of the Warren Police Department and the Warren Fire Department for their
outstanding service and professionalism during a recent apartment
fire at 12 Mile on Lorraine.
And while monitoring the incident, it was evident
that both departments responded with precision,
urgency, and unwavering focus.
Firefighters worked swiftly to combat the blaze and care for
those impacted.
And as I was listening, I heard them yell,
as they're trained to do, "Victim, victim," which meant there was
someone in the fire in that
apartment that they needed to tend to.
They
took this person to
the hospital,
and
when the ambulance left, the EMS squad left.
The police officers coordinated traffic control and secured a clear
path to ensure that the ambulance could safely and swiftly
transport the injured person to receiving hospital.
Although this level of response is a direct result of their training and
experiencing, witnessing it in real-time was a powerful
reminder of the critical role our responders
play in protecting life and property.
Their ability to remain calm under pressure and
execute their duties seamlessly in coordination with
each other reflects the highest standards of public service.
So I want to extend my sincere gratitude to the Warren Police
Department and the Warren Fire Department for their dedication,
teamwork, and commitment to the safety and well-being of our
community. Their actions during this emergency
exemplify the very best of Warren.
Thank you. And I think that is all for me.
Okay. Ms. McGee?
Yes.
By the agenda, I put some information.
I was called to jury duty, and they had asked that I
pass out some information and make sure everyone have it.
There's a service directory for the services that we
provide in Macomb County, as well as
information regarding fraud alert
for your real estate with your home.
It has reached over 21,000
Macomb County
residents that signed up for this fraud alert, and you can get the
information right there
by the agenda at the end of the stage. Thank you.
Any other
items
under announcements?
Madam Chair.
Ms. Moore.
I was reminded of one, if I can find it.
Just to remind everyone that April 10th through the 19th
is Restaurant Week.
If you go on the city's website,
there is a QR code for
the full list of the participating restaurants.
So if you go on the city's website, you can find that information.
Thank you.
Any other announcements?
Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we will move on. Next item.
Next item is 10A, which is a public hearing, request to vacate
public alley, the existing east-west 20 feet wide
public alley abutting lots 8-2158 and
59 of Heath's Fairview Subdivision, located
100 feet north of 8 Mile Road between Wellington and Elroy
Avenues, 140498 Mile Road, also known
as 14017, 14019, and
14033 8 Mile Road,
2751 Elroy Avenue and 2740
Wellington Avenue, Section 36, Fred Bad Daddy,
Fred's Unique Furniture,
PAV250001.
Ms.
Katopodes. I'm always worried I'm going to say that incorrectly, but
could you give us a quick summary?
Good evening. I'm Michelle Katopodes, Assistant Planning Director.
On January 26th, 2026, the Planning Commission recommended
the approval of the alley vacation in question.
The 20-foot wide alley abuts lots 8 through 21 and
lots 58 and 59 of the Heath's Fairview Subdivision.
And if approved, the abutting property owners of lots 8 through
14 and lot 59 would receive half ownership of the vacated
alley. The petitioner owns the property on the south side of the alley,
and lot 59 on the north side of the alley is under different
ownership.The petitioner would have full ownership between
lots 15 through 21 and lot 58.
The purpose of the proposed alley vacation, the request
is for safety. According to the letter of intent, they're seeking to eliminate
traffic through the alley. And I'll be here if you have any other questions
pertaining to this request. Thank you.
Thank you. Does the petitioner want to say anything?
Is the petitioner here?
This is the owner on the north side. This is not Mr. Baghdadi.
Okay, thank you. So you're not the petitioner.
You could speak during the public hearing if you're not the actual petitioner of
this.
I'll let you know in just a moment.
I don't think Fred's here. I don't see him.
Okay. The petitioner's not here. Okay.
Okay. I will open the public hearing.
Does anyone from the audience like to speak on the matter?
If you could give your name for the record.
Hello, my name is Katrin Makram, and I have my dad, Amir
Zakaria. So I'm
here to translate and talk for him.
It's kind of restricting our way to go into our
driveway. That's why we're
not really agreeing with a fence being there.
We have some pictures if you want to see. I...
I don't know.
If you have something you want to share-
Okay
... Ms. Kamp, our council secretary, can get that for you.
Okay.
So if I'm understanding, you're not supporting the alley
vacation? Or-
We're not supporting the fence. We don't want the fence because it's
restricting our way to go in our driveway.
The fence isn't the issue.
Yeah,
Ms. Katopodes, can you clarify for us?
At the Planning Commission meeting, I know that there was a lot of discussion from
the petitioner saying he could put up a fence, and
we could
make it safe for them and for him. But
we talked last night at the Planning Commission meeting,
they can't close off the entire alley.
If this is vacated, they can't, without their permission, if
they want to enter into some sort of access agreement in the future,
that would be later. This request is only for the-
The alley vacation
... vacation of the alley. So it's not for the fence request.
So they wouldn't be able to put up a fence on their property, if it goes through
the whole process and through circuit court without their permission.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah. You're welcome.
So this is just for the alley vacation.
Anything further would have to go through its own
process, like through zoning or planning
or through permitting, I'm assuming, Ms. Katopodes. Correct?
Yeah, so this step would be City Council.
If approved, then the petitioner would need to continue with the
process up to circuit court to relinquish the public's
interest, and then it would become private.
And then at the end, you would own half.
The half of the alley would go to you in the part where your home is abutting the
alley. Then the rest would go to the owner who owns the rest
of that area.
So
you would own half of the alley right adjacent to your lot,
which is lot 59. They own lot 59.
Got it. Do you understand that? That this isn't about the fence, this is
about vacating the alley, and that which Ms.
Katopodes is saying is that you ultimately would own half of it once the alley is
actually vacated?
So if we do
put the fence, it has to be-
No fence. We're not talking about any fence.
Okay.
This is only to vacate the alley.
Okay.
Legally, the process to go through to vacate the alley.
This is not the time where we would talk about anything
additional.
Okay.
If you have additional questions, the Planning Department, you could call them
tomorrow, and certainly, they could help you think through that, but this is only
for the alley vacation.
If it's vacated in the future and becomes private,
in that time, if you ever want to get a fence permit, you
could just fence your part of the property.
It'd be through the center of the alley adjacent to
your lots. And they could fence their half
and secure their part of the property.
Or if you entered into a shared agreement and you, like Mr.
Baghdadi was talking about, maybe there's a key and you share it, but that would be
some sort of agreement between the two of you.
But this is strictly for the vacation part.
Okay, so for-
Mm-hmm.
I'm not sure.
So if you have any more questions, talk to Ms. Katopodes.
I'm going to see if there are anyone else from the public hearing that wants to
speak during audience. So if you want to talk with her, you can certainly
do that.
Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone else who wants to speak
on the matter?
Ms. Harris?
Okay. I might not understand everything, but I know
Fred's place, and I've
enjoyed
going there quite a lot in the last many years.
But it's a mess there, and I don't know what vacating
the alley
has to do, if it has to do with anything in terms of his
property. And you gave me a funny look, but
it is a mess because he's got so much stuff and no room.
But Planning Commission has been told
consistently that they have to approve what comes to
themAnd I'm hearing these people say that they can't get into
their driveway,
now if there's a fence. Now, I don't know, some
areas have driveways in the back of their house or
along the side, but no one's asking them what they're
worried about. I mean, telling them this is just vacating it,
and then he could come back with his private property and he could do something
that they couldn't prevent. So I'm hoping that
this isn't just an approval because planning is told they have to approve
it,
that the needs of the family are actually considered and
taken advantage of.
So
that's my comment.
Thank you. I have full faith in Ms. Katopodes, that she would
not put something or would not present something that perhaps
was
unbelievably unfair to residents in the neighboring
area. So Mr. Masarelli, yeah.
Good evening, Council. I've been over there working with Freddy
for a while there and trying to help clean up his property.
Some of the biggest problem is people dump stuff behind the building.
He's got cameras back there. He's put up signs, "No
dumping." Part of the solution we thought would be
vacating the alley so that he could put up some sort of barrier and
not allow people to dump behind the building.
That was the thought process here.
We didn't want to close off all the way across, down by their house.
It was just the thought process was to close right behind the building where people
are dumping off all this furniture, because that's part of the huge
problem is he just gets so much stuff that's dumped out there when they're
not even open. So,
that was the thought process in vacating the alley.
And Mr. Masarelli, in this thought process,
if there was a fence erected, which it sounds like the neighbors are concerned-
It would-
... would it, in any way, block their ability to get to their property?
It would still have to go in front of ZBA, and they would still have the
opportunity to go there. The part of the alley that they
owned, he wouldn't be able to block at all.
Okay.
Thank you.
I hope that makes sense.
Yep. Does anyone have... Sorry.
Madam Chair?
We still
have the public hearing. Yep. So one moment.
Anyone else from the audience want to speak about
this item?
Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing, turn it over to Council.
I need a motion, and then Mr. Boyke.
Motion to approve.
Discussion.
Support Mr. Boyke. And discussion?
Discussion.
Mr. Lafferty.
Go ahead, Mr. Boyke.
Could you approach, please? Yes. Thank you.
The ownership of the property that's being vacated, she said that the city's going
to retain some ownership? No.
No.
So-
Their
application is to actually take it from being city property, the alley,
which is not public, and they want to make it private.
They want to vacate it to make it into private ownership.
Correct, in private ownership. So
Fred would own half of the alley, technically?
He'll own
the full width of it in the areas where he owns on both sides, and then
only half in the area where the
neighbor owns lot 59. So he'll own half in that
area. The rest, he'll own
the entire width of it.
So
the residents that live there will retain
half of the ownership.
Yes. In the area that's abutting their lot, yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Mm-hmm.
I yield back.
Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you.
Through the chair to Mr. Masarelli.
Council, you may recall that
Mr. Baghdadi had come before us prior
for violations at his property,
numerous violations of electrical, mechanical,
fire suppression, and Mr. Masarelli, I'm looking
at BSA for one of the three subject properties,
the certificate of compliance,
and it looks like we had
several disapprovals for mechanical,
building,
and fire, and electrical all in a
disapproval state for a CFC issued on the
12th of January this year.
Do you know which building that is?
This would be
14019-
So that's the-
... Eight Mile
... newer building.
Mm-hmm.
So we've been working with him. He has been
cleaning up the inside of it. We asked him to make the paths
bigger. I went there with several of you.
I know I've gone there with Councilman Dwyer.
He has made huge strides, and the task
was
ominous.
Our inspectors have been out there.
Our electrical inspector's been out there working with him. He has made big steps.
We told him as long as he was moving forward, we would continue to work with him.
I know the fire inspector, or the fire marshal's been out there.
He's been working with him as well.
As long as where the aisleways are getting bigger,
you can
walk down there now. It's not walking sideways down the aisles anymore.
They've been making
big steps. He has been working with us.
I have been giving him a long leash.
How much longer of a leash are we going to give him?
I mean, this is not a recent issue. This issue has been
going on for better than 10 years.
Yeah.
I'm not inclined to vote for this.
I inherited this issue, and I understand.
I
don't want to just put him out of business though, either.
Understood. I'm not trying to put anybody out of business.
I'm trying to have a safe business for-
Absolutely
... people to-
Absolutely
... visit and patronize his business,
but he has to comply, just like every other business in this city.
Absolutely. He does have COCs for the building next door.
Unfortunately, when they fixed Eight Mile, now every time it rains, all the
rainwater from Eight Mile Drive goes directly into that building.
So it's just one comedy of errors after another over
there.
I have been working with him. I sat down with him the last time the inspectors went
out, and I told him this was the last chance.
So we worked through the stuff. He asked what he
could do. I said that this would be the big step
in vacating the alley and closing some of this down so people can't dump back
there. That's a big problem. He had cleaned up a huge pile of that
mess that was back behind the building behind the new store.
So I mean, he is complying slow but sure, but it's
a large process.
Let me ask the question a different way.
At least for the fire suppression that
was disapproved, what is the
timeframe on compliance
for basic fire suppression?
From what I understand, him and Mr.
Oberly are working to get that done in the next month or
so.
All right. I would be more inclined to
postpone the decision on a alley vacation
to ensure compliance with fire suppression and patron
safety
instead of allowing this to go through tonight and then saying, "Well,
we plan on this to happen," because-
Absolutely. We can buy time with that if you'd like
... we have been dealing with this for so many years.
Absolutely. We can do that if you'd like.
That would be my preference.
Madam Chair?
Ms. Moore.
Well, it sounds like
the alley vacation is a measure that's being taken to
improve the situation there.
It is.
So denying that is not going to help anything.
And holding it hostage, I don't think this is the issue to do it with.
I've been down there a lot,
and I know that's a big
project, that whole place. And he already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
on fire suppression already, and it's a lot.
And maybe nobody else
has been down there, but
I have a soft spot, I think, for him because I know that
everybody for miles and miles that can't afford
brand-new furniture, that's how they get their furniture, and he
gives away half of it, I think, and nothing is priced to
what it really should go for, and he's always helping out
somebody. People there all the time, and he does
perform a service to our community.
He really does, and it's just a big thing, and there's
been some issues over the years that haven't always been all his fault.
And
like that little quarter-inch set-off that really shouldn't have been an
issue and some things like that.
Right.
And I get Mr. Lafferty's
comments, but I would like to see us just continue to work a little bit
longer with him
to get things-
To his credit, the last time the inspectors all went out there, he did shut down
for two weeks and worked diligently over those two weeks to do some of the
improvements that we asked of him.
He closed down. He was able to clean out a lot of the stuff, like I said.
He did bring out three or four dumpsters.
He got rid of the storage
container that was there.
Yeah.
He got rid of the illegal signs that he had up.
There was a lot of stuff that we asked of him, and he did all of those things.
We did create a checklist for him, and like I said, he is
working his way through that checklist.
He is a really great guy. He's a really nice guy.
He's a talker, that's for sure.
I know. But he's a nice guy, and he's not-
He's a talker.
He's not a jerk like-
No
... some people are in trying to get away and hide things and
yeah. So
I just hope we can work and get things squared away.
But I think this alley vacation will help, and I think to the
folks that talked, they're going to get the other part.
I think that they're going to get enough property that probably are going to
protect them from anything a fence on Fred's property is going
to... I think they should be fine.
Yeah.
From
the pictures I've seen, I think they should be fine.
Okay, I'm done. Thanks.
Thank you. Any other discussion?
Yep. Madam President, I guess just to close out
the...
I am trying to be reasonable here,
and I don't want to deny, I don't want to put anybody out of business, but I
believe that every business that is in our city needs to follow the
rules,
and I'm a big proponent of having a clean slate
coming up to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Commission, the City
Council. Have your house in order and have everything ready to go
before. We
do this with abatements. We
look at the taxes. We look at
the order of magnitude for what it's going to take
to rectify a situation, and we make a business decision.
And in this case, one of the key items, these permits that are
being issued are not trivial. They deal with safety.
And I respect the opinion of Mr. Mazzarelli and the Building Division
and believe that a
30-day delay on this for this alley
vacation, if he's making progress and he wants to do this, perhaps
they can make plans, and if they're moving
in the direction of complying with fire suppression, per the
Building Division, they can alsoPlan for an alley
vacation while we hold it in abeyance for 30 days based
on the opinion of Mr. Mazzarelli.
So I'm going to make a motion to table this
item to the 28th of April.
I'll support that.
Okay. Councilman. All right.
So I will call the question. A yes is to
table this item to April 28th, Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes to table.
Mr. Boike?
Yes to table.
Mr. Dwyer?
No.
Mr. Noonan?
No.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Ms. Mohr?
No.
Rogan C is a no.
Item is not tabled.
So we'll return back to the original motion,
which I believe Ms. Mohr and Boike-
Mohr and Boike. Yeah
... yeah. Ms. Mohr and Mr. Boike had made a motion.
I will call the question originally on this item.
I
don't think I believe I supported it.
You supported it for discussion.
For discussion.
So I'm returning back to that motion. Do you want to withdraw your support?
I'd like to entertain discussion again.
Sure. Okay.
I just want to make a
statement.
That location has a long history of
violations. My only concern is if we
turn over an alley to him,
will he comply with the requirements of the alley and
not dump anything in there?
And if his record doesn't show...
This has been 10 years, I'm hearing.
And fire suppression's one of the biggest
concerns. If that place goes up in fire, it'll affect the people
behind him.
I'll support it for a vote.
Thank you.
Can the vacation be pulled back, Ms.
Catapodes?
Like can someone petition to make the alley public again?
No.
The deed was-
Maybe I'll let Ms. Michaels answer that.
Or Ms. Camp said no.
The property gets deeded to the owner.
To the new owner. Understood. Okay.
In the description.
Okay. You're good, Ms. Michaels. I answered.
Mayor Camp did a good job.
It was a cumulative process. I received my answer.
Any other discussion?
Madam President.
Mr. Noonan.
What I understood
Secretary Mohr to say was that
this alley vacation would help the property owner
to clean up the property and get on with it,
and that in general, he's providing a public service,
as a business person.
I'm going to have to go along with that.
I hope that
helps him.
So anyways,
I yield.
Thank you. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Okay, hearing and seeing none, I will call the question. Ms. Mohr?
Yes.
Mr. Boike?
No.
Let's see. Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
No.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
I changed to a yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. The alley is
vacated. Thank you. Next item.
Next item is 11A, consideration and adoption of a resolution
approving amendments to 2024, 2025 housing
and community development action plans, HOPWA budgets.
Motion to approve.
Support, Dwyer.
Any discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, I'll call the question. Ms. Mohr?
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boike?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan C is yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 11B, Treasurer Lori Barnwell requests to close the
following banks: Comerica Bank, City of Warren Parks and Rec Bingo,
Comerica Bank, City of Warren Parks and Rec Farmers Market, Comerica Bank,
City of Warren Water Payroll. So moved.
Point of order.
Yes, Mr. Lafferty?
Madam President and council members, I am employed by Comerica
Bank, now under the umbrella of Fifth Third, and ask to be
recused from this item to avoid any conflict of interest.
Motion to excuse the member.
Support, Dwyer.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
You are excused, Mr. Lafferty. Returning back to the item, I need a motion and
support.
We had a motion by Mohr and a
support by Dwyer.
Oh, you're right. We did.
Moved.
Yep, you're right.
I had my numbers wrong.
Any discussion?
Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question. Ms. Mohr?
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boike?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan C is yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12A, legal update.
Mr. Schroeder?
None at this time.
Next item is B, consideration and adoption of a resolution
approving an ordinance to amend chapter 25 of the Warren Code of Ordinances
relating to personnel and civil service, first reading.
So moved with discussion.
Support, Lafferty.
Discussion, Ms. Mohr.
Thank you.
So, we have been working on
this ordinance for a little over a year. I think we assigned Mr.
Schroeder to rewrite the civil service ordinance.
And Mr.
Schroeder will
give you more particulars. But just from my own experiences,
I was on the Civil Service Commission from
2007 to 20-- or 2008 to
2013,
and it was very evident that it's very
out of date, and
there are things in there that make absolutely no sense.
Most cities don't even have a civil service
commission. We happen to have it mentioned in the charter, so we
have to have one. But,
and we have police and fire have their own, so that's the majority of
our employees are police and fire, and then it doesn't affect political
appointees. So,
this is a long time coming, and I think it's a good thing.
This council has actually been trying to initiate
reforms,
and trying to bring things up to date.
It seems like every issue we go to investigate, we look at the
ordinance and it's 30, 40, 50, 60 years
old with language that's not pertinent anymore, it's
outdated, it's not legal anymore.
And so we're working on lots of ordinances
that deal with many issues, and
I'm really happy that everybody on council has worked really hard
together to try to update and get us into the
new century.
We aren't using carbon paper anymore, and that's new in the last couple of years
because we were using carbon paper.
So,
anyway, I let Mr.
Schroeder
address this.
Sure. Madam President?
You want audience?
Well,
I would like to get a chance to-
First have audience discussion
... ask questions after-
Sure. Yes
... Mr. Schroeder.
Mr. Schroeder go ahead. Then Mr. Noonan.
Thank you.
Okay.
So chapter 25 of the Warren Code of Ordinances
does create the civil service system.
A point of clarification, the charter requires a merit system.
It doesn't specifically require a commission, but it does require a merit system.
This ordinance has basically existed since
1967. As I said, since the Lyndon Johnson
administration, there haven't been any major structural changes to the civil
service system in the city
for six decades. There have been some minor
amendments over the years, but nothing that changes the structure.
For example,
within the last year or two, this council amended the civil
service ordinance to increase transparency.
There were some in this administration who wanted to withhold
eligibility lists and rankings, and this council updated
that to increase transparency, and that amendment passed.
But the overall structure hasn't changed.
But the city
and our policies, the procedures, so much has changed since
1967, and if you read the ordinance, it doesn't really accurately
describe what's currently happening.
So this is an attempt to bring and align current practices with what's in the
ordinance.
The biggest issue is recognizing that there's a human resources
department.
If you went back to the 1950s and '60s,
and '70s, and so on, it was called the Personnel Department.
And Personnel historically was sort of a more clerical
type role for the city. It wasn't a comprehensive
human resources department
that handles all the modern things that an HR department would handle.
Which includes just employee classification, labor compliance,
safety and wellness,
risk management, recruitment, workforce development,
succession planning, training. All these things that are now in a modern
HR office,
wasn't like that 50, 60 years ago. And so this
recognizes HR department. Now, if you read the budget,
we have an HR director, we have an HR department by the budget, but that's not how
you create a department. A department has to be created by an ordinance
passed by city council that is published and is part of our code of
ordinances. So at some point,
the budgetary practice went in a separate direction from the ordinance,
and this is bringing it all back into the ordinance where ordinances are
compliant with our current practices and vice
versa. So these changes will reflect the evolution of
HR from just a clerical office to a modern, comprehensive,
professional department responsible for compliance, labor
relations, and workforce strategy.
Then another major change is positions that are exempt from civil
service.
An exempt position is one that is what we call in
the city of Warren, you call it appointee, like a political appointee.
So this is someone appointed by the mayor.
Mayor may or may not be confirmed by the council.
For example, the deputy clerk, the deputy treasurer, they're political appointees.
The treasurer appoints the deputy treasurer. The clerk appoints the deputy clerk.
They don't go through civil service. They don't take a test.
It's their appointee. It's someone that works for them and is loyal
to them.
And we have quite a few in Warren. There are, I don't know, 30 to 40
appointees. They're exempt from civil service.
But if you look at the ordinance, there's an outdated list of, I don't know,
a couple dozen positions. I pointed out the helicopter mechanic is
listed as an exempt position.
City hasn't had a helicopter in 20 yearsOr more.
And so the proposal is that all of the
charter-recognized positions, your deputy clerk, your deputy treasurer,
city attorney, city assessor,
public service director, that those positions remain exempt
and that the council, by resolution, as positions change over the
years, the council can adopt a resolution as different departments
reorganize and they have different job titles.
You look in here and it says something like, "The private secretary to the mayor is
exempt."
Well, there hasn't been a private secretary to the mayor position
in 30 years, I don't think.
Now there are positions in the mayor's office, community relations
specialists or other positions, they're not in there.
So, the council has to retain its right to approve these as exempt
positions. So like we do with a lot of things, this will allow the council to
update it by resolution during the budget process.
So when the administration comes with a budget proposal
and they're saying, "Well, we're going to create some new positions," and they need
to clarify, is it civil service union or is it going to be
an appointed position? And then council would have to approve that as an appointed
position. The mayor still would retain her ability to make those appointments.
The appointment process doesn't change.
It's the process of identifying them as exempt from civil service.
So, there's an update there.
There are several key additional changes
reflecting the city's commitment to being pro-labor and
pro-union. In doing a little bit of homework and history
on this, I guess back in 1967 when this ordinance was passed,
most of the city employees were not represented by a labor union.
I don't know if any were represented by a labor union.
But since that time, obviously, I think
most of the non-exempt
positions are represented by various unions.
The general employees and supervisors have different unions, and
what this does is recognize that and language clarifies when
there is a union contract, a collective bargaining agreement, that that collective
bargaining agreement would govern and control. Now, that's the case anyway.
There's a long line of case law in Michigan that
union contracts, collective bargaining agreements can even supersede a charter.
So if you go into collective bargaining, you can get around your own charter
in collective bargaining. That's how strong collective bargaining is in the state
of Michigan.
So
there's a lot of references to the collective bargaining agreements
controlling.
There's also modernizing and streamlining appointment examination and notification
procedures.
And this maintains the merit system for all
civil service employees.
So really, it's mostly about modernizing this and recognizing the city's long
history with labor post-1967.
And
additionally,
we will have the council approving exempt positions moving forward.
So,
none of this has been changed in many years.
We've talked about this, and hopefully, we
can work together and get this passed. This is being presented for a first reading.
I did talk to Ms. Michaels before the meeting tonight.
She had a couple tweaks,
more than a couple, but she had a few suggestions, and I thought they were great.
And I think we can certainly incorporate those suggestions into the second reading.
So this is just the initial proposal.
She had some language related to veterans' preference she thought would be more
modern, and I think that's a great idea.
She also said we need to strengthen the risk management language here under HR.
I thought that was a great idea. So certainly, we're open to those
changes before there would be a second reading.
So I can certainly answer any questions at this time.
Thank you.
Mr. Noonan.
Thank you so much.
Obviously,
your knowledge of this is way superior to mine, so I'm mainly trying to
catch up and understand this well.
I'm curious as to--
it seems like this would greatly reduce
the work or the
scope of what the Warren Civil Service Commission
would do.
And
that could be really good.
But in the meantime,
would it
be that they would only
be responsible for temporary and seasonal workers?
No. They would
be responsible for classified employees who are not represented by a union.
Okay.
So classified employees who are not represented by a union, they would have
control over any of that process.
Okay. So those wouldn't be necessarily temporary or seasonal, but
some of them might be?
Well, they could be full-time. I think one thing here, to be
clear,
I started my career here in Warren, and I was an attorney in the
attorney's office, and I was represented by a union, and I would go around, people
would say, "What? You're represented by a union?
You're in the legal department?" And
that was true. Then I went to the Michigan Attorney General's office, and none of
the lawyers there were represented by a union.
They had civil service, but they didn't have a union, okay?
And as you move around and you look at all the
municipalities in the area, some regional authorities, the state of Michigan,
you have a lot of classified employees who aren't represented by a union.
There's a whole class of middle management,
upper management, and even certain workers represented
that don't have a union, but they're civil service.
Any civil service employee who's not represented by a union would still have
all the rights and processes
allowedTo be heard by the Civil Service Commission.
Warren just has a practice of where there are very few folks who are
civil service that aren't represented by a union.
Okay.
So I guess,
what in general would the Civil Service Commission still be
responsible for?
Well, they would be responsible for hearing and deciding
matters related to classified employees who are not represented by a union.
Okay.
When it comes to the employees of the mayor's office,
this doesn't envision changing any of them, right?
Not in the least. My understanding is, and well, it's true,
that all of the employees in the mayor's office are exempt from
civil service, which means they are appointed by the mayor,
and as long as the position's in the budget, that
they're appointed by the mayor and
they don't go through civil service, and that hasn't been the case for years.
What this would do is require that the council, by
resolution,
recognize those positions as exempt,
meaning that we needed updated job titles.
I know that the council, because I've been up here for a few years now-
Yeah
... has on multiple occasions asked for a list and not received a
list.
Ah.
But
you can see it in the budget. So when council goes through the budget hearings in
April, you will see, you can open the budget and go to the mayor's office and
you'll see all the positions in the mayor's office, and they're all exempt.
My recommendation would be in the budget that maybe there be a notation of which
positions are exempt, so we're clear.
I know last year,
I can't remember which department, but someone was proposing a new
position and there was no indication if it was civil service, if
it was appointed. But this would allow the council by
resolution to update that list. So
if, for example, the mayor wanted to reorganize her office,
council could just at the budget time pass a resolution approving that
reorganization rather than going through an ordinance
first reading, second reading, and publish it in the newspaper.
That seems like a lot of work for a department to do a
small reorganization or to change a job title.
Like job titles change over time.
Mm-hmm.
So you hear something like private secretary to the mayor.
I think in the '70s and '80s that probably sounded good, but that doesn't fit
with modern views of how
people are described in their administrative responsibilities.
So, we could do that by resolution through the council
instead of being stuck with an ordinance that you have to amend and publish twice
or have two readings and publish it.
Okay. Then,
let's see.
Section 25-23, item
C, "Any person who appoints any person to a position not
qualified or exempted under this article is guilty of a
misdemeanor."
Yeah.
So I'm reading the terms qualified and exempted
relative to whether they're union or not union.
But is that about that, or are they unqualified
people, like they really didn't deserve the job?
That's a great question, Councilman.
So this language has been there since 1967, okay?
Uh-huh.
So this isn't a change. What you're referring to, it says, "Any person who
appoints any person of a position not qualified or exempted under this article is
guilty of a misdemeanor." This is appointing somebody who doesn't meet the job
description, right?
Okay.
So if someone's woefully unqualified and you appoint
them
for something that has a civil service job description and they didn't meet the
qualifications, that would be a violation.
So it would have a civil service job description somewhere.
Right.
Like it isn't nebulous.
Right.
Okay. Yeah, that's good. Well-
And that language has been there. We didn't touch that.
It's a whole new world for me, though it's been there since 19...
whatever.
Let's see. Am I done?
Okay. It seems like meticulous scrutiny has been provided.
I yield.
Thank you. Ms. McGee?
Yeah. I have questions because even though the civil service has been
around since, this information been around since 1967, it
was established to prevent
favoritism, it
was prevented based on merit and not on politics.
How are we going to know
what type of qualifications are needed without
us getting involved with what we consider to be
qualified
civil service employees?
To me, we want to protect employees more than anything.
So,
how are we going to know what qualification? Will we have any input in that?
And I'm sorry if it doesn't make sense, but I'm reading through everything that you
have given us in a short period of time.
To me,
I definitely would like to do more of a walkthrough
for this first read because I want to have a clear understanding of
how we exactly play a part in this.
So I believe I understand your question, and, first of all, yes, that's why
ordinances have two readings,
so that we present it on a first reading.
You certainly have the opportunity to ask questions and do research and
do your homework on this. With respect to the favoritism, that's why it's
called a merit system. This
maintains the merit system. Hiring
will be based on merit, promotions on seniority where appropriate.
AndYou think about favoritism and we want to prevent
that. I don't think Ms. Moore wouldn't
remind me saying this, but she was on the Civil Service Commission many
years ago,
and she protested somebody who wasn't qualified for a position, and she voted no
at the civil service, and she was terminated
probably with a letter in the mail shortly after that.
So there is no perfect system. It's not always clear that the
Civil Service Commission
would always do the right thing. As far as council's role
in the process, council passes the ordinances, council passes the
resolutions, and council has the oversight authority.
So for example, last year, when an employee
who felt something was wrong was trying to get
an eligible list that was created,
council amended the ordinance to make it more transparent so that those lists were
available to employees who didn't get what they thought they deserved.
So council can always amend the ordinance.
Council has the power of the purse in the budget, and council has oversight
authority. Council can subpoena department heads to come here and
investigate if you think something's going on.
So council has a lot of authority as the
check and balance on the administration, and that won't change.
Okay.
I believe that's all the questions I have. Thank you.
Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you. Mr. Schroeder, in reading
through the changes, the only
item that caught my attention was Section 25-24, was the
merit system.
And in the proposed changes for
the first reading,
it makes reference to discrimination based
on the account of race, color, religion. It mentions the word handicap.
That was not revised to modern standards.
And then it also makes reference to disabled veteran status
or Vietnam veteran status.
So maybe in accordance with the changes that Ms.
Michaels-
Ms. Michaels pointed that out, and she's going to propose some updated
language that the city has used in other areas.
So I think we'll be seeing that changing on a
proposed second reading.
Wonderful. Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Madam Chair.
Ms. Moore.
I
want to remind everyone that when we do a first reading, that is
just it.
We
pass it, it may not pass, and then it kind of dies.
But this is a first reading, and we'll work on it.
That's why you have
the period between the first and second.
I think everybody's aware up here that
the mayor sent out a press release today.
Not sure why she was motivated to do that when we're just doing
a first reading. She would certainly have been
able in the last year to
ask for input into what we had been working on.
It is totally the council's purview to create ordinances, but
we work with all kinds of people in the city to make sure we get it
right.
Not anybody has all of the information.
But it was a little disconcerting to
get a
press release today. It seems ridiculous to me
that someone's wasted the time to
alert the press to something that's not even been
voted into
law yet. So I'm not sure why that...
We
have tried very hard to initiate reforms, and why we
are getting stonewalled every time we try
to lift this city up is just beyond me.
But we will keep working hard. We're going to keep trying to make things better,
and this council has been great about that.
I'm proud to be with this group. This is one of the most cohesive
work together councils I've seen in my lifetime.
So that's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Schroeder, for all your hard work.
Any other discussion?
Okay, hearing and seeing none, I will call the question. Ms.
Moore?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boike?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Roggenky is a yes.
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12B,
towing subcommittee recommendations to approve the following towing
companies: Abel Towing, Bill's Towing, Ellis Towing, M&D Towing,
Official Towing, Service Towing. Motion to approve with discussion.
Support Lafferty.
I believe this is 12C, right?
12C.
12C, okay.
I thought you said 12B.
Who asked for discussion?
I did.
Ms. Moore.
Thank you. The subcommittee met. Most of
the towing companies show up and their legal representatives sometime,
and
the proposed list didn't change
from last year. And we
discuss any issues that the towing companies have and anything
we can help or new things coming down the pipe that we need
to deal with, and we seem very satisfied.
Certainly, there were no complaints about the service we're receiving from any of
the towing companies.
They all do a really, really good job, and
we know that things are going to be tough for anybody doing services for
the city that require driving vehicles, especially
diesel.
That the price of gas has gone through the roof, I guess, in the
last week. I don't usually put gas in my car. My husband does that for me.
But
I think that that's something we're going to have to think about in the
futureI told them if things get out of hand to
come back, and the subcommittee would look, and they were very
happy to stay at the rates they had from last year, but we may have to
revisit that if things get too bad with fuel.
But that's my only comments. Thank you.
Madam Chair.
Ms. McGee and then Mr. Lafferty.
Madam Secretary, could you tell me how we involved with the
subcommittee as a city with the towing company?
How are they abused? Please begin the inquiry.
No. What happens is,
the
tow companies are chosen. The police department usually sends over the
list. And what happens is when
the dispatchers receive notification from,
it's usually police officers, they'll be at a car accident, and they may say, "We
need a flatbed," or, "We need to have two cars picked up."
And they do round robin, whoever is on the list.
They'll go, "Able Towing is first.
Bill's Towing is second." And they go
through the list so nobody gets preferential treatment.
They all get the same amount of...
One call might be three cars, one call might be one car, but it all works
out. And then there's also an administrative fee that is
paid for each tow, and that's paid to the city clerk.
So is this a contract
process?
It's not a contract.
It's not a-
No.
Okay.
They're on the list, and
we don't have a contract with any of them.
Any of them.
And they're not guaranteed work. We could probably, at any time,
amend. We could come in and say... Maybe somebody went out of business, or
they didn't want to do the work anymore. They could.
And we could amend the-
Towing list
... towing list, yeah, at any time.
Is there any rules
regarding
towing service if we are connected to any towing service?
It could be the city, the
employees, it could be their type of business.
I don't know that there's-
Let's say one of the employees have a towing service.
Well, they couldn't do work for us.
Okay. So they-
It would be a conflict of interest.
It would be a conflict. And they have to fill out paperwork that says that, I
think. Mary? Yeah. They submit paperwork that says they're
not
employed by, or family member's not employed by.
Okay. I didn't know if it was anything.
And then when we have city tows, like DPW, there is a
contract for that.
And that goes out for bid. In fact, we just voted on it in the last
two months, I think, two or three months of the towing...
Well, less than that, but the towing company, because service
towing does the DPW. For
instance, you remember the house that...
Mr. Mazzarelli will remember. How many cars did we take out of there?
180 cars on a property. So I think we used every tow company we
could get our hands on, right?
Yeah. All six. So that's a
special situation, but.
Okay. Thank you.
Yeah.
Mr. Lafferty.
Thank you. I wanted to make mention, Ms.
Moore, you had
referenced the improvements that the council's making
on the ordinances and the work we do up here.
This is a very good example of that.
And I remember back in 2019 when we
first took office, that the subcommittee was rather
contentious. There was a lot of unanswered questions.
The policies weren't
particularly in order, and there were
a large number of questions. I think that this last subcommittee that
met last week was probably one of the smoothest I've ever seen.
And you made reference to the
resolution for the fees, the fee schedule that you championed
last year and made sure that we standardized that and
updated it, and now we have a process for that going forward.
So I think that this is a really good example in reference to what we're doing
with civil service of how smooth that these things can
go based on the work that we put forward.
So just wanted to make mention of that.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Any other discussion on this item?
Can I just add one thing? I will mention that with EV
vehicles now, that the tow yards have to have
a special facility built where the EV vehicles have
to be stored. So all of the tow companies have had to
incur a little more expense. As you'll remember, we
revisited the fees for towing and added a
special assessment, I'll call it, for EV.
We bumped that up a little bit because it costs them a little bit more for
what they do. So what we did do, we changed it so
that we can easily change the fees, and that's one of the ways
we were able to do that because of that change we had implemented.
Okay. Hearing and seeing no other discussion,
I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Thank you. Mm-hmm. Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boyke?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is
12E,
will be to approve
the settlement direction
discussed in closed session regarding the Andrea
Davis versus City of Warren et al., Macomb County Circuit Court
case
24-002591-N1. So moved.
Support Lafferty.
'Cause this is an item that was discussed in closed session, and all the subsequent
items we won't be having discussion.
Okay.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Boyke?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12F, approve
the settlement
discussed in closed session in the matter of Cody Davis versus
City of Warren et al., Macomb County Circuit Court case number
24-001653, and I so moved.
Support Lafferty.
Ms. Moore.
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty.
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer.
Yes.
Mr. Boyke.
Yes.
Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
Ms. McGee.
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12G,
approving the settlement strategy discussed in the
Ben Saeed versus City of Warren, Macomb County Circuit Court case number
243406, and I so moved.
Support Lafferty.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore.
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty.
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer.
Yes.
Mr. Boyke.
Yes.
Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
Ms. McGee.
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12H,
approve the settlement discussed
in the Linda Devoot et al. versus City of Warren, US
District Court case number
2-20-CV-13168.
So moved.
Support Lafferty.
Ms. Moore.
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty.
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer.
Yes.
Mr. Boyke.
Yes.
Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
Ms. McGee.
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is
12I,
is to approve the settlement strategy discussed
in closed session on Dallas Groves versus City of Warren et al.,
Macomb County Circuit Court case number
2024-005050, and I
so moved.
Support Lafferty.
Ms. Moore.
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty.
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer.
Yes.
Mr. Boyke.
Yes.
Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
Ms. McGee.
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 12J, Councilwoman Mindy Moore's
discussion regarding Chicago Road neighborhood complaints.
So moved.
Support Lafferty.
We are back with discussion. Ms. Moore.
Thank you. Yes, I received a phone call today that
indicated the lane markings on Chicago
Road between Mound and Van D**e are almost worn
away, especially
the temporary area by Van D**e, and it's
making it very difficult to navigate that area.
I would request that we
send a message. I think
Mr. Mazzarelli just gave me the thumbs up that he will get it to
the right people.
Okay.
I'm satisfied with that.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13A, request to approve a consulting agreement
for a defense industry economic development advisor with
AECOM Great Lakes, Inc. at an estimated cost of
$1,328,644
over a three-year period, and authorize the mayor and clerk to sign the
consulting agreement on behalf of the City of Warren.
Consideration and adoption of a resolution, so moved with discussion.
Support Lafferty.
Discussion, Ms. Moore.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the work of
the
alliance agreement that we have with Sterling Heights,
and I have spoken with both of the Warren representatives,
Christina Lodovisi and Patrick Green,
and they are in favor of this and urged us
to
please
approve this agreement.
Any other discussion?
Okay.
Hearing and seeing none, I will call the question. Ms. Moore.
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty.
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer.
Yes.
Mr. Boyke.
Yes.
Mr. Noonan.
Yes.
Ms. McGee.
Yes.
Rogan, C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13B, consideration and adoption of our resolution
accepting the award of grants from the US Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
in a total amount of
$5,750,000.
So moved with discussion.
Support Lafferty.
Discussion, Ms. Moore.
Thank you. I think Ms. Tereschenko is here.
Good
evening. Thanks for being here.
Good evening.
That seems like a boatload of money to me.
Yes.
Now, I know sometimes with
CDBG that some bigger
cities sort of distribute money on behalf of more than
just ourselves.
Is this the $5 million just for Warren?
It's just for Warren.
Wow.
Yeah. This is a competitive grant that we applied for and were awarded,
so we're really excited about it.
Well, yeah. That's a lot of money.
Yeah.
So how far will that go?
Well, it really depends. This is going to be open to homeowners and
rental properties. So it's really just dependent on what hazards are
identified in the property.
HUD identifies $30,000 as a high-cost unit.
But really, HUD can approve if there's more hazards
that need to be addressed. They can approve in excess of that.
Is it based on income?
Yes. For owner-occupied properties, the homeowner needs to
be low income.
Okay.
And the good thing about rental properties is they can be vacant
units, the
tenants can be low income.
There's just a lot that we can do in rental properties as well.
What about city-owned property?
No, we can't do city-owned properties. They have to be residential properties, too.
You know where I'm going, Mr. Schroeder.
Yeah.
Okay.
I was going to the land bank.
Yeah.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Yeah.
Appreciate you being here.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Any other discussion?
Question.
Ms. McGee.
I want to-
Ms. Tarrasenko, your microphone.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
Do we already know what the
requirements for
lead hazardous control?
So, once someone applies for the grant, we have to have
the property tested, and so a third party will go out, and
they'll identify what things are hazards.
So typically, we see lead-based paint in friction surfaces, so a lot of times
it's windows,
doors, door jams. Usually, those are the main culprits or where
you see lead-based paint. So, we won't know
until the home is tested where the hazards are and need to be
addressed.
Okay. Thank you.
Yes.
Madam President.
Mr. Lafferty.
Ms. Tarrasenko, good evening.
Compared to previous years, is this a first-time
receipt for these funds?
No, we received a lead-based paint grant in the past, but this is
significantly larger.
All right. Do we have accounting already established for this, accounts,
appropriations?
Yeah. We've already established the fund with the previous grant.
But once the grant agreement is officially signed, we'll make sure that the budget
and everything is taken care of, yes.
It will all follow. 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. Boyke?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan C is a yes. Motion carries. Next item.
Next item is 13C, request to approve an
RFP and appoint a member of council to serve on the
RFP for lead abatement contractors.
I'll do it.
Okay. A motion to
approve the RFP and appoint Angela Rogan C
to the
RFP.
Support.
Can I call my own question here, or do I have to pass?
Yeah, you can.
Can I? Okay.
Anyone else interested in this position? No? Okay.
No.
I will call the question. Ms. Moore?
Yes.
Mr. Dwyer?
Yes.
Mr. Lafferty?
Yes.
Mr. Boyke?
Yes.
Mr. Noonan?
Yes.
Ms. McGee?
Yes.
Rogan C is yes. Thank you everybody.
Great choice.
Yeah. Thank you. Next item.
Next item is audience participation
for general topic.
Members of the audience who would like to address city council this evening may do
so by filling out an audience form
on the right side of the stage. You have three minutes.
There is a monitor in front. This is for general topics.
First up is Lori Harris.
Yes, first up is Lori Harris.
Now
I have to remember what I was going to talk about at this.
I wanted to say that what I didn't understand about that lovely
family,
is that their garage is on the alley.
So in order for them to go in and out of their garage, they have
to go in the alley, and if there was a potential of a
fence being put up at 10 feet, that would
limit their ability to get in and out of the garage.
So, I think that
sometimes, especially when there's a language barrier,
a little extra work trying to understand what the problem is.
And I wanted to mention that I
was around the micro forest today,
and
while everything isn't budding yet,
it looks desolate and dead,
completely. Although there are some small things coming up around the
outside. I don't know what was there before, but just as an FYI.
I also wanted to
talk
about the
emergent issue with the wastewater treatment plant,
and
I'm just wondering why the mayor
hasn't put out a press release unless I've missed it.
I can think of other things that have happened that would definitely need a press
release.
I saw a public notice at City Hall last
night. I went back today to get a picture of it.
Why is the city not taking advantage and publishing these things
on Facebook?
We
need to do better. And
I'm
just really stunned. I'm not stunned.
I'm not surprised. I wish it was different that our mayor
is
not paying attention to the things that need to be paid attention to and not
doing what she needs to do.
AndPhoto ops are not
helpful when we have big crises in our city.
I would like again to ask the council
to
figure out a way to ban Sharia law
here, just in case, so we
make it clear that we're not
going to support that in our community.
And this lovely family that
was up here,
they're from Egypt. And to me, a Women of Warren
group would've been women just like her and every other person in the
city. And I'd love to see us get together and do that.
Thank you.
Next is Katrina Manetta.
Good evening, Council. How are you tonight?
My name is Katrina Manetta, and I'm running for state representative here in
District 58, which includes portions of Warren.
And I'm here because I want to flag a few things that are happening with the
funding situation around H.R. 19, the
courthouse, the parks, and what I would do differently as your partner in Lansing.
I understand why the city is in this position. We definitely need the money.
The parks need the money, and everyone agrees that the courthouse needs this
money.
The courthouse is currently overcrowded, unsafe, and outdated,
so much so that we had to close it down a couple of times.
Unfortunately, Republicans in Lansing pulled a $645
million that had already been appropriated and called it waste,
fraud, and abuse, and then offered to give it back, but with strings attached,
unfortunately. That's not the type of governing that Warren
deserves, and it put the council in an impossible situation.
What I want to make sure is that this council and the community is fully aware of
what House Resolution 19 and Rule 52 actually
requires.
Any city seeking state dollars for district projects
now have to submit a signed letter committing to full cooperation with
federal immigration enforcement.
Other state legislators who represent Warren have raised serious public
concerns that when
Representative Robinson reached out to Warren, that he tied his help to recovering
the park's money and pursuing the $10 million for the courthouse to
submitting that letter promising full cooperation with federal
enforcement.
I can't speak to exactly where things stand right now, but I do want to express my
concern for the exposure that arrangement creates for the city of Warren.
If city staff or officers get pulled into the enforcement
situation and something goes wrong, like a wrongful detention or a
rights violation, Warren is who gets sued,
not Lansing. And we've seen it happen recently.
Local governments in Michigan have paid out six-figure
settlements when people were wrongfully detained.
An example is Kent County, who paid $190,000 to settle a
lawsuit after a marine combat veteran was wrongfully detained
under a very similar arrangement.
So, there's something worth mentioning about the importance
of public safety as well, and that is something I care deeply about here in
Warren. When residents believe that local government is connected to
federal immigration enforcement, some of them stop calling
911, and they stop coming forward as witnesses and trust breaks
down. We have worked hard in this city to build trust with our law enforcement
community, and that's not a risk that I'd be worth taking.
I'm not here to second-guess this council what you've
done, the finances are definitely needed.
I'm just here because I want to be a different kind of partner for
Warren in Lansing, and I will fight to bring the residents of Warren's tax
dollars home from Lansing through the budget process without conditions-
You're at time. Thank you
... that create a legal risk. Thank you so much.
Next is Brandon Watson.
After Brandon is Pete Sutliffe.
Good evening, Council, and thank you for the opportunity to
speak tonight.
My name is Brandon Watson, and I'm here this evening representing Macomb
Defenders Rising.
I wasn't born in Warren. I grew up right next door in Sterling Heights.
And when I was looking to buy a home, I chose to live in Warren.
I'm very proud of our city and like telling people from out of state that we
are the third-largest city in all of Michigan.
And it's because I care about the city and its residents that I'm here
tonight urging this council to fully examine what Michigan
House Resolution 19 would cost the people of Warren.
For anyone who isn't aware, H.R. 19 is a House resolution that
strong-arms Michigan cities into violating the
constitutional rights of their residents.
It does so by holding state appropriations hostage unless the
city certifies its compliance with federal immigration
raids that are being carried out with a shocking level of
brutality and a total disregard for due process.
Many of those who are being swept up by these raids are American
citizens who are being picked up on a whim because of the language
they speak or the color of their skin.
I realize that these strong-arm tactics puts this council in a
difficult position. Parks matter,
courthouses matter, and that's exactly what those who are behind this
resolution are counting on. But there are some additional costs that need to
be part of this conversation. Not only will closer cooperation with
ICE leave the people of Warren holding the bag for expensive litigation
when those constitutional rights are inevitably violated, by
damaging trust in law enforcement, it promotes exactly the opposite
of public safety.How many Warren residents will
refuse to send their kids to school, stop reporting crimes,
or simply drive away from a car accident because of a fear
of being dragged away by masked federal agents?
A fear that ICE's violent, unprofessional tactics
are fully intended to provoke.
No one in this city deserves to live in fear.
What we choose to tolerate, we endorse.
Thank you for your time and service to the city.
Please keep Warren a safe city where public safety,
civil rights, and accountability come first. Thank you.
Thank you. Next is Pete Sutliff.
After Pete is
Jeffrey Matthews and then Gloria Sanker.
If anyone has any additional audience, now is the time.
Good evening, Council. I'm
very concerned about agenda item 13A, which you just
passed unanimously,
which is for the city to hire a defense industry consultant.
If there's one thing I agree with Donald Trump on, and I assure you there is
only one thing, it is to call the Department of War by its true
name.
Multiple American presidents have attacked other countries based on
flawed reasoning, faulty intelligence, or political
opportunism, like has just recently happened.
This is not just political theater or news headlines.
Not only do Americans who wanted to serve their country die, but
innocent children like the 30 schoolgirls whose school we just
blew up in Iran, or the 10,000 Palestinian
children killed using weapons we gave to Israel.
It is disturbing to read in the review panel recommendation
the vision for executing a long-term strategy for war
industry sustainability and growth.
I spoke on sustainability at your last meeting.
War is not something we should want to continue forever and ever.
It goes on to say responsibilities will include promoting policies at
all levels of government that support the war sector
and emphasize its economic and technological contributions.
Clearly, this strategy is cleverer than to emphasize the
destruction and devastation to human lives that are caused by this
technology.
But what about having a conscience?
Clearly, you can have crackpots elected or
appointed to the highest levels of government in this country who
may not care to honor national sovereignty or follow
the rule of law, as a previous speaker just mentioned.
It is not a stretch to imagine military drones used to take out Donald
Trump's political opponents in this country.
He has even bragged about being able to kill somebody
without any consequence.
We have already seen ICE and Border Patrol used against citizens with deadly
consequences. Let your conscience be your guide.
If you were to say that the RFP committee was unanimous in their approval of
AECOM and so it is our duty to approve this contract, then
you should apply that same logic to the RFP committee recommendations to hire
BlueStrike to develop a climate action plan that would
truly provide sustainable benefits to the people of the city.
The city needs to hire someone with more imagination to handle economic
development in the city. The easy money of defense
contracts is alluring, but since Trump and Hegseth
don't have a conscience, you have to have one.
Thank you.
Next is Jeffrey Matthews, and then Gloria Sanker.
Good evening, Council. I'm Jeffrey Matthews, co-founder of the South Warren
Community Garden and board member of the supporting nonprofit
Urban Seed.
Urban Seed is a multi-award winning nonprofit whose flagship
garden has run successfully for over a decade in East Point.
We operate partnerships with local organizations, the Macomb County Health
Department, and secure grant funding from businesses such as Whole Foods.
We have local elected and city development officials on our board,
along with farmers, builders, fundraisers, and technologists.
Our primary purpose is to build successful urban gardens,
helping to train strong gardeners who help create strong
communities. I've returned tonight to discuss the ongoing
issues we've had in securing an acceptable lease for the South Warren
Community Garden. In the past year, we've created something truly
outstanding for the local area. We've worked with our neighbors to build a
vibrant green oasis that people enjoy and benefit from
daily.
It provides access to fresh, free produce and is an
incubator for innovation that'll allow us to do even more.
We had planned to triple the size of the current garden this year, add
automated watering, smart mesh networks, and a seedling
distribution center. All of that, and more, has been put
on hold.
The long-term lease that we have been offered is a worse version of the same
awful, restrictive, and overreaching short-term lease from last year.
The lease takes away things like our ability to have exterior lighting,
which is counterintuitive for making sure the garden is
visible, safe, and cleared at night.
It removes the use of our beloved farm stand and prohibits us
from leaving harvested vegetables out for people to take.
The stand itself only serves as a way for people to make sure
they take what's already weighed, logged, and is
ripe.Outside of that, it is a way for
neighbors to share what is grown in their very own gardens.
The stand regularly contains gorgeous homegrown vegetables that neighbors choose
to be generous with.
It has allowed us to take our late season's green harvest, ripen
it, and return it for people to enjoy, even in November.
Taking it away is literally taking food from people's mouths.
The preexisting lease and these ill-conceived additions are counter
to the core of what our urban garden is, our
organization's mandate, and the ideas behind community.
We ask for your help to push forward an acceptable lease in the next month, and
if an acceptable lease cannot be found, our governing board and myself are
considering alternative locations.
No longer in the communities we live might we serve.
This would be both heartbreaking and a great disservice to those whom we've all
dedicated so much to.
Thank you to those on council-
Your time
... who have championed our cause.
Thank you. Next is Gloria Sanker.
Some thoughts on voting. If you don't have common sense, you have
no place in government. Today, we find common sense to
be very uncommon. Politicians in the blue states don't
want police protection. They call for sanctuary cities.
That means protecting criminals.
They believe in mutilation of children for sex
change. They believe men should be in women's sports.
They don't believe botched abortions should be given medical
attention to preserve life. They don't believe in
identification for voting, but for buying beer,
yes. They believe in gay rights over Christian
values.
This is actually the present platform of the Democratic
Party, of which many of our politicians are
members.
It's simply that in its reasonable decision-making, you
cannot be without common sense and lead, and yet, how
many of these people hold elective office, making life a
hardship because they refuse to allow common
sense in decision-making? Elections are coming up for
governor. Listen for common sense solutions.
Common sense solutions served us for hundreds of years.
Now, the radical left
is using radical means, not to solve problems, but to
incite them, like no police to solve crimes,
sanctuary cities to harbor criminals, justify
the mutilation of children for sex change, promote
gay rights instead of national prayer, no ID
for voting,
but it's necessary to have one to buy beer,
to name just a few of the absurdities and
abnormalities of radical thinkers.
The only leverage that we have is to vote.
Nothing else will change us from becoming a socialist
society as New York has become. Why did it
happen? People with common sense didn't vote.
They thought the office of mayor was unimportant. Well, guess what?
Every office is important, and now the most influential
city in America, New York, is run by a
socialist Democrat. People do it to themselves.
No one else to blame. Too busy, too lazy
to vote. Thank you.
Thank you. That is the end of audience.
Next item.
Madam Chair,
council response to audience, if I may.
Yeah.
First, I'd like to respond to the gentleman regarding the
community garden.
Mr. Schroeder actually wanted to try to get involved,
but it's our understanding that it's in the mayor's office,
so it's being held up there, I guess.
She's probably too busy writing a press release premature on an issue
today that one more day that yours didn't get out was, sorry.
Also, on the wastewater treatment plant, Ms.
Harris,
I have to agree with you.
I thought that there should've been a
press release.
In fact, I would've been out Monday morning, gathered
with reporters and explaining what happened over the weekend
so that residents knew. That was a near
catastrophic failure that could've resulted in
sewage in every basement, in every home, every business in the
city. And
we had really, really great, great people that worked
diligently,
nonstop, all weekend, with
contractors that came in to fix it.
They came up with a temporary fix that diverted the flow,
and we are going to be doing a temporary fix
now. It's going to be very expensive. It's going to take a long time.
But I agree with you. As of the posting, you mentioned about posting
something on Facebook, you thought.
Any time a legal requirement, it never includes
social media. That's not considered an adequate place to post things
for it to get out to the public. And while you and I may
go on Facebook, it's not very popular in the scheme of
things anymore. I don't think any of our kids are
looking at Facebook. I know mine don't.
I don't think anybody
over...
Well, I don't know. Not many people are looking at Facebook these days, so it's
probably not the greatest place, but I'm there, too. I get it.
And I will note on the
request for the $10 million, that was a bipartisan
ask.Representative Ron
Robinson, along with Mike McFall, put in that $10 million
request from the city. I appreciate that.
I know in times of extreme partisanship, it's hard
to get people to work together, and there's nothing more I
appreciate than putting partisan politics aside
to do what's right for your constituents.
That's what we do every week up here that we are
here, and we operate in a bipartisan fashion.
There's no partisan politics up here.
We do what's right for the citizens of Warren.
And if that means I talk to a Republican, that means I talk to a
Democrat, that means I talk to a Libertarian, I will talk and work with
anybody I need to, to get what's best for the citizens of Warren.
So, I don't appreciate the lecture
of
the error of our ways and what we signed and what
that document said. That's not exactly what it
said or what the situation was. And the
fact is our police department has to follow federal law.
We have lots of police officers involved in federal work, and we get
lots of grants that make this city work, and we have to
follow federal law or we wouldn't get any of that money.
And that's not just today, that wasn't yesterday, that's going back years and
years. We don't have a choice.
So,
sorry, my clarifications. Thank you.
Any other response?
Madam President.
Mr. Lafferty.
I wanted to respond regarding the comments
about the Defense Alliance
and the inaccuracy that the
pipeline phasing for the proposal, rather,
defined it as supporting war,
which could not be further from the truth.
The proposal that was voted on tonight establishes a framework
for defense alliance governance, scope and deliverables,
and stakeholder engagement.
It builds a shared fact database that creates strategy,
brand, and federal asks across the
alliance of our two cities.
It primes our suppliers, leads talent
acquisition, and new business pairing with the
Department of Defense.
It measures success with metrics and KPI
dashboards. It tracks wins, jobs,
capital investment, and our pipeline for new investment.
It focuses on federal capture of funding,
appropriations with the strength of not one, but two cities
united in this alliance to address our federal partners
and create economic development that is not only supportive, but
attracts additional investment along the defense corridor along
Van D**e.
Plain and simple. We can build our city,
we can diversify our tax base
across commercial and industrial corridors,
and we can ignore others, or we can welcome the
development and
new investment, sustainable investment,
by building a cross-section alliance
between our two cities, working together and strengthening our
position in the region as the defense corridor that
businesses will want to invest right here, either in
Sterling Heights or in Warren, where taxpayers benefit
all day long.
And it does not
once mention the word war or
support in any way, shape, or form. Thank you.
Any additional response?
Okay. Seeing and hearing none. I cannot talk
today.
Get it out.
Next item.
Motion to adjourn.
Support to where?
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? We're adjourned.
Have a good night.