Member Durh, Member Vice Chair did indicate he is on his way.

Okay.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Thank you so much, ma'am.

Appreciate it.

Good morning, Member Johnson.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Motion.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

When I want to let everyone know that we are we have no public hearings today, which allows for a little bit more time for discussion as well as a public comment.

So we're gonna go right into public comment.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

I see a couple of hands in the committee of the holes at one, two, three, four, five.

Five hands in the committee of the whole.

If you want to speak online, also raise your hand going once, going twice, going three times.

Collection public comments have now concluded.

Ms.

Jackson, good morning.

How many folks do we have online?

Good morning, Mr.

Chair.

We have 13 callers online.

13 callers online.

All right, we're gonna give everyone two minutes.

I guess we have no public hearings today, so give us a little bit more time.

And we will start with the individuals who are in the committee of the whole today.

So all of you raised your hand, three mics uh in front of us.

Please take one of those seats when you complete your comments.

Please leave that seat and allow the next person to take it.

When you do pull uh up to your seat, you see the mic, uh, it is red.

You're gonna hit that button at the bottom of the microphone until that red turns green, and then you're ready to go.

Got to give everyone the same amount of time so everyone gets two minutes.

So once the two minutes is over, gotta now move to the next individual.

Okay.

So we'll start uh this way and move on over to uh my left.

Good morning.

Floor is yours.

And the clock is is there if you want to take a look and see how much time you have left.

Um good morning.

My name is India Hawkins, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Waverly property that's adjacent to the garden book off of West Davidson.

Um the question that has been lingered for the past four years is the same one that Mr.

Tate asked on the September 9th meeting.

How did we get here?

And yet no one has been able to answer.

No one has been held accountable, no one has been honest or had a respectful conversation with the person that has been impacted the most with this situation, who is Ms.

Hawkins, who is my mother.

Um let me be clear.

Getting the guarding bug shut down was never on the agenda.

In fact, I agree with what was said on the September 4th meeting.

The flower shop is a beautiful vision for the neighborhood, but it should have been planned way better.

Every department, every leader, every inspector, and every organization should have just simply did their job.

Instead, my mother has endured disrespect, even from the people that patronized the business.

She should have never even had to interact with them had it been pleasure pl planned right.

Now I'm just a nurse, so I don't know anything about zoning, cutting curbs or any of that that goes into planning those type of things, but I do know that if the proper channels were followed, we would not be here today.

And as I said in the March meeting, the biggest and most important issue is safety.

Now, what has been allowed and what has continued the past four years is unsafe.

No one should ever be inconvenienced or denied access to a property of that property that they rightfully own under any circumstances, and that's what has been going on these past four years.

Thank you so much.

And I don't ever want to hear you say I'm just a nurse.

All right.

My wife is a nurse and she's a super nurse, and we love nurses around here.

All right.

Uh but thank you for being here.

Good morning, ma'am.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Ernestine Hawkins, and I'm the property owner adjacent to the garden bug at the Davidson location.

For over three years since 2022, I have been asking the city of Detroit to assist me with ongoing issues caused by the garden bug, including parking violations, trespassing, vandalism, blocking the alley, and even threats.

Instead of help, I was met with selective enforcement, resistance, and pushback.

I have contacted, I have I have contacted and sent documentations, documentation letters, videos, and pictures to multiple city divid departments and individuals, including BC Inspector Vassa, Patel, Bell, also Alexa Davis of District 7, Donald Parker from the neighborhood policing, and Chris Gibson from the third precinct.

And none of them acted on my accord.

No action was taken until I reached out to the embustman office, Mr.

Beauce Simpson and London McNeil.

In 2023, Inspector Barry Stratus came out and told me directly.

This situation is above my pay grade.

And then in 2024, Inspector Salah Mohammed again, at the request of the embustman, told me this situation is gonna get much worse before it get better.

He also told me he submitted a report to the business and commercial division.

But as of today, in 2025, I still await for real action.

I have done my part for years.

So now it's time for the city to do theirs.

All right, thank you.

Next speaker, floor is yours, sir.

My name is Travis Ennis, and I'm here on behalf of the Waverly property.

And I'm just here to piggyback off what was said before.

Um I'm not understanding why we're still having this situation.

Um the facts are the facts.

We proved what was what needed to be proven, how the business is a hazard to the area, um, the safety issues, um, how things aren't even up kept on her end.

So I'm not sure why we still having this over and over.

We got to miss work to come to these meetings.

It's is just getting ridiculous.

Hopefully, today we can get this situation solved.

That's all I have to say about it.

Just so you know, what happened was there was a recommendation that came from the city planning commission to this particular body.

We this is yet last week was our first time seeing it officially.

So, to answer your question why you're here or why we're discussing this, it was referred to the city council.

City council now has an obligation to make a ruling, if you will, uh whether we agree or disagree with what was presented to us from the city planning commission.

Last week we had a discussion.

I'm not sure if you watched it at all.

Uh and that conversation we had last week.

Today we're trying to find out again what led us to this point.

So that's why we're here to answer your question.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Yes, ma'am, Ms.

Casbury.

Good morning.

I'm Tina Castleberry, the owner of the garden bog.

Um, I don't understand how uh things have escalated the way they are, and we're only open four months.

So I think my view is hasn't changed since the very first commissioner meeting.

They're just haters.

The property was vacant for 50 years and on the market for land bank for 31 years.

So when tires were there and roofing shingles and 38 bags of garbage, and the windows were all broken out, nobody was calling ombudsmen and downtown and council members to clean it up.

It is a gorgeous space.

We have a great customer base.

Nobody is mean, rude, and violating her space.

We have accommodated the seven parking spots in the back.

And I think I'm very amenable.

So hopefully after today, we can come to a resolution.

All right.

Um, and the stop the clock.

Uh we're gonna have a discussion uh as we get into the item, but just want to know from you while we're in this uh public comment section.

Uh last week there was a commitment to have a conversation between you and various uh departments, uh, whether it's be BC'd as well as planning.

Has there been any conversation, either an attempt from their end to you or you to them to try to further that discussion?

There hasn't been a conversation with anyone.

Uh Dure Hall uh never responded or called, he's canceled three of our meetings.

I'm talking about the council member.

I'm saying the individuals who were on the screen that said that they were looking to assist.

Nobody has reached out, called, email, text or anything.

Okay, thank you so much.

All right.

And did you have anything else you want to say?

You still had a good one.

No, that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Foster, thank you for joining us.

Floor is yours, sir.

Good morning, uh, through the chair.

First thing I'd like to say, um, today is 9-11, 20-some years ago.

Lives was uprooted.

Towers fail.

People were sent off, first responders was lost.

You know, with that said, I think that this city's discussions these days should be more about restoration and restoring, should be in every part of dialogue and discussions that's made here.

I wanted to speak briefly about Detroit Land Bank and the importance of um the opportunity that we have here.

First, this city is the only city to have a bank of wealth through properties here that's accessible at a low rate.

But when we factor in and talk numbers here, you know, 30% of the working income goes to housing.

If this community could have um home ownership, then they could work part-time and invest in themselves.

They could get education, they could counter other things that goes on in their lives that are relevant and important as far as not only their lives, but changing the culture and creating opportunities for their children in the next generation.

Secondly, when we look at the working class that are homeowners, mortgages typically are 15 to 30 years.

Those that went and got education typically have to pay and repay loans for school things.

And so when we balance the two, the importance of what we have here and the opportunities to bridge that gap that was lost the last 15 or 30 years.

Numbers don't lie.

And we have to do better with our numbers and make sure that we are bridging these gaps and giving everybody an equal opportunity at wealth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think that takes us to the end of our public commenters that are in the committee of the whole.

We'll now go to those who are online.

Who's our first caller?

Ms.

Jackson.

Mr.

Chair, first caller is Miko Williams.

Mr.

Miko Williams, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes.

General public comment.

Yes, hello, good morning.

Um, yes, D'Amico Williams, lifelong Detroit or legacy uh Detroit taxpayer and resident.

Um, I'm speaking against the land bank.

I denounce the land bank.

We should we should do away with this.

The MOU has been complete.

I think we achieved the goal.

Why are we having this?

And also, um back to my comments from last week.

No efforts have been made other than Mary Waters' Town Hall and all seven districts to bring people together to discuss about the land bank because you don't want to hear their complaints and their concerns.

Also, you don't want to give people help and you want to close this off for special interests that are involved in the land bank.

That's unfair.

Now you postponing the conversation and the discussion after you done wolfed about it last week.

Just saying, cool, man.

Let's do another way.

Here's another way we could do this.

Look, just organize the town halls in different districts.

One, two, three, four, five, six, and seven.

Let the people come to you.

If they need help or so, get them the help that they need.

But to put up a presentation of what changed in the MOU and get people's feedback on it before this vote goes, before this goes to a vote to formal.

That's the proper channel.

That's the proper way to do things.

Not by rushing, not by causing confusion, mistrust and distrust, because a lot of people are having the same thing.

Even people that push the land bank are now having disagreements and troubles and they want it gone.

We need to come together and do this right.

And you can do this, Mr.

Fate.

I believe in you.

You can make it happen by the by the end of the year before the new body.

Uh not to rush things and to do this right and properly.

So that way, um, when the land bank does, if it does end up in a lawsuit in the in the court of law, you know, then that's the city's fault for being too greedy.

Thank you for being taking my comment.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is iPhone.

IPhone, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes, general public comment.

Uh, good morning to all within the sound of my voice.

This is Betty A.

Barner, president of the Soda Else World Black Association.

I want to start off today by uh uh stating thank you, President Pro Tim Tate for the help that is being provided to my family in regards to the flood flooding.

We so much appreciate it.

And hopefully in the near future, you'll meet my family at one of your meetings and they can tell you thank you their sales.

Okay, I'm uh advocating as I normally do for my community.

Uh if you would like to donate to our uh organization for our missions and goals, we need landscaping boulders.

We are expanding our park.

We've uh purchase new land from the land bank, and we need trees removed, and we uh are gonna have a land use hearing and that costs and also we would like to have playscape equipment on our new property.

So, money money money.

So if you find it in your heart to donate, please donate by Zale to D as in Dog, E, B as in Boy, A, W E B as in Boy, E L at Gmail.com.

Again, D E B A, W E B, E L at Gmail.com.

If you know my phone number, you can also donate by uh my telephone number.

Also, if you are senior in need of help at your home, please contact Detroit Triple A at uh 313 446 4444.

Ask for the choice waiver program.

If you are not uh normally eligible for Medicaid, you might be eligible through that program.

Please contact and get the help that you need.

Thank you, Ms.

Ferner, and shout out to my team for moving the needle.

Shout out team.

Excaller, please.

Our next caller is Fair Elections Matter.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

You have two minutes.

General public comment.

Caller are you heard and thank you.

May I be heard?

Yes.

Okay, thank you for two minutes.

First of all, I want to call out the disgusting political assassination of Charlie Kirk and people who are uh like gleeful over it.

Even the people I don't like, I would not be uh doing that.

And you know what, folks?

They they in Utah they still have the death penalty by firing squad, but I oppose the death penalty.

Now back to the land bank.

For all of you who don't know, under charter section 4-112, it is Detroit City Council that's supposed to control the disposition of property in the city.

But when you created this land bank and you gave the power back to the mayor through the economic development policy, so you can conveniently when people complain about what they're doing, point the finger and call the land bank independent.

It's independent on paper only.

They do what the mayor says through the economic development policy.

Thank you, Letitia Johnson, for trying to get the board better.

Why is it that if you look at the Detroit City Code or just about every other board, the members have to be Detroit residents?

We don't need two millionaires from Oakland County, who I've seen be extremely callous to Detroit residents on that board anymore.

So thank you, Letitia Johnson.

But anyone who enables this land bank, you just don't want to do your job under section 4-112.

I warned the people who were there back then.

That's Benson Tate and Sheffield not to vote for the land bank because of the vague language about disposition policies.

Then the mayor of staff, Alexis Wiley got up and said, Oh, they're only gonna dispose of land through ways approved by city council, which is true, proved to be absolutely not true.

Get rid of the land bank or get off the council if you don't want to do your job under the charter.

All right.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is not that Karen.

No, that Karen, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes.

General public comment.

Hello.

Hello.

Yes, good morning.

Um, yeah, that assassination of that Charlie Clerk, Charlie Kirk was uh little something.

Uh I saw a video.

It was a real graphic, and uh anybody but saw that would be emotionally affected for a long time.

Uh uh, my condolences to his family and and his friends and family.

Um, you know, Detroit retirees, we're all senior citizens, so we catch a double knock whenever taxation and and any policies that are not in line with making the retirees whole, whether it's property taxation or the clawing of our uh annuities, which is exactly what it was.

It's just stealing, it's just the uh purchased my first home when I was 21 years old.

This home I have now is my second home in all those years, and I figured it up and over 150,000 in the years I've been paying property taxes, and I could have purchased the home for the amount of money that the taxes that I've been charged.

So I think we ought to get be able to get more for our taxation.

We shouldn't be hassled by poor policy of the uh assessor's office or poor policy, you know, that comes out of the uh the council um meetings.

We should be have be more consideration.

There should be more consideration for the senior citizens, especially Detroit retirees that work 30 years for the city, and it seems like we're just being stomped on with no consideration at all.

Well, winners coming, let's get our homeless housed.

Uh let's stop tearing down properties.

How about we start rehabbing properties?

And I bet you, you know, in a couple years, we can put a big dent in the homeless population.

Um, thank you for your punctuality this morning.

Thank you for the two minutes.

And like Ms.

Hughes pointed out yesterday, you guys should change committees every two years, and that way you don't get deep seated into one particular committee thing.

All right.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Mr.

Rue.

All right, Ruben James Crowley Jr., you have two minutes.

The floor is yours.

Can you hear me clearly?

Can you hear me clearly?

Your time's beginning.

Because you were cheated in public official here in the city of Detroit.

Janice Winfrey, Janice M.

Winfrey, Detroit City Clerk, Chair Person of Detroit Election Commission, and Gina A.

Walker, Director of the Department of Elections, the Trade Department of Elections.

Now, you called Kinesha Comer's mother on two occasions in 23.

Her daughter was murdered, assassinated, assassinated, murdered by her blood relative.

Charmaine McCloud did it.

Now you looked into it.

You didn't find what I found.

You didn't look into it.

That's my belief.

You're fake, you're a fraud.

You and your pastor, Solomon Kenlock, who's running for mayor.

Now, both of y'all, all of y'all, the whole city council is cheated in, the school board, the board of police commissioners, and yes, the mayor, Michael Edward Duggan.

Now, James E.

Tate Jr.

They don't call me Rue.

Well, Mr.

Rue now for nothing.

It's a reason behind the reason why they call me Mr.

Rue and Mr.

Real.

And you getting ready to find that out.

You are not going to be the district one representative for the city of Detroit any longer.

Your political career is ending.

My word.

All right.

So just for the record, uh, EPU, that's another threat.

Um, that I heard just there.

So please note.

And I'll call you, Ruben.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Kathy Montgomery.

Kathy Montgomery, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes, general public comment.

Good morning.

Um, I have some comments regarding the Detroit Land Bank.

Uh several uh changes that should be made.

If the current city council and mayor cannot reach an agreement on a new MOU for the land bank, they should defer signing a new MOU until the new administration is seated.

The new MOU should not exceed one year, giving the new administration the ability to make changes to the MOU or to create an alternative plan to dispose of city properties.

Three, city inspections must do a complete city inspectors, must do a complete inspection of any structure to be sold by the Detroit Land Bank so that the potential buyer, purchaser, knows exactly what repairs and improvements need to be made before the purchase.

Extensions, extensions should be granted as needed.

If the buyer can document sufficient efforts have been made to improve the property.

Five sale preference should be given to current Detroit residents.

Six members of the board should be Detroit residents.

In writing, and that's it.

All right, thank you so much.

Feel free as you mentioned to uh submit those comments in writing.

Some of those items you mentioned are already in play uh at the table.

So but feel free, Ms.

Montgomery.

Thank you again.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is owner Papa.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

You have two minutes, general public comment.

Good morning, and through the chairman, I be heard.

Yes.

Uh yes, Ms.

Winston is absolutely correct.

There are supposed to be a change every two years because it's written in the charter that this be done.

You guys have lots of stuff about changing the charter and revising the charter, which is positive for business owners and developers, but you seem unable to answer the questions that the citizens have.

And I think before we make any move on the DLBA, we need to have that audit completed.

And I'm not sure who's doing the audit, but we definitely need it, need to have it done.

I I see lots of things on this agenda for the um uh the the land bank.

Uh I'm not sure why we're spending so much time.

We don't want the land bank.

We want to get rid of the land bank, but we spend a lot of time on the land bank.

People are asking for you to get rid of the land bank and find a new way to or go back to the way we used to distribute um properties.

Um we had a saying in network engineering that um piss poor planning brings about piss poor results.

And I'm looking around the city and I see lots of things going on in some areas.

And seven doesn't even have a recreation center, and it has the largest concentration of children.

Um, where is the um uh the urgency to change that?

Where's the urgency and the money behind it?

Because everything requires money.

I see you're changing uh for this loss 21.

You're changing, you want to you want to resolve and change the ordinance and for for businesses and to uh appease businesses.

How about appeasing the people who pay your salary?

We are asking you to do your job as the council.

Thank you.

All right.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Cindy Dara.

Mr.

R.

The floor is yours.

You have two minutes.

General, before we go forward, would like to note that we've been joined by member vice chair.

Good morning, sir.

Clerk will know.

Thank you so much, ma'am.

All right, we got next caller, please.

Ms.

Dara Yeah.

Uh first of all, I want you to.

This is nothing to do with land bank.

Would you check about what kind of dialysis machines they're replacing?

Because my uh helper is real sick.

I looked at his arm and is he just went to Dallas and it's not helping the new machines aren't working for him.

I told him, find the old machines and go there.

They work for him.

Okay, second.

The land bank, uh, Joanne Warwick is right.

It's up to the council.

The power lies with the council that they don't have to give any uh, as far as I'm concerned, any permission from the mayor to approve what they're doing.

They have the power according to the charter.

If you sign uh MOU, I don't think you need to lock yourself in to the next whoever's elected.

That's unfair.

Like Durhall won't be there.

Okay, and neither will Mary Sheffield.

So maybe it would be a different vote by the time a new, and maybe some of you will be replaced.

And if any of you vote for a long-term agreement, you should be replaced, and people should run as write-in to uh take take you out of there at least show their contempt for what what's going on.

And by the way, I am a write-in Cindy Dara for a city clerk.

Just remember, I send S-I-N.

That's the way you remember Cindy.

Dare to go raw.

I protested against the demolition of good uh set uh structurally sound houses way back in 77 and my bumper stickers came off.

So I was raw.

So D-A-R dare D-A-R-E-R-A-W, but it's D-A-R-R-A-H.

Sandy Dara.

But uh, so do something right.

Get rid of the mayor out of this and go figure out what you're gonna do.

And then thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is William Davis.

William M.

Davis, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes, general public comment.

Uh good morning, can I be heard?

Yes.

And of course, I'm talking about the land bank also.

I think a great deal needs to be done about it.

Uh, I think if it is to continue to exist, it should be just a one-year memo of understanding.

Also, I think that in order to be on the land bank board, you should be a Detroit resident.

This is crazy.

Um, I think we we need to take back more of our authority from the land bank, you know, while we phasing it out.

I think that right now there's a lot of Detroit residents that live next to a vacant lot that have a whole lot of problems trying to get it.

It seems like they are land banking these properties for big developments.

It should go with our standing that the whoever lives next to these lots should have first priority.

Far too often we got too many people that don't live in the city, don't look like you and I that's getting opportunities that the Detroit residents should be getting.

So I think the land bank should ultimately be going away.

But I think in the meantime, we need to short member of understanding.

We need Detroit residents only.

We need to make sure that Detroit residents have preferential preference on getting lots.

We should also make sure that anything that's done is more above board that need greater transparency.

Also, you know, at the very least, perhaps city council could go back and have control of some of these vacant lots.

And the land bank could at for the time being just continue to get rid of the unoccupied structures they have, just like the people that live in some of these land bank properties.

They should get first right and they should be sold to them right away.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is Jamila.

Jamila, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes, general public comment.

Good morning, everyone.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

I am a former um resident of Russell Woods and a future investor of Detroit.

There are approximately two dozen floral or plant nursery businesses in the 48238 zip code.

These businesses follow the city's planning, zoning, and licensing regulations, I'm sure.

The guidelines of the motor city match include maintaining good standing with the city.

This is made public by way of its website's description of the program's guidelines.

Good standing means that a business is fully compliant with the legal and regulatory requirements set by the city and relevant government agencies.

The business must have a valid business license and all required permits.

No unresolved violations with the city planning, zoning, or code enforcement.

The business must not be operated in a restricted or prohibited area without approval.

In short, good standing means the business is recognized as legitimate, compliant, and responsible by the city's authorities, making it eligible for funding opportunities like the Motor City match.

However, Miss Castleberry of the Ladybug has been operating in a residential area not zoned for commercial use, causing safety concerns impacting the neighboring resident, Miss Hawkins, which has been a resident for over 60 years.

The facts are this business does not support the integrity of a legitimate business.

This business is not zoned for the location.

This business never should have operated in a residential location at any time.

The emphasis to emphasize the importance of respecting residents.

I must use this analogy because it was mentioned that this is a good cause.

So I would ask the council member, would it be okay for someone to impede your driveway if they were doing something that is of a good cause?

A good cause is a door that swings both ways.

The intent does not uh support the rights of both parties.

All right.

Next caller, please.

Our next caller is to hear I'm at.

All right, caller, the floor is yours.

You have two minutes.

General public comment.

Good morning.

Um say Wayne County Treasurer Eric Sabrie did not grant the foreclosure moratorium.

And as a result, 834 homes will lose families will lose their property as a result of uh assessments, the legal assessments.

Um racist assessments.

We must prepare for now an upsurge of almost 834 families that will not have uh shelter.

Uh so I'm urging council to be proactive and to provide these families with resources now, not wait till they're out of their homes, but now giving resources and uh for that to us at the coalition for property tax justice.

Now, these we're talking about the land bank, they end up with these homes that were stolen from families.

Um this is this is generational wealth that's stolen from black Detroiters and others, and it's unfair, but it ends up in the land bank.

So this is corruption upon corruption, and it has something to do with shelter for human beings.

You cannot, you cannot have good fortunes when you do this to human beings.

I'm uh urging the council to uh be proactive now and help these family because families because uh we're coming into the winter time.

And remember Darnell and Amila Curry, who were living in their van, their mother's van with uh two uh three generations of their family.

They were all homeless due to foreclosure and these illegal assessments.

This has human costs because Darnell and Namila uh lost their lives in that van, living homeless when they didn't have to.

And it's because of these policies that we lose people like this.

Next caller, please.

Our final caller before you cut off public comment is A.

Jackson.

All right, caller.

The floor is yours.

We have two minutes.

General public comment.

Hi, yes.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Waverly property.

And I just wanna make one thing clear.

We're not haters because this agenda would have never been in discussion.

She could have kept running a legal business for all we care.

What we care about is safety.

And a four-minute delay can result in irreversible brain damage.

The Waverly properties are being designed for handicapped accessible people.

If um, if you haven't noticed, um, sorry, I have a code, but if you haven't noticed around Michigan, a lot of the nursing homes are being shut down.

They are being forced to live in poor conditions.

We are a team of nurses, and we are trying to make affordable housing for handicapped people.

We're as low as 650 with utilities occluded, fully furnished.

This is a safety issue.

You cannot block a driveway in for uh flowers.

This is human lives.

Flowers die, flowers grow.

You get one chance at life.

This is a safety concern.

All we asked was for her to not block the driveway, to not use our driveway, to not load and unload in the alley.

All she has to do is provide enough parking spaces for her customers.

All she has to do is provide a safety plan, entryway, exit way.

We shouldn't even be having this discussion.

If you pulled in your driveway and a person blocked you in, you will call the police to have their car removed from your property.

She should not be allowed to block us in.

She should not be allowed to block the alley.

Michigan has laws in place.

We can't even park on a lot without it being concrete.

So you mean to tell me we sitting here having this discussion about parking spaces when she is running illegal business and not providing.

Thank you so much.

And that takes us to the end of our public comments.

Thank you all for calling in and providing your comments in person.

We'll now go into our agenda into unfinished business line item 5.1, status of counsel president pro Tim James Tate.

Uh, this is a contract number 6007 315, 100% city funding.

Uh, this is to provide uh income tax uh preparation services, filing returns for eligible individuals, including earned income tax credit.

Colleagues, uh, we did receive a response from the department member Callaway did on the question she had, but we still had additional questions.

Can we get a motion to bring back in one week, please?

So more, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion to bring back line item 5.1 in one week.

Any objections?

See none, then action shall be taken.

Line item 5.2 status of city planning commission.

This is a request of Tina Castleberry to rezone the property at 4213 and 425 West Davison Avenue from an R3.

That's a low density residential zoning classification to a B2 Local Business and Residential Zoning Classification.

Uh is there a motion to discuss, please.

So thank you so much.

All right, Dr.

Bolger, come on down.

Good morning to you.

If you can please introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning, Council members.

Rory Bolger City Planning Commission, legislative policy division.

All right, thank you so much.

And I see we've been joined by Director Todd as well.

Director Todd, thank you for joining us.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Certainly, Mr.

President Pro Tim.

Good morning to you, members of the committee.

Marcel Todd Director.

We might have to get that director's top mic turned up just a little bit.

He's got it on green, but we can't tell.

But as we move forward, I'm sure they'll adjust that might sound better already.

All right, so uh I know we're gonna have some additional folks that's gonna join us, and I know we did receive so uh just we received a report from uh hard copy report, but an email report as well from the embudsman uh Bruce Simpson.

Uh Mr.

Umbudsman, would you be uh willing to join us as well at the table?

Just we can kind of go over the report because the big question that I had is again how did we end up in this situation?

Um, and then the other question I have, which is just as important, what happens next?

What are we gonna do next to assist the business?

Um and the residents, of course.

Um the the recommendation from the city planning commission was a denial for this uh particular uh request from Ms.

Castleberry.

Um but uh before we get into the disposition of that particular item, I think it is imperative for not just us who have this very detailed report in front of us.

It's not just imperative for us to understand it, but because this is a public meeting and the things and actions that we do certain with city councils takes place in public.

I think it's important for the public to also understand clearly what uh you've been able to gather from your investigation, Mr.

Umbudsman.

So if you don't mind, please introduce yourself for the record and if you can begin to talk a bit about the uh investigation and what what you uncovered, sir.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tim, uh Bruce Simpson, City Umbudsman.

Um excuse me, in November of 2024, we were contacted by uh Miss Ernestine Hawkins, a complainant who expressed safety concerns due to the parking and some of the things that were mentioned during public comment, her public comment and others.

Uh upon taking a look at that particular property uh and starting to investigate uh one of her concerns about the business not operating appropriately, we found that the zoning uh was improper.

It was zoned R3 for residential, although it was functioning as a commercial uh property.

Uh this property has been functioning as a business uh since it has uh been purchased and renovated uh without the proper zoning.

Uh our frustration, my my frustration as the embudsman has to do with the number of departments that have touched, and I in our report we outlined the interaction that they've had as well as some of the missteps.

Uh, but there were several departments that touched this particular uh business, but the proper enforcement was not there.

So, roughly 33 months, uh, based on our calculation, uh maybe even more, uh, of the business being open, uh it was open before there was ever any uh enforcement via BC.

So again, that first enforcement comes in October of 24.

Uh subsequently, you have the submission or I should say resubmission of a rezoning application uh that is submitted to the city planning commission again in November of 2024.

Um there has been uh inference and it has been implied that um maybe uh we didn't know that we should not have been operating.

Um we believe that that is not possible.

We lay out a clear timeline.

One of there are two documents that are key.

Um, one of which is the original purchase agreement that has uh that was executed between the rezoning applicant and the DLBA.

Uh that purchase agreement clearly outlines what is mandated.

Uh and it was stated uh I believe last week and stated several times here today, uh, as it pertains to the zoning.

So it's there.

Mr.

Umbudsman, what when was that purchase agreement uh signed?

It was finalized and it uh it was entered into in January of 2022 and finalized in May of 22.

Uh but the the work started actually prior to that in terms of review of the language.

Now the other document that is very very important, uh, which has a uh July of 2021 date is uh the uh beginning but never the completion of a CPC rezoning application.

Again, that was in July of 2021.

So before the purchase agreement is ever executed, the current rezoning applicant filled out a rezoning application in 2021 that was never completed.

Okay, so if if you're following me, we have a timeline at the very end of the report.

So again, before the purchase agreement was executed, this current applicant for rezoning issued another rezoning application to CPC but never completed it.

Meaning they're acknowledging the fact that they understand that it is not properly zoned.

The other key point that I want to point out, and it was mentioned during public comment, this is very important.

Uh Motor City Match, uh between Motor City Match and Detroit Means Business, uh both uh program grant programs that the applicant um uh received funding from that particular program had or those two programs combined had 630 businesses that were denied for different reasons.

Uh some the funding ran out.

We we give a breakdown under the DGC section, some in some cases funding run out.

Uh few applicants withdrew their applications, but for the most part, we turned away 630 applicants.

Why is that important?

Well, when you go to the DGC section of our report, uh we asked some specific questions, and the DGC, the reason that the report is uh so voluminous is because they gave us a very detailed response along with a lot of attachments, and we appreciate that.

Um I want to state the second half of our conclusion.

Um the zoning designation has not changed to date.

Uh chronologically, following the production of that documentation, a motor city match application was submitted.

Because of this, we reiterate that the DGC response provided to the ombudsman office that quote historically in the supplemental application, attachment 3A, Motor City Match asked what zoning district classification the project was located in, and this is the real crucial part of the application here.

If their plan business was an allowable use, since then, under new leadership, we've put more checks and balances into place to verify the applicant's response as stated in our response to question two.

We have our data analysts cross-reference this data now confirming uh it with the zoning verification letters.

Um at the time of this Motor City Match grant application submission, the zoning was not verified, and the result was a grant was awarded.

So you have a situation where the zoning has never changed, it's always been R3, yet this this money was allocated uh for the purposes of conducting a business.

Now I can sympathize with DGC to a certain extent to the extent that if I hear of a property on Davidson, the assumption would be that it is commercial.

Uh, but the saying is trust but verify, and the verification wasn't done.

But there is no way that when you fill out that application, you don't know that it's still zoned R3, and we turned away 630 businesses roughly for various reasons.

So that is a uh a key issue for me.

Um again, I take issue with the fact that we brought this matter to the attention of the administration, asked for enforcement.

The the real answer here is that because we did not address it in the beginning uh appropriately by way of enforcement, we've ended up here today.

It never should have come to this.

Um the land bank has the ability to uh reconvey property.

Uh the uh agreement that I referenced earlier was given an extension with an August 6th deadline.

Uh that has not been enforced.

Uh when we notified BC that this business was operating without the proper zoning, uh there was a lack of enforcement.

Enforcement means that it would have been closed.

Um I don't want anyone to think that this business was not allowed to operate.

Uh the exact opposite was true.

Uh the administration helped uh fulfill the requirements and criteria of the uh rezoning application as far as the Department of Neighborhoods conducting some outreach.

Um as far as the law department uh issuing a letter allowing the business to function uh to July, giving them an opportunity to engage city planning commissions ordinance-bound uh process as it relates to coming into compliance with the zoning.

So uh we have to do better as a city uh when it comes to enforcement, we have to be consistent.

There was a lack of consistency here, and look, things slip through the cracks, but when it's brought to our attention, uh when I don't see the action necessary so that we don't end up at this table, then I become exceedingly frustrated, and then uh you see what it has done to the uh the neighbors, don't want to leave that part out that are immediately adjacent to said property.

Oh sorry, that's sorry.

Okay, gotcha, gotcha.

All right, so just a quick question, a few questions actually.

So when when did you become in involved in the the investigation?

When were you called?

Because I know you indicated that you reached out, your office reached out to various departments and uh didn't necessarily get the response that you were looking for uh in terms of investigating any type of enforcement.

Um but when we look at the timeline, uh we're talking about 21 uh through 22, 24, and now here we are 25.

When when did your office get involved in this uh situation, sir?

Um what would be the fourth from the last bullet point on the timeline?

Uh November of 2024, we received that complaint, and once we got that complaint, we started uh investigating once we saw that there it was multi-layered and faceted, uh, which led to a formal complaint coming from us uh to BC in January of 2025, excuse me, and ultimately me meeting personally with the director of BC saying, hey, we have a property, uh a business that is uh operating without the proper zoning.

So that's two years after the finalization you indicated of the purchase agreement.

That's when you became involved.

Yes, sir.

From your experience in terms of uh investigations, um, where could a department have, or even the land bank who sold the property, uh, where could they have uh caught the issue of the zoning uh conflict um along the way prior to you getting involved in 24?

Because that's that's the that's the big question we were asking, you know, last week and kind of painted around the edges, but couldn't get to the to the to the crux of things.

Uh thank you for the question, Council President Pro Tim.

Uh as you can see in our first recommendation, uh we say uh to the land bank, if you are going to sell a property that is not properly zoned for the activity that they have stated they want to conduct, you need to have a closer grip on what they're doing.

You need to observe, have them report in more frequently.

Um there was uh Mr.

Just I just want to ask though, just to solely on that.

Is it in their policy that that is what they do?

And they just didn't do it in this situation?

Because that's that's I'm looking at it from a holistic standpoint.

I know there's recommendations that's moving forward, but again, taking it back to this situation.

Is it a policy that they review um the zoning classification prior or to ensure that that it is harmony in harmony with uh the intended use, or was this a one-off where it didn't happen in in your opinion?

Um uh council president pro Tim, it did happen.

Uh they referenced the zoning in the purchase agreement, which is attached.

Um they acknowledge that it is the wrong uh zoning, what did not happen and what should be policy if it isn't already, is that a more frequent review of where that app or that person who has entered into this agreement is in the process of bringing it into compliance.

Essentially, what happened?

Essentially, what happened, uh uh the land bank did issue a notice of default in November of 2023, based on the fact that it was not in compliance, but from there it was allowed to continue.

Uh and so it's not that they were not aware, it's that enforcement did not take place.

Follow-ups yes, so there's no lack of clarity on any any of the parties involved, it's the lack of enforcement, again, a lack of consistency.

Uh any of the the persons who are listening who purchased property from the land bank and they come to our office quite often uh when enforcement is taking place and they're up against a deadline.

Uh there's constant back and forth communication.

You know, I think initially you're given six months, and then you know, to show where you are, and if they can see that you're working on it, then they give you additional time.

They work with people for the most part, but if you are not uh bringing that property up to code, reconveyance can and will happen.

Uh we've seen it several times, and so it's not a it's not a matter of having the tools, it's not a matter of being aware.

I believe in this instance it's a matter of consistency.

All right, so that that that's part of I'm I'm asking questions to kind of break it down for folks who don't have the document that I have in front of me.

Yes, sir.

Um, and so I know there's a number of questions, and even some of the questions that were asked here, I'm gonna kind of ask to make sure that they get knocked out and and folks have an understanding.

So there is no policy that prohibits the land bank from uh selling a property to an individual if the zoning does not uh for the intended use is is not currently in place.

But what is provided is a recommendation, uh request, uh a requirement, at least on paper in this situation, that they are supposed to move forward to request the uh zoning uh change.

Is that accurate?

I believe you are correct, uh council president pro Tim.

I don't want to speak definitively as to if they have something written down that they did not follow.

I would defer to the the land bank on that as it pertains to their policy on selling a property, but if we were to use that example, it would mean that the property was sold, uh knowing that the zoning was wrong, and certainly that would be wrong.

But um do they have a policy that says we will not sell this property uh understanding that it's zoned R3 and will be used as a commercial uh business.

I can't articulate that.

I would defer to them and ask that the director respond as it relates to if they have a policy on file.

Gotcha.

And then you you mentioned that there were 630 plus uh requests that were turned down by the land bank.

Were any of those uh as a result of uh improper zoning?

So I know you said for various reasons.

I don't know if that if that level of detail was provided to you.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tim.

Uh the DGC through Motor City Match as well as Detroit means business combined uh turned away six hundred that's okay.

Uh turned away six hundred and thirty businesses.

They did provide again a very detailed um report.

Um it does not go into the zoning for each and every um business that was turned over turned down.

Uh you have a breakdown of all of the businesses.

Uh what we gave you here today did not include that because it just adds more paper, but you have it electronically if you would like to review.

Um, but what we do know is that there is within the application uh for all of the businesses of reference to the zoning, which asked the applicant to um acknowledge that they are properly zoned for that uh for uh to conduct business, and specifically uh there were 501 businesses denied uh by Detroit means business for various reasons, uh noting that 55 of those denials were due to monies that were exhausted, and there were 129 businesses denied by Motor City Match.

Uh again, uh we can see here today clearly that the property is not zoned appropriately.

Uh certainly uh that would have been a disqualifying um uh uh fact as it relates to uh the approval for grant funding.

Okay.

And uh member vice chairman coming to you, but got one more question.

You indicated uh Mr.

Busman that the application was initiated, but it was not completed for the zoning changes back in 21.

What does that look like?

What does that mean?

That it was entered into but not completed.

What does that mean?

Thank you, Council President Pro Tim.

For me, uh, what that means is is simply that they started the physical application but did not completely fill it out.

Um what I believe happened, and and Mr.

Todd may be able to speak to this director Todd, um, there is a portion of that application that speaks to community outreach.

Uh in my initial comments, I indicated that uh the Department of Neighborhoods working diligently, in my opinion, going above and beyond to assist the applicant, uh, performed the outreach on the second or the final uh rezoning application.

I believe what hindered or prevented the initial incomplete application from being submitted was the fact that there is a community outreach uh portion of it that requires you to engage uh your adjacent neighbors.

So if there is an issue there with your neighbors adjacent to you, and this has been going on for quite some time, it might not lend well to you being able to uh complete say application.

Gotcha.

And directors are do you want to add anything uh to the conversation at this stage before we get into the actual zoning uh portion of it?

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tem.

With respect to that particular portion, your last question of Director Simpson, we would concur.

We'll go ahead and get the very specifics.

Uh, but certainly as it concerns the initial application, but certainly the subsequent application that led to what is before you today was deficient in that same way uh the in terms of uh the community engagement not having that portion of the application not having been complete.

It was completed with the assistance of the Dons and maybe others, and once that was done, we were able to move forward.

And what year was that?

That was uh this year.

Okay, so 25 it was completed, but the initial the second one, but the initial and 21 was not it was it was initiated but not completed.

Correct.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Just want to get some statements of fact on the record.

Um member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, uh, and good morning to you all.

Uh, my questions are in a similar vein uh as we look at the initial agreement, purchase agreement signed by the land bank, uh, and this is under the agreement section of that uh section three subsection A, when it talks about specifically uh option these per uh option these per proposed use is inconsistent with the current zoning ordinances and regulations governing use of the property.

Option E will make all necessary ordinances or all necessary excuse me, applications to obtain a variance or if necessary, rezoning of the property so that the proposed use is in compliance with zoning ordinances and regulations governing use of the property.

Option E shall provide to DLBA documentation that all such approvals have been received.

So upon uh the signing of this agreement, stating that the option E, Ms.

Capselberry knew that it was not zoned.

Um my question comes because we know in 2025, as I'm looking at that letter, it was issued that she still had the ability to operate until I believe July the 5th.

Prior to that, was there any through your investigation?

Was there any correspondence stating that she could still operate until we received that in July?

Or I'm sorry, I believe this was what uh from uh Corporation Council received that in May.

Or they received that letter from Corporation Council.

Yeah, dated in May, uh, which gave about two months for them to still operate.

But were that was there any other correspondence before that indicating that uh she could operate?

Uh thank you for the question, uh member Durhal.

Uh there was other correspondence, but it was not that you could operate outside of the ordinances and uh policies of the city as it pertains to the zoning.

Uh it was quite the opposite.

Uh both the commission as well as BC, uh, there's a plan review process as well as the Department of Neighborhoods starting with Monon Lee, uh, all advised the applicant that they should not, and we have it in writing, should not be operating uh without meeting the zoning requirements.

So again, it is not a matter of not knowing.

Uh you know, there were several errors made uh by us not providing the enforcement, and what I believe happened because we did not provide that enforcement, uh, we did everything we could on the back end to try to assist the applicant uh to get there, but from the incomplete original purchase, excuse me, not purchase agreement, uh rezoning application all the way through uh the current uh rezoning application as well as uh the inability to meet basic requirements required by code.

Uh what do I mean by that?

The the property uh at 4225 West Davidson, aka the garden bug has been renovated.

Uh upon pulling permits, we were not able to find.

Uh and I checked as recently as I want to say yes, no, two days ago, uh, in order to see if uh there were any pool uh permits that were executed.

Uh we found uh an inspection and and what mirrored uh a permit for electrical, but that was incomplete.

It was not completed.

We give you the notes on that report.

So uh every step of the way from pulling permits for the renovation from the rezoning, they the obligations of the applicant were not met.

So this through you, Mr.

Chair, through so the subsequent tickets that were received were not just based off of improper zoning, uh, but also relative to permitting making improvements to the property is that we are stating, Mr.

Ombudsman.

Through the chair to member Durhal, the tickets that we have uh placed before you mostly deal with the zoning.

Um I don't think they took it that far, uh, which is something that certainly should be uh discussed.

Uh you know, maybe we could have got to that point if there was actual enforcement on the front end in terms of uh uh providing enforcement as it relates to the property not being properly zoned, and then taking a look at what's going on with the permits.

Thank you.

Uh and through your investigation, did the uh option E request an extension uh from the land bank relative to the agreement and compliance?

Yes, through through uh through the chair to member Durhal, um uh I can't speak to as to whether she requested it, but there certainly was an extension uh provided in February of uh 25, giving the applicant um the ability to uh go to August 6th as it relates to bringing the property into compliance.

So an additional extension was provided.

So, but this first agreement and just correct me if I'm wrong, first agreement signed in 2022 uh with the land bank.

No discussion of extension happened till 2025.

So my I again, my questioning behind this uh and as of we were talking last time or how did we get there?

We're looking at a two-year close to three-year window in which uh Ms.

Castleberry was operating.

No request for an extension, no uh, and from my understanding, I guess through that period of time, there were discussions that trying to get her to become compliant, whether that's through Motor City Match and saying, you know, or Detroit means business, these are things that need to take place uh for the rezoning uh or variance uh for that matter.

Um, but that's a three-year window.

Uh and and I will state this for the record.

Um I think we drop the ball a little bit on that relative to within that three years.

However, I will also say that does not excuse the the terms of the agreement in which the option is signed.

Um you know, I I often uh mention this uh to my kids.

Just because someone is not looking doesn't mean that you should not do anything wrong.

Uh and I will state that.

But my question becomes as we talk about cracks, the three three-year windows, a pretty big crack.

Um, particularly if we are looking at someone who has received funding uh from the city as well, which could uh inexplicitly imply that uh that it may be okay.

But trying to find out where where we where we were with that, what was the presumed uh idea that operation could continue?

Um and until up until 2025, um the correspondence and and stating and giving a hard and definite line of when they need to stop operating if they were not compliant.

Through the chair to member Durhal, uh we will refer back to the timeline uh where we do know that in November of 2023, the DLBA does issue a notice of default.

Uh so they admonish the uh the uh rezoning applicant uh slash uh uh signator on the purchase agreement.

And through you, Mr.

Chair.

Um and I'm not saying you were there when that was issued, but through your and you you do very thorough investigations, Mr.

Ombudsman.

Through that investigation, do we know what the dialogue between the option E and the land bank was then and or the option E in the administration through the chair to member Durhal Hall in terms of what their options were?

Um not specifically, but certainly uh uh it could be presumed that what was identified as a violation in the original agreement should have been brought into compliance.

I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Um, but again, I can defer to the land bank who can opine and give you a more detailed response.

I'm sure they'd be happy to.

Thank you.

And through you, Mr.

Chair, or to you, Mr.

Chair, do we have the land bank on today?

And I don't know if you wanted to break that up into a portion as well, because I can reserve my questions until then.

Um yeah, I wanted to kind of focus on the report right now and then uh port over all the folks we have on the uh agenda um because trying to break it down bit by bit because this is a a bit complex.

Okay, more complex than others.

And so I will reserve my questions relative directly to the land bank based off of their correspondence as well as zoning when they had an opportunity to present us as far as community engagement.

What I will state because it was mentioned during public comment, I want to make sure I address that.

We had a meeting set up with Ms.

Castleberry on August the 12th, which we had to reschedule.

Uh we had a subsequent meeting set up this past Tuesday, which by the way is already too late.

This ball is already rolling.

Uh, but uh from our end, I'll send an apology because we neglected to provide the link to you uh relative to the Zoom.

But what I will state, because this is in my district as well, Mr.

Chair, and I uh an area I grew up in and know very well.

Um it is uh again a business that uh folks frequent.

Uh and I've stated last week uh that I am more concerned on finding an alternative that will satisfy the business owner as well as the residents.

I do think the residents have a right to be engaged and have an opportunity or have the right, should I say, uh, to uh live comfortably or have property where they feel business does not infringe on their right of residency.

Uh how do we get to this point where we can find a uh a happy medium in this?

Uh I'm hoping to see.

Uh I don't think that happens today.

Uh I think we find out what happens today.

Um, but as we get to the end of this, uh, you know, I am going to probably be comfortable uh or asked to to bring this back a week so we can have further discussions.

I would like a uh a definitive or a definite answer uh of how we proceed forward uh to ensure that both parties have have the ability uh to have their issue resolved.

And and with that, I'll reserve my other questions for the other presenters.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

Member Johnson.

Uh well, before we go, that's see, Mr.

Director Todd had a quick uh thing you wanted to add.

Thank you, Mr.

President Pro Tim.

Uh through you to uh the point just made actually by Member Durrhaw.

Just wanted to take this opportunity to put it out there in case the discussion later on uh causes us to forget.

Uh we would want to make sure that the council is aware based upon the original submission of this item on July 17th, it would expire.

The viability of the commission's recommendation would expire on November 25th.

Should that be the case and no action is taken by that time, then of course it would be considered denied.

So we just want to put that out there again as part of the procedure.

Gotcha.

We are well ahead of that, and we're gonna make sure in this committee we don't do that.

No, we don't do that.

Member Johnson, thank you for the heads up though.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and um I think you all have done a really good job laying everything out.

Uh, Mr.

Ombudsman great work, great information.

Um, I'm looking for the timeline, but when you were speaking, I wrote a question down, and now I can't remember what it was relative to, but my question was what caused the October 2024 action taken by BC.

I don't know if that you know what I'm referring to.

Um, but if you can share, because I think last week the petitioner indicated that she had been working on this property since 2019.

I know we're saying that um not working on the property, but maybe in discussion with the city relative to acquiring the property.

Uh, and then in 2020, some things transpired.

Um, so if you can answer the question about BC, and then if you have any information that's relative to 2019 or 2020, through the chair to member Johnson, certainly.

Uh uh BC, uh, the very first page of our report goes into the background and the actual complaint that we received.

Uh the complainant, Miss Hawkins indicates that she made several calls to both B seed and DPD as it relates to the parking, the unsafety, uh, unsafe nature of uh the work and the unloading and everything else that was transpiring in the alley based on how many persons were frequenting the business.

Uh obviously, one of those, or not obviously, excuse me, one of those requests or complaints was followed up on.

Uh BC went out based on uh uh Ms.

Hawkins or anyone else that may have decided to complain about the activity and and what they thought was problematic.

So it's it's just DC'd in that instance, although they had not prior, they actually went out and uh provided some enforcement.

And that was the first that was the first point at which there was meaningful uh enforcement provided by the city.

Now the timeline um really assist any reader and seeing that okay, enforcement happens in October of 24.

The rezoning uh application, which was actually completed this time, comes the following month.

Okay, so uh enforcement takes place.

Oh, this has to be fixed.

Let's get the um uh rezoning application submitted.

Now, with that being said, uh CPC's process and and Mr.

Ty can speak to this, speak to this, it allows uh anyone who is who has future plans for a property prior to executing ownership or having interest um uh finalizing that interest in a property to start the application process, which is why you have a uh incomplete rezoning application in 21.

But the conversations before you actually execute start sometime before.

So I'll defer to Mr.

Todd to try to pinpoint when uh the petitioner engage his group as it pertains to the rezoning.

Uh we only report what we can uh substantiate by way of documentation, but we certainly know that uh the petitioner engaged the city uh prior to the the 2021 incomplete application uh for rezoning, you want to add anything Mr.

President Pro Tim, Dr.

Boja's looking, and we'll see if we can provide the exact date uh that is not included it referenced in our report uh in terms of when maybe initial phone call or inquiry was made even before we actually scheduled a pre-application meeting or or begin to work on the application.

So we'll try to get that during the course of um the discussion this morning.

Uh, but certainly would uh concur with again the ombudsman's uh perspective or reference to our policy as it concerns an individual having to have to represent uh factually their interest in the property, whether or not that means they do have an outright ownership or if they have a purchase agreement, etc.

Uh and certainly that was done.

And I would like to add that it is this very same line of question that commissioners uh uh rendered during the public hearing on this matter to the applicant in order to begin to understand the same questions that you're trying to get to the bottom of today.

Uh how is it that you have been operating?

Uh how is it that this has come to this point in time given the initial uh application, and only now are you before us for rezoning?

Uh what in fact does your agreement with the land bank state?

And it took probably a good half hour or more just to get through that again, even as you are uh replicating that uh line of discussion today.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Director Todd.

And so the date that you are looking for would be prior to the original incompleted CPC application.

Through the chair to Member Johnson, we're good.

We'll we'll see if we can get both.

We'll see if we can find our earliest contact with the applicant uh at the very beginning of this, uh, even if that went back before zoning application, maybe when she was beginning to make investigations into this property.

We'll see if we have any evidence of any communication back in 19 or 20.

But I do know that in 2021 we started, so we'll try to get that date, and then we'll try to get the date uh we're in the resumed uh activity for what is before you now started in 2024.

Thank you.

Uh, and to the ombudsman, so you indicated that in October of 2024, BC responded to an inquiry or um to do enforcement because of perhaps a complaint.

Um, do you have any documentation that BC received complaints prior to October 2024?

Through the chair, uh no, we do not.

We do not have that uh that documentation.

Um again, we were um brought on even after the first initial enforcement in October of 24.

Enforcement happens in October of 24.

We are um engaged by the complainant uh in November of 24 the next month.

Thank you.

And do you have any record of the Detroit Police Department doing any enforcement?

I know there were um police um reports that were made, and let me just say that I did receive a phone call from a district four constituent who is connected to this the property, and uh in relation to where this property uh is in District 7, and my understanding is that there were numerous conversations between them and the petitioner for the course of years, over the course of years.

Uh, and so that police reports were filed.

Do you show do you have any documentation of enforcement by the police department?

Through the chair to member Johnson, no, we do not.

Uh we do know that was part of uh the complainants' frustration uh from our vantage point, the police were being pulled into an issue.

Uh certainly we would like them to mitigate, but an issue that should have been resolved uh via enforcement as it relates to code enforcement and zoning enforcement.

Uh I would like to note that uh on one of the correction orders um dated October 14th, 2024, where it fails, um uh the inspection type is listed as a complaint inspection.

So uh they indicate that they are responding to a complaint for that October enforcement when they do actually engage the petitioner.

Thank you.

And I would just lastly say that we've had some discussion um by my colleague in particular who wants everyone to come together to figure out how we rectify this.

I have challenges with that because the way I see it is we have invested a fair amount into this property, um, and and we need to identify how all of these things happen and how they took place because now it's we've provided dollars to an entity that can't legally operate.

How did that happen?

So for us to look to provide additional, especially financial assistance, um, I'm going to have challenges with.

So it appears to me that this was not someone who was not aware of the process, what needed to happen based on everything that I have here in front of me.

Um we all focus on community engagement a fair amount because the residents are the ones that have to live with this, everything that we do more than we do because it's not adjacent to my property, it's not in my district, but we should always be aware of and listening to our constituents who are surrounding that outside of spot zoning and you know, all of those other things.

But I think we had the wherewithal to do what needed to be done appropriately and correctly.

Uh and so I'm looking at this saying, okay, perhaps these things shouldn't have been done.

And sometimes we say people don't know the process within the city, but when you're provided the information and you don't take heed to it, then whose responsibility is that?

So we have to make sure um we are not providing additional resources for something that was not the city's responsibility, and the city's responsibility in this was to enforce city code, and I've had this conversation recently uh with BC several times.

Uh and so I'm just sitting in this space where I'm saying, okay, have we done enough?

As it relates to enforcement, we should have done more.

And perhaps this would have said to the petitioner, okay, don't do everything that you're doing just yet, because you will invest dollars in this, and you may regret that.

So I um I'm still I know we're going to bring this back, but that's that's just where I'm sitting right now with all of this.

Um, especially with the way that it's been laid out to us.

And so again, I want to say thank you for the detailed information um for us to understand what has transpired up until this point.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

And I and I alluded to the fact that we're gonna port over uh the number of folks that we have who are joining us online.

We can all those individuals who are joining us uh as we start to bring this to a close today.

I want to give um a little bit more perspective.

I know we have some uh additional individuals from CPC as well as uh the planning department uh and others who are joining us, and I do want to know um somewhere in the the comments uh what what's what's next in terms of the city's moves.

I know that there was a discussion, there was a commitment to reach out to the applicant to uh identify a uh some level of resolution, uh an alternative.

Let me just say that alternative than what we have here today before us uh or what's in in place, and that's uh a complete shutdown.

Maybe there's a land swap, maybe there's some other option that's available, unsure, unclear, but we'll love to hear uh from uh director Bush and uh Director Bell indicated that they would do everything to assist and want to know what that assistance looks like uh at this point.

So if we can bring everyone overport them over, and when you see yourself on the screen, please introduce yourself for the record.

Good morning, Mr.

Good morning.

Sorry, go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh good morning, Mr.

Chair, Derek Head, uh DEGC.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair.

Sorry, go ahead.

Good morning, Dave Bell, director of BC.

Morning.

Good morning, John O'Hana on behalf of the land bank.

Good morning.

I think we had uh Mr.

Gulak available.

Wanted to say a couple of words as well.

Uh this gulag, CPC staff.

Morning.

Good morning, Sean Gray, D E G C Good morning.

Morning, Mr.

Chair Josh Roberson, uh Department of Neighborhoods.

Good morning.

Good morning, uh honorable body, Edwina King Planning and Development Department.

Good morning.

All right, we got the whole Brady Bunch up there today.

This is an important issue.

Uh anyone else joining us?

All right, cool.

So we know who's who's with us.

All right, uh so uh no Mr.

Gulag wanted to go first, so you want to add some additional color to the conversation.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah, Chris Kulak, CPC staff, uh UIS Director Todd uh some information and and CPC staff first met with um Ms.

Castleberry, I believe in uh March of 2021.

We we had a I think a virtual discussion about the rezoning application.

So I just wanted to I think we got the crux of what is in the building.

Yeah, or in my neighborhood, one or the other.

All right, but I think we got the quizz uh I think we got the crux of what he was saying.

Actually, sound like it was wrapping up.

Okay, Ms.

Gulak, are you you still there?

Yeah, okay.

We uh we lost you for a brief second.

You want to just repeat what you said, please.

I'm sorry, I think my internet froze.

Um I wanted to clarify for the record, uh CPC staff did meet with um the petitioner of Ms.

Castleberry for the first time, I believe in March of 2021.

We said we we discussed the rezoning application with her.

Okay.

All right.

Um I know it was mentioned that uh in Ms.

in Mr.

Umbudsman's uh verbal report just now that there were some changes that were made to try to catch some of these things on the front end.

If I'm I may have heard it correctly, uh, through the land bank and possibly even uh Detroit means business and motor city match.

Uh if I'm incorrect, correct me.

But if I am correct, um please provide what uh if anything is is changed to in terms of the enforcement, in terms of the ensuring that everyone is notified and understood on what the uh requirements are to um obtain awards as well as property.

And I see Mr.

Greg, floor is yours, sir.

Uh thank you so much uh for having me.

So we actually uh at the time of this uh award, uh, as was mentioned by the Ombudsman.

Uh unfortunately the application uh came through with incorrect information as to zoning situation.

Uh and typically our standard was that we checked parcel viewer at that time.

So it was typically my expectation of our team that we would check parcel viewer.

So you get an application, the person states what their zoning is and if it's allowable use, and then we confirm using parcel viewer.

Uh that wasn't done in this instance, uh, as ombudsman mentioned.

Uh my supposition is that someone saw Davidson and made an assumption.

Uh so even at that time, uh, even you know, you go back 10 rounds or so, it was the expectation that people would typically check parcel viewer in this instance.

That did not happen.

Uh, and so for the last uh four rounds, we've had the expectation that uh we actually get a verification letter to further confirm uh zoning and uh the uh allowability of of the use.

And so we worked to make sure that that we don't have uh applicants who are uh by accident or other circumstance uh missing the the situation uh as to zoning.

Uh we've also uh, you know, where we have had people who um, you know, uh had misunderstandings with their zoning or or issues with parcels, we've referred them back to the city and or had conversations uh with them and the city about what they need to do to uh uh you know make sure they're not leasing or purchasing parcels that aren't eligible for the use that they intend.

So uh through the early stages of Marcy Match, we support folks who are kind of ideating on where they like to be and what their model looks like.

And so we try to make sure people are aware of uh and connected to the city for zoning, permitting and other uh licensing related requirements.

Thank you.

Um last week we did talk about advancing the uh opportunity uh for a potential uh alternative um ending to this situation.

And I know it left uh director Bush as well as Director Bell, you indicated that there would be some attempts to uh assist the uh business owner.

Can we talk about what has happened in the the the week that we uh since we've most recently spoke, as well as what's being planned moving forward?

Through the chair, I'd be happy to start um from planning and development perspective.

I believe as we spoke about um last week at the table.

I had met with Miss Castleberry um the middle of last week, and we talked through potential opportunities that she could have to continue to operate in the Russell Woods neighborhood, but in a way and on property where she would have the proper entitlements and zoning to be able to do so.

Um we had planned or spoke about connecting again at the conclusion of the this item at PED.

Um my understanding was her first preference would be if it is possible to pursue her rezoning to stay in the current location.

Uh but if not, we had talked through the options of you know, exploring what she could do by right in the structure within an R3.

We talked about the opportunities of participating in our pop-up at Dexter, and we talked about the opportunities of looking for other uh city-owned property in the neighborhood that already had the correct zoning, in this case, likely before zoning, either on Dexter or Livernoy.

Um we had planned to follow up at the conclusion of this meeting just to be most efficient with you know Miss Castleberry's desire of what direction she would like to move.

So we did not check back in this week as we were still waiting on this matter to be resolved.

Um, but we're still flexible to meet once when she's ready and knows what her options are, if any of those would be a great fit for her to move forward.

So you're ready.

So just so I'm clear, you're waiting for Miss Castleberry to reach out to alert you on what move she wants to take.

Is that correct?

Correct.

That yes, um, those options are available.

I'm happy to meet.

I know that I think for her, maybe clarity on the rezoning might be part of that.

So I was anticipating hearing back from her at the conclusion of this matter.

Yeah, I mean, I'm I'm gonna be honest for me.

I mean, zoning is very clear on what can and cannot be done.

Um so it that that to me is is one part of the conversation, but the other is what happened and what happens next.

So um I'm I'm more interested in the other two pieces because I kind of understand what happens in the zoning area.

Um Director Bell, any anything you want to add.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Chair.

Um uh my position was I would be willing to expedite any permits once a decision uh had been made uh on a new location.

So uh at this time um I I was not engaged because a decision had not been made.

But once decision is made on a specific location where it's allowed, then my people will be all hands on deck to help get her to the finish line.

All right, thank you so much.

Um Mr.

Gray.

Uh apologies for not mentioning this.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

I I did also want to share that our team uh and the district business liaison I've offered to uh Miss Castleberry in the past.

We stand that they're ready to help her think through how we can best communicate with her neighbors as well.

I think there's uh element of this which is ameliorated by uh communicating with neighbors uh in a way that is thoughtful and embraces their concerns.

I think all of our small businesses, awardees and folks who just are trying to serve their corridors uh are well served if they can work with us or work with department neighborhoods to understand how to communicate, uh how to support neighbors.

And so we absolutely still stand that they're ready to support her in thinking through how we can uh support her neighbors on this or any other corridor.

Okay.

Thank you.

And uh I think I would be remiss if I did not allow Ms.

Castleberry to to add one additional reflection to what has been said, um, because it is uh some of it is in conflict with what was provided to us previously.

Come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

So a lot of information has been provided today and a little bit more a light, if you will, on some of the things that we are um much more engaged in now or and aware of, but wanted to give you an opportunity to provide additional comments.

And I will say that next week, and I know member vice chair wants to bring this back next week.

I don't have an issue with it.

Um, but we're not gonna have this long discussion next week.

Uh we I'm looking for some level of fun finality uh to take place in between the space.

And so next week, um, if again if the committee decides to move this, uh bring it back in one week, that is what the chair is um hopeful of uh that we'll have a much more robust direction that we're going in.

Um before you go, uh member member Miss Ms.

Castleberry, uh member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and um my recommendation of bringing back in in one week was to just discuss what the outcome and alternatives would be.

I mean, it sounds like uh there is uh some consistency of what's going to be done or what's gonna be figured out.

Um but again, once this moves forward, you know, uh the reason why I say that my concern is uh is if no ball on either side gets dropped again.

And then uh I know that community very well.

Uh and what I will say is if that opportunity presents itself, uh if something does happen, I won't be here past January.

So uh I want to make sure that issue is resolved.

Uh and we are all of one mind uh before I leave that table in in that area.

So that was just my concern.

But if there is an agreement figured out where all parties uh are one, uh I am fine with not even bringing it back, Mr.

Chair.

Um uh but uh again that's not up to me, that is up to them and and what they decide on what is agreed upon and what will be followed through uh as well.

So thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, sir.

All right, Miss Councilberry.

I would like to add thank you.

I'm extremely enamored and impressed by all the research today.

Impressive work, I gotta say, to the entire team.

So I infer to everyone as the team.

Um there's one thing I want to say.

I'm I'm usually pretty quiet, but I'm not into politics.

I don't understand the way things work.

I understand that.

Now, if some mistakes were made, I apologize.

With the original application, I know the last segment we needed to do um meetings and things in the area.

We started a soup kitchen, we started a food pantry.

We've been in nine of the community meetings.

So yes, there probably was a delay in the forum filled out in March of 2021.

I apologize for that.

It's just me and my daughter and my son trying to figure this out.

Um second, I just want to sell flowers.

At the end of the day, with all the politics and everything else involved, I just want to sell flowers.

It's a very simple business.

The neighbors love us.

We have over 150 signatures of support from neighbors that live in the Russell Wood area, city and suburb.

So in closing, I would like to say, just give us some grace.

We're not a bad business.

We're only open four months out of the year, and I would love to operate where we are.

Now, if moving is an option, I will look into it, but I can't say I'm open to it.

Reason being safety, location, and things like that are a very big concern.

We're running more of an English garden type level business.

So with that being said, these additional spaces we have for parking in the back.

I really need to be some place where my employees feel safe, and it's a good location, and it's a very showy business.

So I just say in closing, I thank you for all your research, all your time, whichever way this goes, I understand, but I would like to stay where we're at.

And one last final comment, I thought about it two nights ago.

If the city is willing to transition me to another location on Dexter and Livinois, wouldn't it be nice if the city could purchase a portion of the lot adjacent to me that's owned by Pastor Al Crawford and use that for additional parking and parking it seems to be the hold up.

It's just an option.

Instead of moving anywhere, maybe the city can purchase a small portion of that and we can use it for parking.

Because I already have a cut in the pull in off of Davidson, um, if that would be an option.

Thank you.

And I just I want to make it very clear.

What we're doing here is not politics.

This is government.

You know, uh we are doing everything we we we are bound by laws that are put in place, and we have an obligation to listen and and try to address all concerns on all levels.

You know, those who are uh making the complaints, those for those who are subject to the complaints as well.

And we get blamed for it all on both sides.

You know, we're not being fair, and we are leaning more towards someone else.

We'll receive that because that's what you know, heavy as the head, as they say.

But just want to make it very clear.

What we're doing is within the boundaries of the laws that we have in front of us and the codes that we have in front of us.

Um because we call out politics uh all the time at the table.

Um and we don't want to play the we don't play those games here.

My member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

You kind of articulated what I was gonna say, but just to to that point, I I do want to reiterate it is a great business.

And we do have 150 residents or more that may support it.

Uh but I I don't want the idea to be that the city has not given grace, because I will state and other businesses that I've seen, you'd be shut down already completely.

Uh so I I think that needs to be acknowledged as well from the folks who are trying to make, you know, and ensure that what happened doesn't happen again, uh, but also that that business can stay open.

Uh again, I have and I and I will restate.

Uh I think it is an amazing business.

I think uh I was there when you received the Motor City match.

I was excited for you.

I've been excited to see something on Davidson.

And I know that our neighbors, particularly our seniors in that area, love the flowers over there.

But what reality is to President Pro Tim's point, if a person a person owns a residence behind that, they have rights too.

And because it is not politics and it is government, we have to take everybody into consideration relative to that, and then abide by the laws and regulations that which we have.

Now, if zoning was able to be changed and this is able to be rezoned, that is fantastic for me.

I will tell you that.

If you have to go anywhere, I want you to stay in Russell Woods, because I know what that means to our folks.

And whether that is on Dexter, which if you and you you see it a lot is coming up, or whether that's Livernoy, uh I state that because I understand the importance of your business and what it means to that community.

But I've also learned being an elected official, uh even when I ran, if you get 51% of the vote, there's still 49% of the folks that may not have liked you, but you are still responsible to represent them as well.

And they are just as important as the 51%.

From hearing, I think it needs about a week.

I I think it should be equitable for everyone, and it is my hope that you're able to still operate in some some way in that area.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

As we bring this to a close.

Oh, Member Johnson?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just wanted to say very quickly, it does not appear that this is possible in the current area.

So of the rezoning that was recommended to us for denial.

Um I'm not certain that it is possible.

I'm wondering if to the DEGC, if we're aware of how the resources were utilized from the Motor City Match Grant, and if it can be moved, or have we just utilized funds that now we won't be able to recoup, or that we'll just have I don't want to say gone to waste because if she has to move, I don't know what where the dollars were invested, um, and whether or not those items can be shifted to another location.

I can answer that.

The dollars have been spent rehabbing the property, ordering inventory, paying for architects, getting frame out, all of those things covered the $65,000.

Detroit means business only gave us a $18,000 grant, which I appreciate, but it was only supposed to be used for social media, Instagram, Facebook, website design, that kind of thing.

So that money has all been spent.

Mr.

Gray, I see your hand up.

I didn't hear you.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, and and I think uh Ms.

Castleberry's report has been consistent.

Uh much of the support through Marcy Match was site specific.

Uh and may not be movable, and then for the uh the training's business award, uh, of course, a website could be actually a great platform to highlight a new or different location.

So website, of course, lives in in the ether, so that is reprogrammable or still relevant to a new site.

Uh but much of the uh Mercy Match award was uh site specific.

Thank you.

And my very last question, uh, Mr.

Chair, is has community engagement actually taken place for this particular facility establishment.

Again, uh through the President Pro Tem's chair.

To member Johnson, uh yes, community outreach was in fact done.

I do believe that uh even to the level of door knocking being done again with the assistance of uh the Department of Neighborhoods, uh CPC staff also uh endeavored to seek uh some understanding of where the larger community group itself, Russell Wood Sullivan stood.

We did attend the meeting uh, but we never could get any sort of formal action from the community um association itself.

But they certainly indicated that they were aware and consistent with Member Durhall's remarks and the petitioner's remarks, it certainly is definitely support from community, but there was also some level of opposition with some very specific concerns.

Thank you.

And my apologies, this is my last, my final question, Mr.

Chair.

Would this be considered spot zoning if it was rezoned?

This was also again through the chair, one of the questions coming from the commission.

Uh we did uh a little bit deeper dive on this item uh because of its location.

Uh we saw it that we saw that it would be less of a case given that it was at the corner.

It was not completely consistent, if you will, with the master plan, in that the master plan today does still call for residential.

But we note that in such circumstances, and given a historic pattern that we see sometimes across the city, even in those areas where you do have a uh low density residential master plan designation, there is some understanding uh that there may well be small instances of commercial that support a given community.

So we did not see that this would have a high potential for a court to declare it as a spot zone.

Uh but would it uh uh is it possible?

Yes, but again, that would be the result of a legal action uh actually taking place.

But we we saw this as consistent with other instances in the city uh as it was initially uh perceived.

Again, the primary issues really have come up around the dimensional concerns given that this lot has half the depth of most of our commercial lots across the city.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Todd, for the folks who are not aware, what is spot zoning?

What's the challenge of that?

So again, I got folks who are watching and listening.

Certainly, thank you for the opportunity, Mr.

President Pro Tem.

A spot zoning is wherein the zoning of a given piece of property is seen to differ from its surroundings in a way that would be inconsistent and injurious.

Uh it would be uh easier way to sort of understand it would be if in this residential situation we were to plop down an M4, uh, an M1, an industrial zoning district wherein there would be clear conflict with the uh land use pattern that exists with master plan with the uh in and in terms of the compatibility with those adjacent uses.

So a spot zoning would be introducing a uh zoning in a smaller, relatively speaking, piece of parcel parcel in a larger area that is inconsistent with that area.

Okay, and you mentioned lawsuit.

So, in order to determine a spot zone, it is uh for the courts to actually make that determination.

Someone would have to bring suit making the claim, the courts would evaluate all of the circumstances and actually make the determination as to whether or not it is a spot zone.

So with the criteria in the zoning ordinance that we uh uh must evaluate in each rezoning is whether or not it is a potential spot zone.

So this is where we do the analysis to determine the level of risk associated with a given rezoning uh given the factors that I mentioned earlier.

All right, thank you.

And my last uh question is if in fact this uh committee does recommend denial and it goes forward and it's it's denied the request, does the uh applicant have an opportunity to appeal or is that final for the public was watching?

Um there is no appeal uh in the sense of uh you know going to the BZA, uh, you know, our appellate body, there is no appeal in that regard.

Certainly the applicant could reinitiate the process, present new or differing uh you know factors.

Uh I do think that as we have been discussing this with the uh with our colleagues across the administration and consistent with the uh remarks that Director Bush made, if in fact the applicant would like to pursue something else at that location that is R3 compliant, or again, otherwise consistent with the uh regulations for that land, um we uh would be I think all happy to try to figure out that path.

Um otherwise we have been discussing, given uh as with Member Durhall, uh, this is where I grew up as well.

So quite familiar with this and know the sort of the history of that stretch of land going back to the 70s, and it is problematic because of its dimensional issues, because of uh MDOT's activities with it over the decades, where freeway was actually supposed to run through there at one point, connecting 96 to the original stretch of freeway there at Davidson, uh, and because of other activities, it has been problematic.

So we've indicated that certainly CPC, PNDD, and others would like to work regardless towards some sort of study to actually uh be a little bit more definitive about what can and should happen on this stretch of land in order that it can be more viable.

Russell Woods Sullivan representatives have been in and out of our office, I think, from the 80s through the early 2000s on occasion, saying, what are we gonna do here?

What's happening with the church that sits there today?

What happens with the uh structure that Ms.

Castleberry has invested in now, which previously had an applicant in uh an occupant in it, and oftentimes just under residential use was creating uh a nuisance to the community.

So it has a long history, and I think everyone was hopeful that this particular proposal would have resolved that.

Uh unfortunately, again, it is turned out that uh it this may not be or uh again is not by the determination of the commission, not appropriate, but we definitely want to, whether we're working with Ms.

Castleberry or again some other future uh, you know, uh owner operator, figure out what really makes sense for this property given the unique circumstances that we find.

Thank you so much.

Uh again, thank everyone for the uh thorough um explanation and your examination analysis and investigation uh and the time and effort that you've taken to get us to this point.

Uh I know that there was it sounds like there's going to be a recommendation to bring this back in one week.

Um, and I would support that recommendation.

Uh, but I would also say that Ms.

Castleberry, I think now's the time to make that phone call to the planning department.

Uh make that phone call and see what can happen between now and next week.

Okay.

Um that is imperative because we're the goal is to vote on this item next week.

Um so with that being said, uh member vice chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Before I make my motion, I I do want to state um, you know, I appreciate your patience on this as well.

I'm gonna make a motion to bring this back in one week so you can have those that that dialogue and that conversation uh and have that conversation, you know, and kind of figure out where this lands uh with planning as well.

I will state though, uh I attend to move it out next week as well.

Uh and my attent next week, uh, if no resolution has come through is to move it uh based off of the recommendations of the planning commission uh because we have to fall under law uh with with what we have.

So uh but for now uh Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a motion to bring back line item 5.2 in one week.

Thank you so much, sir.

There's a motion to bring back line item 5.2 in one week.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you all.

We will take this item up next week.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Going on now to line item five point three.

Status of legislative policy uh division request for information on past funding and staff, staffing for the planning and development department.

Uh we did receive a report back from the legislative policy division.

Colleagues, is there a motion to receive and file?

So move.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Uh line items, if we can take line items 5.9 and 5.4 together, please.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

Thank you so much.

Both of these items are from Council President uh Sheffield.

Uh line item 5.4 is the report uh that is a response to the request, the memo in line item 5.9.

We did have an opportunity to speak with council president's office, and that office is um requesting a receiving file.

Is there a motion?

Move to receive and file line items 5.4 and 5.9.

As a motion to receive and file line items 5.4 and 5.9.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 5.5 status of council president pro Tim James Tate, submitted memorandum relative to request for comprehensive list of tax abatements in district one.

Uh colleagues, uh, we are still awaiting additional information on this particular item.

Uh of course, in a one-week bring back on it.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

There's a one request for a one motion for a one-week bring back on line item 5.5.

Seeing objections, that action shall be taken.

All right.

On to the land bank MOU.

Uh colleagues, if we can please take line items 5.6, 6.12, 6.16, and 6.17 together for discussion.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

Uh, all of these items are pertaining to the uh proposed uh amendments to the Detroit Land Bank authorities, MOU or the city's uh MOU with the land bank, and we also got a request from member Waters that was submitted uh on Tuesday, uh requesting an extension of time as well for uh a little more discussion on uh some of the items that were submitted by her office, and we I don't have a problem with that.

Again, I rather be right than rushed at this point.

We're not rushed, certainly, after how long it's been here, but we want to get it right.

Um the request was for it to be brought back on uh September 25th, but I believe based on uh things that are taking place that week that we will not necessarily have a quorum.

So um request to bring back the items mentioned on October 2nd, colleagues.

Is there a motion?

So moved, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

There's a motion to bring back.

Let me go back up, scroll back up here go.

Um motion to bring back on October 2nd line items 5.6, 6.12, 6.16, and 6.7.

Hearing no objections, then action shall be taken.

All right.

On to line item 5.7.

Status of council member Mary Water submitting memorandum relative to Detroit land bank authority properties, taxes and revenue.

Uh we did have an opportunity to speak with the office, and we do see here that the report was provided, colleagues.

Is there a motion to receive and file?

So moved.

There's a motion to receive and file line item 5.7, seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

All right.

Colleagues, if we can please take line items 5.8 and 6.7 together for discussion, please.

So moved, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

Uh we did uh file line 5.8 and 6.7.

These are questions regarding uh real token and cryptocurrency entities.

Uh 6.7.

Let me go down here.

Yeah, both of them are pertaining to to the same uh item.

And there is a request to receive and file these particular items.

Is there a motion?

Point of order very quickly, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

Line item 6.7 uh is a resolution of authorization, if I'm not mistaken, that needs to be sent to council for considered action because it's privileged and confidential, so maybe a closed session.

But I could be wrong on that.

Uh and if so, uh willing to receive and file both.

Yeah.

What I have here is uh this is just regarding the properties owned at that location.

Law department submitted a privilege confidential memorandum relative to regarding the above referenced item.

Uh submit for referral.

We consider action if if necessary through the law department, uh attorney Anderson.

Through the Chair Graham Anderson Law Department.

Um I I believe a receive and file would be appropriate.

It's uh not necessary.

All the information communicated is public.

So if if there is anything that uh the the uh public is interested in specifically, this is all listed in our lawsuit in the real token filing.

All the properties are there, and uh the other two responses, I don't believe are anything that is privileged and confidential and uh uh delicate sense.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh member vice chair, move to receive and file well, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, sir.

There's a motion to receive and file line items 5.8 and 6.7.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

On to new business, line item 6.1.

Office of contracting and procurement.

Actually, if we can move line items 6.1 through 6.4, these are all contracts that are requesting extension of time only.

No additional funding, no uh only additional time uh extensions, colleagues.

Any fur motion to discuss and or approve for line items 6.1 through 6.4.

Obviously, we want to get these ARPA contracts moving.

Uh move to uh sent to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion to send in line items 6.1 through 6.4 to formal with a recommendation to approve again.

These are extension of time only.

Seeing no objections.

That action shall be taken.

Line item six point five.

Submitting resolution.

This is from the law department.

Submitting resolution authorization for request for opinion on tax abatements and incentives for urban agriculture.

Uh, we did receive a report from the law department, colleagues.

Is there a motion to discuss and or receive and file?

Uh move to receive and file, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair.

Uh uh there's a motion to receive and file.

Uh Attorney Anderson.

Uh through the Chair Graham Anderson Law Department.

If uh I may to the Chair of Internal Operations, I believe this item was in the internal operations lineup.

Uh I'm not sure if I don't recall if we decided it was more appropriate in PED, but I believe this was an internal operations.

Through the Chair.

Uh I do recall it being in IOS.

I'm not exactly sure why, but I don't recall sending it to PED.

Um I'm not sure if this was an error submitted to PED instead of internal operations.

And why would it be in internal?

I think through the chair, I I'm not sure exactly, but I just remember that this is where that item had been.

Uh we had been communicating and handling it in uh internal operations on PED.

Okay.

Member Johnson, I'm sorry.

Seems like that may have been the error.

And through the chair, it may have.

Just looking at the item.

You're right.

You're correct, Mr.

Chair.

It may have been um it's it's I I've read through all of it.

It's it's quite interesting.

Um, but I'm I'm okay with receiving and filing it.

And if it is still in IOS, we'll just move to remove it.

Through the chair excellent.

Just wanted a point of order to make sure everything was smooth.

Thank you for uh keeping us on track, and thank you, uh Johnson as well.

Colleagues, there's a motion to receive and file line item 6.5.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.6, submitting resolution authorization requesting the Michigan Land Bank Authority, uh oversight over the Michigan Land Bank, or excuse me, Detroit Land Bank Authority.

Uh, we did deal with this item last week, colleagues.

So uh ditch is showing up uh in error on our agenda.

Is there a motion to remove line item 6.6?

So move, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections.

We should remove line item 6.6 from the agenda.

Then action shall be taken.

Dropping down to line item 6.8, uh city planning commission submitting report and proposed ordinance.

This is to amend the chapter 50 of the 2019 Detroit City Code zoning by amending Article 17, zoning district maps, section 50-17-10, district map number nine uh to rezone revised zoning classification for parcels uh bounded by Rosa Parks Boulevard, Burlingame, Woodrow Wilson, and John C.

Lodge.

Uh colleagues, is there a motion to discuss and or approve this particular item?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move to send line item 6.8 to formal for the introduction and setting of a public hearing.

There's a motion to send line item 6.8 to formal for introduction and setting of a public hearing.

Any objections?

See none.

Then action shall be taken.

Line item 6.9, submitting report and proposed ordinance to amend chapter 50 of the 2019 Detroit City Code zoning to revise.

Ooh, a published public notice requirement for consistency with city charter and state law and a number of items here on this particular item dealing with loss and truck stops.

Colleagues, is there a motion to discuss and or send for introduction and setting of a public hearing?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Move to send a formal for the introduction and setting of a public hearing.

There's a motion to send line item 6.9 to formal for introduction and setting of a public hearing.

Seeing no objections, then action shall be taken.

On to the line item 6.10 from the housing and revitalization department submitting resolution authorization from our housing and revitalization department submitting a resolution on behalf of Fisher 21 Loss LLC.

Uh requesting an extension to the construction period in their abatement agreement at 6051 Hastings Street.

So moved.

Thank you so much.

We know that there's a number of challenges that folks have had in redeveloping properties due to uh increased costs and and labor uh challenges as well and uh tariffs.

Let's talk about those two.

Um Mr.

Cook, I see you're here.

You this is a request.

Um talk to us about maybe I'm maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong.

What's the rationale for this request?

Thank you.

Justice Cook from HRD.

So the chair, the project experienced unanticipated delays due to financing in a post-COVID market.

However, the development team has secured all necessary resources and is working towards closing in the coming weeks.

Despite the financial delays, the development team remained committed to the redevelopment of the property and has invested 20 million in direct equity to date.

This includes stabilization and the remit remediation activities that you can see occurring on the site today.

Remaining work includes completing the facet restoration and the final touches are internal columns repair.

So the development has made substantial um gains, but the development came to my office and stated that the new construction deadline will be May 2027, whether everything will be completed.

I have the developer online, Mr.

Richard Holley to answer any other questions that I did not clarify today.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, any additional questions, comments, concerns regarding this particular item.

Seeing none, is there a motion?

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I move that we send uh line item 6.10 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.10 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Line item 6.11 from the legislative policy division submitting report relative to draft community land trust ordinance.

Been waiting for this for a while.

Is there a motion to discuss?

So move.

Thank you so much.

Member Johnson, I know you did a lot of work on this particular item.

And um want to open up the floor for you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So we're still doing work on this item.

Um, but I'm really excited about it to have it at this point.

Um there are a number of discussions happening throughout the entire city of Detroit outside of uh City Hall as it relates to community land trust.

There are numbers of people that are leaning into what they are, how you develop a trust.

Um, and so we look forward to having some support to allow the process to uh be done perhaps a little easier as we go through this process.

Um we will begin to have even more conversations with community with the community as well as those that have an interest in creating a community land trust, but exactly that we've got to this point.

So uh a very special thank you to LPD as well as to the administration, HRD in particular, those that have been involved in helping to get this ordinance where it is today.

Um there are some things that are typical in a community land trust ordinance that perhaps we weren't able to do because of state law.

Uh, and so just want to put that out there for the record, but uh we will have some more detailed conversations with those that are interested as the weeks progress.

So looking forward to it.

Really excited about it.

I think this is uh certainly a way for us to get to more deeply affordable housing, uh, income-based housing where there that is a possibility.

It is still development.

It is still development and development is costly, but we're doing everything that we can to help reduce the cost of development so that we can see more deeply affordable units come online in the city of Detroit.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

And member Johnson, is there uh a motion that you want to take on this particular item uh 6.11?

I don't know if it's gone through the law department yet.

If you want to refer it or anything, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Move to refer line item 6.11 to the law department for review and approval as to form.

All right.

There's a motion to send line item 6.11 to uh refer this particular item to the law department uh for uh approval for uh and uh approving the form review and approval approval to form.

What's that three?

Three weeks.

Oh I was like, what is this three?

Peace.

Um so there's a motion to bring back in three weeks.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Thank you so much.

All right, line item six point thirteen.

We're moving along.

Uh this is a memo that is requested that is asking the question what is the term limits for DLBA board members and why are they uh not required to be reappointed once terms reach expiration?

Uh we know we will definitely be dealing with this particular item because I believe there, yeah.

I know that this was one of the recommendations that has been put forward.

Um so colleagues, is there a motion to refer this line item to a law department and bring back for our October 2nd the discussion?

So move.

See no objections, then action shall be taken.

Line item 6.14.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson submitted memorandum relative to an update on the rental property inspections.

Uh colleagues, is there a motion to refer this item to uh HRD and bring back on October 2nd?

So move.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Would you also want to send this to B seed?

Because it looks like uh so move.

It may be in their space as well.

Also uh referral to B B seed as well.

And again, bring back on October 2nd.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.15, Council Member Mary Waters submitting resolution calling for the Michigan Auditor General to audit the Detroit Land Bank Authority.

Uh resolution has been provided to the body.

Colleagues, uh, is there a motion?

Uh move to receiver file.

Sorry.

No, there's actually a resolution we have to take our action.

I'm sorry, move to send a formal with a recommendation to approve.

Sorry about that.

No worries.

There's a motion to send line item 6.15 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Seeing no objections, then action shall be taken.

Uh taking us to line item 6.18.

Councilmember Mary Waters submitting memorandum relative to questions on the DLBA's partnership sales and prop in.

Colleagues, is there a motion to refer this item to HRD as well as the Detroit Land Bank Authority and bring back in two weeks?

So move, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.19.

Councilmember Mary Waters submitting memorandum relative to questions regarding outstanding city tax abatements set to expire.

Colleagues, is there a motion to refer this item to LPD and bring back in two weeks?

So excuse me, October 2nd.

We're gonna need a little time for that one.

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion to refer this item to LPD and bring back October 2nd.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Um line item 6.20, Councilmember Mary Waters submitting memorandum relative to questions on senior buildings in Detroit with HUD contracts.

Uh is there a motion to refer this item to uh uh is there a motion to send this item to LPD as well as B seed and bring back on October 2nd?

So move, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

And final item here is line item 6.21.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway submitting memorandum relative to Bagley Community NEZ boundaries.

Colleagues, is there a motion to refer this item to LPD and bring back in one week?

So move, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Seeing no objections that action shall be taken.

And I believe that takes us to the end of our agenda.

Colleagues, uh, is there any member uh may have missed one out of this while I pause.

Yes, madam clerk.

Uh just for clarification, I just wanted to make sure for item number uh six point eighteen.

Is that a bring back for October 2nd?

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Uh member's reports, member vice chair.

Negative report for me, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, sir.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just want to remind District 4 residents that our monthly community meeting is coming up on Monday, September 15th at 5 30 p.m.

at Metro East Complex.

That address is 13929 Harper.

Uh, we are sharing information about the homeowner's property tax exemption program.

Hope is what we call it, because the deadline is approaching very quickly, and that is November 7th at 4.30 p.m.

So again, hope deadline is November 7th at 4.30 p.m.

Uh our meeting again is taking place Monday, September 15th at 5.30 at 13929 Harper Avenue.

And then on Saturday, September 27th, from 10 a.m.

until 2 p.m.

We encourage all of our residents to bring any confidential documentation that they need to have shred uh to the 9th precinct.

We will be just across the street from the 9th precinct in the parking lot, shredding personal and confidential documentation just to make sure it doesn't get in the wrong hands.

Again, that is Saturday, September 27th, 10 a.m.

until 2 p.m.

Across the street from the 9th precinct on Grashid and Gungston.

That concludes my report.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

And I don't have any uh member reports, just to give everyone a heads up.

We're gonna have secondary streets.

We I know that's a big one for everybody.

Um and we are going to clear the board because we know there's gonna be a number of folks calling in supporting uh their nominees.

Um team, what when when is when is the uh secondary streets discussion plan for?

I think it's the 22nd, is that it right now we are looking at October 16th, but not definitive.

All right, so uh we're gonna get it more solidified, but it more than likely it's gonna be October 16th.

So be on the lookout.

Uh we're gonna clear the we're trying to clear the table for that because we have a number of public hearings and we got to do some um some acrobatics, if you will, as we move forward.

Um we have not had, or let's look at the last two weeks.

We have not had any public hearings.

We're about to start having them again, y'all.

Uh three to four every week until the end of the uh session, uh outside of that particular uh meeting that we have the secondary streets because of the level of public comments that I'm anticipating based on past experience.

So just heads up, October 16th at this moment, we're looking at secondary streets discussion.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So because you just brought that up.

I'm wondering, has there ever been any discussion around maybe setting apart, setting aside uh some residents that don't have recognizable names.

Uh I think we have some residents in the city of Detroit that have just been outstanding in our communities, and because they don't have a recognizable name, they tend to be overlooked when we go through this process.

I'm just curious to know if any discussion like that has ever taken place and maybe setting aside one or two uh that are for our outstanding Detroit residents that just don't have a recognizable name.

We have to get their entire family to come out.

Is that what it is?

That may be it.

Honestly, I mean that that so ultimately we make the decision.

You know what I mean?

This body right here.

So if we decide to only recognize those who have numerous awards already, then that's on us, unfortunately.

And I and I say that unfortunately because to your credit to your your your comment, there are a number of folks in this community who do tremendous work who have you know we're standing on the shoulders of who you know I may not even know right now.

There are there were some that have come before us in the past where again I didn't know who they were, but I was strongly supportive of once we got the presentation and heard about their impact in the community.

So I think the the conversation about the secondary streets will be ripe as we move forward.

Uh we made some amendments.

Some folks have asked for, you know, an additional number, you know, increasing the number of of names that we select.

I don't know if that's the solution because we may end up still doing, you know, the same thing we've been doing thus far.

All it does is just increase the capacity.

But you know, that's a discussion that we have to have.

I I don't know if we have time this session to do it before now and the end of the year, but it is ripe again for this committee to have those discussions to try to get more of those uh less known but extremely impactful individuals um honored within this very, very, very competitive and exclusive process.

Anything else?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I was just going to add, perhaps maybe looking at them outside of the greater downtown, midtown, Corktown area.

Um because so I I have I'm just putting this on the record.

I have someone whose secondary street sign would be near Grash and Gungston if he got approved.

Um and he's done some amazing work on his blog in his community with his family, and I think his family is gonna come out.

They they last year, and he is still alive, he just turned a hundred this year, but last year um his family flew into town for a Spirit of Detroit award to be presented to him when he turned 99.

Um, but I just want him to have his flowers while he's here, right?

Uh and so okay, I'll be petitioning my colleagues and going and talking to everybody to get support because I think what I want to see though is more secondary street signs in our communities, in our neighborhoods, and not necessarily those that are in those the the familiar territories, areas where we tend to see them because folks have made a contribution in those areas that aren't necessarily in our neighborhoods.

That's it.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

If I'm not mistaken, we have what but 28 names, 25, yeah, 28 names.

So we'll and that list is only gonna grow, you know, every year as we we know.

The beauty is that uh the rules that we have in place currently allows for everyone to roll over, uh, at least you know if they're not selected three more times after that initial um opportunity.

So I have no doubt in my mind it's it's gonna be tweaked as we move forward and you know looking forward to those discussions.

All right, colleagues, seeing it if there's no additional questions, comments, concerns, is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved, Mr.

Chair.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you for your patience and your participation.

We'll see you, Lord willing, next week this meeting is adjourned.