29th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Councilmember Mary Waters.

Present.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway.

Madam Chair, you have a quorum present.

Thank you.

Having a quorum present, we are now in session.

Good morning, Member Waters.

Is there a motion on the minutes?

Motion to approve.

Hearing no objection, that action shall be taken.

And Madam Clerk, if you will please know that Member Callaway has joined us.

Clark was so notes.

Thank you.

We are going to move into general public comment.

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

Please raise your hand if you'd like to speak, whether joining us in person or virtually.

And if you are joining us virtually, please raise your hand.

Public comment will be cut off in three seconds.

Going once.

Going twice.

Going three times.

The collection of public comment has concluded.

Good morning, Miss Jackson.

How many hands do we have raised virtually?

Morning, madam currently.

There are 11 hands raised for virtual public comment.

Okay, thank you.

If you can set the clock for two minutes, we will get started in the committee of the whole.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you, Mary Waters, for always showing up on this board multiple times out of the week.

Y'all say what y'all want to say over the phone.

Y'all are the reason why I will continue to show up.

Love versus Benson et al.

case number 25 CV 13105.

The National Water Registration Act of 1993 states that the Secretary of State, Janice Winfrey, Jocelyn Benson, and whoever else must maintain clean voter roles.

I'm Melissa Love, never voted November 2020 or August 2024.

And I am here to demand my name off the voter rolls and collect my share off the pot.

Y'all been stealing from.

I am here to demand justice.

I will continue to stand for what's right and for what's mine and fear no evil while doing so.

Last week, as I stated, y'all need to get a hold of these mental people.

It could be your child, a close family member that's getting sexual harassed.

It's bad when my 18-year-old comes home telling me a man exposed his private to her out in public.

Also, please not forget it's election time.

All that cleaning y'all doing should have been done every spring, summer, and fall season in every district.

Black communities of the city of Detroit, east to west, please wake up.

We have no representation.

We are forced to live in poverty, especially when it's more dispensaries than grocery stores.

We will continue to live in poverty.

If we don't vote and speak up, all that nice stuff that's appealing to the eye around the city, it's called gentrification.

Get hit.

Callaway, I am a proud voter and will continue to vote.

I voted in the past presidential election and primary and looking to cast my vote this upcoming election.

Thank you, Detroit, for cheating me and making me a force to be reckoned with because I ain't letting up.

Remember, God is a God of justice and I love will God love and hey, will God hate?

No justice, no peace.

No justice, no peace.

Oh, all right, thank you.

Uh next caller.

No.

Pardon me?

Oh, yeah, here.

Um is Miss Johnson going to be back.

All right.

Go ahead.

Please state your name.

Okay.

Uh, my name is Darren McCloskey.

I prefer to speak with uh Miss Johnson.

Well, she she'll be back, so you want to hold off for a while.

Yeah.

Can I please?

You can you can be the last one.

Okay.

Okay.

Um who else is next here?

Hello.

Uh my name is Zach Dobinmeyer.

I am a Wayne State student.

I am here today to talk about section 6.6.

Um, I think to provide an extension of time and increase of funds for real estate services and relocation assistance is quite a light way to put um what Zalsmer would do with this money.

This is money that is being used to sue Detroiters and use eminent domain to take their properties and land to build solar panels.

And at the current point, um, we're burning through about $50,000 per property to take property from Detroiters.

Um, if this um gets passed, you better get used to passing more contracts.

You're gonna see another 2.5 million come up in a few months from now.

All it takes is one case to get to the court of appeals, and you are going to see this again.

Sir This is one council person who agrees with you 100%.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, we he he can hold off if he wants to.

I can speak.

Okay.

Okay, so I'm also here to Darren McCluskey is my name.

I'm also here to speak about 6.6.

Um, let's just lay this down.

This project was represented as there's a $10 million windfall of found money from tearing down a power plant.

Boom, $10 million.

What do we do with it?

Let's build solar farms in the neighborhoods.

Sounds good.

Let's give money to residents who are deserving of it, who stuck it out.

That's good.

Um let's use the eminent domain to take properties from people who don't want to sell or who are trying to get more money.

So instead of negotiating with those people, you guys took a very hard-line approach of using eminent domain on a questionable way, which I know that the report from uh attorney Perkins um has been reviewed and calls out a lot of the issues with what what the city is doing here.

And there's a hundred and fifty lawsuits between the two phases that have been filed that represented before this increase 33,000 per lawsuit.

And you guys are using comps that make no sense to come up with the 2500 and 3500 valuations.

J Rising mixed in more than half of the 9300 parcels are side lot sales at 100 apiece to lower that value.

And this is just the beginning.

I mean, Zalzmer's a great firm.

I don't know that they deserve this kind of money, but there has been one attorney, Joanne Warwick, who you all know, she's been the only person fighting this.

She is not equipped, she is not a large law firm, she has not even made it past a motion review necessity.

All it takes is one attorney getting an actual motion with an evidentiary hearing.

And you could maybe argue that Zalzmer is deserving of the original amount, but at 7.7 million, you guys are using 77% of the found money to tear down a power plant just on attorney fees alone.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, uh Member Callaway to this young man.

I'm the only council person that voted 100% against the solar farm initiative and against all of the eminent domain and all of these contracts.

I am a no on 6.6.

I'm the only council person who was a no a hundred percent against this solar farm and all of the eminent domain and all the contracts and all the law firms attached to it.

I am the only council member who was out 100% no.

Thank you so much.

And I agree with you too.

All right, thank you, Member Calloway.

Thank you.

Um okay, let's go to our first virtual caller.

First caller is owner.

Who?

Owner Papa.

Good morning through the chair, Carolyn Hughes.

May I be heard?

Oh, good morning.

Yes, you're good.

Good morning.

Thank you, Miss Councilwoman Waters.

You are a steady uh um opponent for the other ones on the council.

And yes, um uh uh councilwoman Callaway, you may vote against it, but you you're on your ineffective because it still goes through.

And um, as you say, uh, we are constant complainers.

But with the results that we are getting from the federal government, we're three times the amount of poverty than we had in 2017.

We are um second in the most violent cities, although we spend millions of dollars on CBI and and policing, it's not effective.

That's why I complain.

I complain because there is many more much to complain about.

If you don't see the condition of the residents as a problem, then I think you may be the problem.

If you believe that we just call in here, we don't have anything else to do with our day, but call in and rash you.

We don't call in for no reason.

We call in because we got 30 seconds.

Longer you took more time doing photo ops than you allowed the citizens to address issues on the agenda.

There lies the problem.

You aren't listening to the citizens, you you disrespect the citizens, not saying you personally, but those who give us 30 seconds to speak, it's unconscionable.

We have a right to address what's on the agenda.

If it's a long agenda, we actually should get more time because there are many things on the agendas that I see that I want to address, but I don't have time to address.

And I am in agreement with 6.6.

It's ridiculous.

Also 6.4.

Uh taking homes from people for the Joe Lewis Greenway.

This is gentrification on steroids, and you all are sitting over it.

Um thank you, Ms.

Hughes.

Um, next caller.

Next caller is iPhone.

Good morning.

This is Betty A.

Barner, and I do agree.

I do not like it when we are only given 30 seconds to speak.

Whatever it is that we want to speak on, we should be able to express ourselves, and it takes longer than 30 seconds.

Um, thank you for this time.

Um today I'm going to give out some information about um a program that I've been blessed to find out about for this particular program that I'm speaking about.

They provide different services, but for this particular service, you need to have Medicare.

Uh, you don't need to have Medicaid.

They do have some programs that uh require Medicaid, but for this one is Medicare, it's called the University Home Care.

And you would call a Mrs.

Darwitch, D A R W I C H 313 558, 9958.

Again, 313-558-9958.

And I'm helping someone get the word out.

You would tell them that you were referred by a Ms.

Taylor.

Again, Miss Taylor.

And the flyer says, Do you or your loved one want to remain at home?

University home care services provides the best professional care in Wayne, Macone, and Oakland counties.

Excellent home care solutions for patients who want to remain home while dealing with an injury or illness, specializing in memory care.

All staff is background check for patient safety, and they are fully insured.

Call for a free nursing assessment.

This program is operated by a nurse, and it also says uh they provide free home health aids to those who qualify.

Please share this information to help people to be able to stay in their home and be at peace.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next caller.

Next caller is Russ.

Russ, you have two minutes for general public comment.

Good morning, Russ.

Comment uh this is Russ Valant.

I disagree with the comment that was uh negative toward a member of this committee.

I think this committee is composed of the most listening uh and thoughtful people on city council, and I'm I'm glad I'm gonna be able to raise a matter with you.

Um I I have concerns about this law firm contract that's paying them uh as I understand uh about $50,000 to uh per eviction that they are uh representing uh their clients to uh remove people from their homes and properties.

Um and this is for another solar farm on the east side uh uh lower uh excuse me, northeast side that um uh is uh you know they've just been given an eviction notice to uh to a family whose uh family household has been owned by the same family for generations and uh the lady of the house was born in in that house, and there's other houses standing there, and the people don't want to leave, and they're you know, we're paying a Farmington Hills law firm 50,000 per eviction.

That makes absolutely no sense, and it sounds very corrupt.

And so I hope that this count this uh contract if um uh not approved.

And if I am wrong in any of my facts, I would uh welcome being corrected, and I also uh uh hope that as we look at how much we've ex cleared so much residential land.

The city council is always pushing for more housing, more housing.

We need to start doing public housing and city land, built housing that it isn't subject to the vagaries of private owners, you know, five, ten years down the road.

And uh I know I've used my time.

I am also very angry about the 30 seconds, wasting our time.

Thank you.

The next caller.

Next caller is Cunningham.

Cunningham, you have two minutes for general public comment.

Good morning, Mr.

Cunningham.

313, 444, 9114, 313, 444, 9114, 313, 44, 911 4.

That number was made so you can remember it.

And on Facebook, not enemy, two words on Facebook, not enemy.

Um, you'll see a picture.

Uh I'm not sure what's up on there now.

But if you go to not enemy, you see the name Cunningham, that's me.

So I got a holy handshake when I came in to council.

Um, a young lady, she was been trying to catch me, she says, and she caught me and gave me a hundred dollars in the hand.

I used to go to a church, we used to call those holy handsakes, uh, handsakes filled with some money in it.

And so that allowed me to buy bus tickets, and that allowed me to take the time off to do this.

No one pays me, no one gets, you know, it's it's it's from me and the heart.

Uh so that was greatly appreciated.

That was a God sin.

And she said, don't say her name.

And I will not, but I thank her for that holy handshake.

And for those folks that instead of using Uber and Lyft, they use me because they know the funds going through me is gonna help others.

The mayor is having a meeting tonight at Bethel Ammy Church um at from 7 to 8:30 p.m.

I really don't like the fact that people can't verbally do public comment.

They must do it in the chat uh at the mayor's meetings, but that is his prerogative.

Um, there's a lot of good qualities as well.

Uh my cash app is 313, 444-9114.

I'm out giving out bus tickets, um, uh ice water, gloves, hats.

If anyone can help, and if you hate me, you don't have to do it vicariously through me.

Do it yourself.

And also, um, if anybody would like to help uh they made flyers for me for this mayor meeting, five flyer or 20 flyers, and I will be canvassing before the meeting.

Thank you.

The next caller.

Next caller is not that Karen.

Not that Karen, you have two minutes for general public comment.

Yes, hello.

Morning.

Good morning.

Um, yeah, I'm in total agreement with um Ms.

Barner and Miss Carolyn Hughes.

30 seconds is ridiculous.

Uh, even if you gave uh 60 seconds, that would be more acceptable, even though that's still short.

But sometimes you know, sometimes we just have to work longer.

It wouldn't be that much longer, and you it'd be paid.

It means, you know, no matter how many hours you work, you're gonna make the same amount of money.

So you may as well let people have their say when it's their time to have their say.

Um the homelessness, uh, you know, it's getting cold outside.

We need to work harder on getting these single parent um households and with children off the streets and into shelter.

Um, I think instead of that giving that 42 million dollars to developers, it would be better spent giving it to homeowners so they could help secure their homes.

Uh, you know, even a portion of that, and or the retirees.

Retirees are still out in the cold.

We haven't gotten anything to help us ease the uh the effects of the inflation uh since 2013.

Uh no cost of living, um, pension cuts, pension clawbacks.

Um but and the 13th check, we never got the 13th check.

The police and fire got 13th checks, but the general service retirees, we didn't get any 13th check.

And the 13th check was part of the reason that the pension uh fund became insolvent.

So it's even ridiculous to double that money out to certain people and not to everybody, and the people who got the 13th checks were not affected.

Police and fire didn't take a cut.

They only lost one percent of their cost of living.

They continue to get cost of living.

You you do uh put a divide between the different retirees when you do something for one side and you leave the other just hanging, you know, by a thin rope.

Um yeah, thank you for your punctuality and thank you for the graciousness of letting us have two minutes uh in public comment today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next caller.

The next caller is Miko A.

Williams.

Miko A.

Williams, you have two minutes for general public comment.

Can you hear me?

Good morning, yes.

Yes.

Um point of order, uh, Madam Councilman Johnson.

Um public comment to take a collection of public comments.

It's supposed to be open for two minutes.

So you could have held it till 10.05.

Um, which was too quick, and people are still trying to get on.

So if you can give us the courtesy, thank you for your prompt punctuality and timeliness.

I very much appreciate this body of um the standing committee of strong, wonderful, talented, uh, knowledgeable women.

But just next time, just so you know, and the uh rules of the laws do state that you got to give us at least about three minutes uh to collect public comments, and then you can cut off uh collection of public comments.

That's all.

And I am in agreement with everyone in regards to the 30 seconds.

What a national embarrassment yesterday that always late council member James Tate Jr.

did it was very unacceptable.

I mean, we have valid concerns that require uh two minutes, no matter how long the agenda was, that's your fault.

That's the body fault because you can't give things processed on time and in a timely manner.

It would have kept it wouldn't have not held you up that long to give everybody a minute, but that's uh council president's um issue as well, and it'll be all raised and addressed.

But the thing I wanted to say is is that you know we all need to come together right now.

It's been a good tight, like not that Karen says it's getting cold out here.

Families has been a struggle.

We need to show love, empathy, and compassion more than ever.

Right now, I'm just calling for everyone to stop the rhetoric, stop the division.

After we get through with this election, we need to come together to love on our neighbors right now, be it they voted or not, because we all we got in this city.

We gotta have unity.

Thank you for taking my comment.

Thank you.

And um, Miko, just to let you know, public comment was cut off at 10 03.

Um, so when Zoom is up, anyone joining us virtually has the ability to raise their hand prior to me cutting off public comment.

And the only reason I did it this morning that way is because I was doing multiple things.

Um, but certainly do hear you and appreciate you calling in.

The next caller.

Next caller is Jadante Smith.

Chedante Smith, you have two minutes for general public comment.

Good afternoon.

Uh well, good morning.

Uh, my name's Dante Smith.

I want to say so.

I have been looking at houses all over District 3, and I found a house at 17187 Cameron Street that is about to be torn down for the uh I think Greenfield Park Solar Array.

Um, word from Malia Howard that the house is slated for demolition.

So the house is slated for demolition today.

This house is perfectly salvageable.

It could have been moved somewhere else to um could have been moved somewhere else, literally picked up houses can be picked up and moved.

This house, we have a pervasive issue in the area in this footprint that we're gonna do a solar array of homelessness.

We're gonna vote on 2.5 million dollars to do $50,000 per house um for eminent domain.

There are two people who are holding out.

One one's name is Maria on camera, and the other the other people live right kitty corner to uh this 1718 property, and I'm going to make a stand today to not get this property torn down.

Our housing is our last forefront, is our is our last frontier in the city of Detroit.

We are losing everything.

Mayor Mike Duggan has concessions with this with DTE, and we're going to be able to look at these solar arrays that we're not going to benefit from as residents that homeless people are going to be able to look at these.

Uh the only thing they can do literally is touch the solar arrays.

We're not going to be able to eat, drink, make any type of profit off of these solar arrays.

Only the only people who profit are the city of Detroit government and DT Energy.

And so I feel like with these below zero temperatures, these mothers with children who don't have adequate housing.

We're tearing down our housing stock, and we're trying to build affordable housing.

We're trying to dis uh disenfranchise our residents, and we're trying to uh depopulate certain areas of the city of Detroit with these solar fields.

I think that is very evil.

And I'm gonna take a stand.

I'll also see you later, MAGA Money Mike, at your at your at your meeting at 7 p.m.

But I think that uh what we're doing is very evil.

And I want to say to James Tate, I did.

I apologize for using first words, but I know my stuff is what I should have said to you.

I know my stuff, and you know I know my stuff, and I come with facts and evidence, but I think we should vote no for this 2.5 million dollars.

I think that is a waste of funds.

Thank you.

The next caller.

Next caller is please stop massive zoning.

Caller, you have two minutes for general public comment.

Good morning.

May I be heard?

Good morning, yes.

Yeah.

Well, I agree with all the callers.

I think giving only stacking the agenda on purpose and giving only 30 seconds, that's not serving with integrity at all.

Chicago, they get three minutes.

Um, you know, this whole thing about let's build more housing Detroit.

I was laughing last night, although I really want to cry, because this administration has up until about now been about let's destroy more housing, Detroit.

They were bulldozing good homes.

Mike Duggan lied in April 2015, saying we're not demolishing homes that that can be salvaged.

The gentleman who just spoke told you there's houses that could be saved.

Also, um, you all ignored when Charlie Leduff came and told you about the dirty dirt Northland Mall being put into demolition holes.

That's crazy.

Now, regarding the zoning ordinances, at least Marcel Todd's not a First Amendment foe.

He didn't run away from me like Mary Sheffield's chief of staff does all the time, even though I'm a D5 president.

But he said to me yesterday, and I thank all of you ladies for slowing that down because if Member Callaway doesn't understand this, what about us?

And she's got a bunch of staff to help her with it.

What about Joe Joe resident who's not an urban planner?

Like I think you were, um, member Johnson.

So you did serve with integrity yesterday.

But I asked Marcel Todd, and he told me, I I I sent him an email, didn't write me back.

He said this would not take away people's right to go to the BZR courts.

We'll put that in writing.

Make sure we know about that.

Also, what is 6.5?

Please discuss what that agenda is.

And this Zhausmer law.

Anyone who voted for that, I don't know if the law department lets you know, but you voted for a black bottom taking.

You voted for exactly what they did.

They're literally basing the case on the N-race slum clearance case of black bottom.

So that makes anyone who voted for that look really silly if you support the representation.

Thank you.

The next caller.

Is caller ending in 076.

Caller ending in 076.

You have two minutes for general public comment.

Detroiters.

People that's calling in to this phone.

These are all symptoms.

They are symptoms.

It's been going on for years.

Just listen to yourself.

Listen to us.

Every Tuesday, Wednesday, calling in for years with all these symptoms.

What I'm telling y'all, and what the group I'm working with is telling y'all, the virus is they're cheated in.

They would never do the right thing.

Let's show.

Now, let me say this to you.

It is just like voting overseas, but you have to use a Detroit address.

If you move to Europe, you can't use a Europe address voting in Detroit.

You have to use a Detroit address.

This is when you go to the county, you have to use a Detroit address.

So what do you have to say about voting from the county jail using the county jail address?

Because you silent on Tuesday, and then on Wednesday, you got all this to say.

What laws back in what you're saying up?

We have presented laws that you can't do that.

Detroiters, the origin of all these problems is cheated in elected officials.

Ain't none of them write on there.

All y'all keep hearing is all these symptoms that's crushing us.

That's amazing our community.

The virus is those elected people are cheated in.

They never got voted in.

The mayor, he don't want to talk to nobody because he knows the real, real, real thoughts about him and the real facts about what he's been doing.

Wake up.

Join us.

Thank you so much.

And um I don't chair on Tuesday.

I chair here on Wednesday.

So when you um bring up a question during IOS, I do my best to try to respond to it.

Um, I will certainly get the laws that I mentioned last Wednesday.

And if you have anything specific that you'd like to share, I'd be happy to look into it.

Uh, our office numbers 313, 224 4841.

Thank you so much.

All right, that now concludes our general public comment.

And we are going to return to the agenda, beginning with unfinished business.

And line item 5.1.

Line item 5.1 is contract number 6006158-a two 100% risk management funding.

Amendment number two to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds for legal services for litigation involving the MGM Grand Casino Tax Assessment Disputes.

Contractor Hodgson Russ LLP contract period through December 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount 100,000 dollars.

Is there a motion to discuss motion?

Discussion.

Why we are continuing to have to do this work and provide resources, additional resources for this law firm.

Yes, uh through the Chair Graham Anderson Law Department.

This is currently in front of the tax tribunal.

We're still hearing or waiting to hear from the judge's uh opinion, which we could then move to the next step.

It's something that both sides have been anxiously awaiting to move forward.

As um I've stated in the past, this is dealing with uh tens of millions, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at issue.

This is a matter that's been going on for a long period of time.

However, the scope of all the facts and everything that needs to be covered is quite massive.

So in the grand scheme of things, 10 years sounds insane, I'm sure to most people.

You talk to most attorneys and you talk to them about everything that's going on in this matter, and they'll say, Yeah, that sounds about right.

It really doesn't shock the conscious.

However, I I understand the frustration, but this is something that is absolutely essential.

The the work uh is vital that's being done by this law firm.

Thank you.

Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns?

Is there a motion?

Um I know what this member water discussion this litigation is about with with MGM.

Is it what yeah?

The over-assessments.

Correct.

That's what they allege.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Madam, oh okay.

All right, I'm done.

Madam Member Coward, too bad the residents who've been over-assessed um 600 million dollars, um, don't have a law firm like this law firm that's representing the city.

Because they've been over-assessed too, and their claims are similar.

And too bad we are um they're being ignored.

They're not being um served.

Um, I don't know if they have the wherewithal to secure the kind of law firm that's needed to fight for themselves, but maybe in 2026, um we can help them get some relief with the new administration because they certainly need relief after being overtaxed 600 million dollars.

And it's never gonna go away.

It's never gonna go away.

Um, and the people are still gonna complain.

Those who were impacted, their loved ones who are not with us or with us and living somewhere else.

Um they have a claim too, just like MGM Graham, but they're not MGM Graham, so they don't have the same um opportunities.

But you know, uh keep hope alive that um they get some relief um moving forward.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

All right, member waters.

And so I'll just further uh indicate based on what um my colleague from district two just said that it's a little bit different for for residents.

See, the businesses can take their gripes initially right to the uh tax tribunal.

Make sure that they appeal locally, and once they're denied locally, then they can take it.

But most residents don't know that, so they ended up end up missing out of an opportunity to to do exactly that.

And I think it becomes an educational thing for all of us, just like even now when they feel like their taxes are too high when they receive those notices in the mail from the assessor's office.

So they they might they may or may not appeal locally, and but they you have to do that first, as you know, when it's residential property.

So I just want to remind people to do that.

And uh so with that, madam, madam um chair, move to um approve.

Thank you.

There's a motion to send line item 5.1 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 5.2 is a settlement request in lawsuit of Carolyn Taylor versus City of Detroit.

Case number 24-005 796-NO.

This is for the Department of Public Works in the amount of $25,000.

Colleagues, there is a request for a one one-week bring bag.

Is there a motion?

Motion discussion.

Just discuss member Callaway.

Um, even with that motion um to bring it back in a week.

Is this the um case where the um the individual was hurt on the sidewalk since sustained injuries on a sidewalk or not through the chair correct?

Okay, and I had asked um through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson, about a week ago, whether or not that sidewalk has since been repaired, and I was supposed to get a report back from DPW.

Um and I think I have spoken to you about it.

Do we know whether or not that sidewalk has been repaired?

Through the chair, it's my understanding we're still waiting on a response from DPW.

Okay, all right, thank you.

So within the one week bring back, I'm hoping that DPW is listening or the administration is listening.

Um we need to know whether or not that um sidewalk has been properly repaired to um avoid um future injuries to um pedestrians at that same location.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

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

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 5.3 is the status of council member Letitia Johnson submitted memorandum relative to questions about impacts of proposed body cam ordinance.

Colleagues, is there a motion to receive and file?

There's motion to receive and file.

Line item 5.3 hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 5.4, status of council member Gabriela Santiago Romero, submitting memorandum relative to language access ordinance implementation update.

There is a request for a one-week bring back.

There is a motion to bring line item 5.4 back in one week.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 5.5 is status of council member Letitia Johnson submit a memorandum relative to questions regarding City Council's ability to re revoke delegated authority for contracts subject to administrative approval.

And without objection, I'd like to combine line item 5.5 with line item 5.6.

Line item 5.6 is the July and August monthly report of contracts approved administratively.

And colleagues, there is a request for yet another one week bring back motion.

There's a motion to bring line items 5.5 and 5.6 back in one week.

Hearing no objections, those actions shall be taken.

That now brings us to new business.

Beginning with line item 6.1.

Line item 6.1 is contract number 287 0456-A13.

100% city funding.

Amendment number 13 to provide an extension of time for legal representation for post bankruptcy restructuring and revitalization, charter commission and other matters as requested.

Contractor Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone PLLC contract period through December 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract amount 12 million nine hundred fifty thousand five hundred twenty-two dollars and fifty-six cents.

Colleagues, is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Discuss.

Discussion.

Member Callaway?

When did we um come out of um bankruptcy?

When did the city come out of bankruptcy?

Excuse me, through the chair, I believe it was around 2014.

And now it's 2025.

Correct.

And this is a $13 million contract.

The 13th amendment, and I know there's not an increase in funding.

I see that.

When can we be done with this law firm on this issue?

If we're all right out of bankruptcy, what are they working on?

Are they I I've asked for reports, I've never gotten one.

I've been asking for reports since 2022.

Then I'll be going into my second term in January, and I'll be asking for the same report because this is going to come before us again.

So I know it's being extended to 2026.

Why the extension?

And this is not risk management.

This is city funding.

These are taxpayer dollars, 13 million dollars, which means this law firm has gotten over a million dollars for the last 13 um years.

That's a lot of money.

And if we are already post-bankruptcy, why are we still why can't we close it out?

Why can't we get beyond this law firm and this particular case?

That's that's what I'm asking.

Through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson.

Through the chair, although we are out of bankruptcy, the litigation still continues.

And uh specifically in this case, um Miller can feel that they've been dealing uh with motions to um address um adjustments to uh specifically a lot of police officer pensions.

And if you look to the the next contract as well, it goes hand in hand here, not to get ahead of ourselves.

Um but what the the next contract does is their court ordered for handling the distribution to the creditors, and that's essentially kind of the last tedious thing to my understanding that we're still dealing with here.

There was over 3,900 proofs of claims filed against the city in the bankruptcy case of those approximately 1,400 were classified as litigation claims, and the uh roughly 2500 claims among them include trade claims, employee labor, um grievances, tax issues, a variety of different matters.

So it's it's really a tedious game of whack-a-mole that we're trying to wrap up here.

There's definitely an enthusiasm from all parties to finally close this up as you expressed it.

It's been a long time coming.

So we're we're near the tail end of this.

I I'm happy to uh produce uh additional information to any other questions at play, but but that's that's the long and the short of of what we're dealing with here is still um to to finish out wrapping up all the different creditor claims and to finally be able to move forward.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Anderson, through the chair.

Why don't they come?

I mean, I don't know what it'll maybe in our um next year, they should come before us.

Um, this law firm, whoever's working because you're not working on the case, they are, but you but you have become their spokesperson.

I get it because you represent the law firm for the city.

Um but Miller Canfield should come before us, they've gotten $13 million of taxpayer dollars.

We deserve some type of report.

We need to know exactly not through you, through them, madam chair.

When is this case going to be closed out?

Where are they with closing it out?

And the people, we the people, the taxpayers deserve to know that answer.

So I will be motion.

I don't know if we'll be able to do it before recess.

Well, I it let's still we'll have it in the queue.

So we we would actually have to um pick it up from the floor.

So we I think just certainly I would jot it down so that next term um that can be a discussion.

I'm assuming it'll have to be perhaps a closed session um to have that discussion.

I wouldn't thank you, ma'am chair.

I wouldn't I wouldn't vote for it to be in closed session because we're talking about taxpayer dollars, we're trying to close it out, and the people want to know.

The the people in my area, we want to know.

We absolutely want to know.

It's nothing private about it, it's a public matter.

It was a public um wasn't a private bankruptcy, it was a public um bankruptcy for a city, and now we're using public dollars a hundred percent, thirteen million dollars to this law firm.

So I, you know, you can make that motion about um a uh closed session, but I wouldn't support that.

I want everything out in the open for the people to know.

We just want to know through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson, through you know, you know, we need to have that um madam chair and to my colleague member waters.

Um, then they need to come before us.

Um, and and I I wouldn't want them to do it in closed session.

That might be the vote of the you know of this body, but um certainly this has been a long time coming, and it should be over by now.

We have moved on.

We this city has moved on from bankruptcy as best we can, and we should not because in a minute what they're gonna do is it says no increase, just increase in time, but I guarantee you in 2026 they're gonna be asking for more money.

Middle Miller um Canfield has gotten $13 million of our taxpayer dollars, and that's a lot of money.

And we we've been out of bankruptcy for almost a decade now.

We've been out of bankruptcy.

So I don't know why we're still talking about this, but madam chair.

Um, I don't have a motion.

I just hope that we will have them before us.

Maybe member waters might have a motion through the need to come before us through through the chair to Mr.

Anderson.

They need to come before us.

Attorney Anderson.

Through the chair, I I'm in agreement with member Callaway.

I I don't think a closed session would be necessary.

Uh I'm confident there would be enough information that's available to the public that we could have an illuminating conversation that would be educational, not just uh to this committee, but to the public as a whole.

Uh but I I'm confident Miller Canfield, we could uh bring together a presentation to put that together because you are right that that this is um you know it's significant.

This was you know the largest city in American history to declare for bankruptcy, and uh a lot of people don't know what that means.

And it it is not uh an easy thing to describe linear uh lineary um, but it is something that I think would be valuable to the public.

So um I I'm happy to uh liaison that conversation.

Um but uh uh if it's the will of this body if that's something we want to.

I I know this committee has a very tight schedule for the remainder of the year.

If it's possible to get it done in that time, I'm happy to do my best to arrange that.

But if not, I think that's something I'm I'm confident we could put together into 2026.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Attorney Anderson.

I wasn't suggesting a closed session, but I thought there would be litigation that would be discussed that would preclude us from having the conversation during a an actual public um discussion.

So and I don't anticipate that I will be the chair of internal operations next year.

Uh, and so I'm not not necessarily certain who will, um, but I'm I'm just suggesting that someone just kind of line item it um and just to make sure the conversation doesn't get lost next year.

Member Waters, thank you.

That's exactly what I was trying to do.

Yes, I want to go ahead and make the motion to line item it, and they can come um before this body, um, maybe mid-January.

At least, you know, they're they are already uh would have been notified, they can start preparing now to come before this body uh in mid-January.

So uh that is my motion, madam chair.

Attorney Anderson through the chair that to council member Johnson's point, yes, procedurally that would not survive into the new legislative term.

However, unless something surprising happens, I plan on being here in January.

Um my boss is behind me though, so he might know better than me.

Uh that said I'm happy to begin that conversation with Miller Canfield and uh target a date in January or February, what whatever works best for this body to present a uh presentation on here is what happened in the bankruptcy, here's the progress we have made.

We are close at the tail end here, but here's the variety of matters that we can express that way the the public can know that the the 13 million dollars that Miller Canfield received over 10 years was well worth it and money well spent for the protection of uh the citizens.

But but I I'm I'm happy to put that together.

But as I stated, well, then my motion would be that you go ahead and start doing that.

How about that?

I can do that, thank you, Councilmember Waters.

Yeah, thank thank you, Attorney Anderson.

That that's what I was just trying to say.

Sure, he can certainly start to have the conversation on the days.

Yeah, yeah, because I think it would have to be introduced again, yeah.

In the new year, all right.

Attorney Anderson, that motion has been made and approved.

All right, colleagues.

Is there a motion on line item 6.1?

Okay, there's a motion to send line item 6.1 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.2, contract number 6001570-a four, 100% city funding, amendment number four to provide an extension of time only for various legal services, including noticing, claims management and reconciliation, plan solicitation, balloting, disbursement, and computer software support.

Contractor Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.

Contract period through December 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract amount six hundred thousand dollars.

Is colleagues, is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.2 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.3 is contract number 6003505-a6, 100% city funding.

Amendment number six to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds to continue litigation services for reverse conviction lawsuits.

Contractor Nathan N.

Kamianski LLP contract period through December 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount 2,800,000.

Total contract amount 11,550,000.

Is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Discussion, Member Callaway.

Thank you so much.

I see corporation counsel here.

Um cases do we have through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson?

How many more cases are we that are pending?

And are we expecting additional ones, additional ones to the ones that are already a pen uh already pending?

Through the as for this report before, and I never got anything.

Um how many are pending?

How many have we already through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson, settled?

Where are we with these reverse convictions?

Yes, through the chair to council member Callaway to start by answering your uh last question.

How many more do we anticipate that that's tough to protect?

It's it's it's tough to say as as you know, these are matters that arise from decades ago potentially, so it's very difficult to read the tea leaves, so to speak, and anticipate we're gonna see this many more uh potential cases.

That said, the the current number that uh Nathan is handling is one three word.

I count 15 cases currently that they are handling.

I I reached out already to get an updated list, not so much um uh what what's new cases, but what's been unfolding with those matters.

I I know that would be of great interest to this body, um, what motion practice or any other type of uh discovery, what have you, that has been made recently uh for this body.

So I I would request a two-week bring back on this matter to get that information so I can present it to this body, of course, uh in private as we can't discuss all that on the record.

Thank you.

Through yourself, um through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson.

I have a quick question.

This is almost 12 million dollars to this law firm, and I know this is important work.

I know about the um reverse convictions.

Um are we in touch with the prosecutor's office to know whether or not there are more that are coming, some that they're working on.

Can we have that conversation with the prosecutor's office so we'll know whether or not we can anticipate we can anticipate more because they know what they're working on?

Are we in touch with them about additional reverse conviction cases through the chair to uh madam chairperson through the chair to council person calloway?

Um dealing with the Wayne County prosecutor's office of uh their conviction integrity unit.

They have an extraordinarily adversarial relationship with the city of Detroit.

They tend not to want to share with us, work in progress, and in fact, as the councilperson may be aware, uh, we've had to go to court on numerous occasions to show cause them to get them to share with us their file so that we can understand the basis of the recommendation that they made in the first place to reverse the conviction.

Uh we don't know uh councilperson what they are working on.

Uh they shield that information from us uh very, very, very uh assiduously.

What I will say and have said to this body before, we are entering as as uh uh uh attorney Anderson indicated.

We're entering uh those decades of the late 80s, the early 90s, uh, where there was behavior evidenced allegedly uh by the Detroit Police Department where witnesses were being held on the 13th floor of 1300 or the ninth floor of uh 1300.

Uh those are the the those those were difficult times for the city of Detroit.

I'll say that uh publicly uh and so council person, I would expect that I would be before this body uh next year uh fighting diligently against these reverse conviction cases, but I would expect that more are coming.

Okay, well um well, I'd like through the chair.

I don't know if you can answer this now.

Maybe um I don't know um who to ask this question of how much have we paid out because these settlements have been huge and probably not huge enough, uh, knowing some people have spent a couple decades in jail um unlawfully and unjustly, according to how things have panned out for those um those folks who were um convicted.

Do we know how much we've paid out already in lawsuit?

Because I know they come here first, they come here to this body.

Do we have an idea of how much we paid out?

I mean, if you can't answer it today, maybe you know, in the future, but I would like to know because it's been it's been a lot.

Yes, ma'am, it has been a lot.

Knowing that people have been in jail for half their lives for something they didn't do, so I get it.

You can't put a price tag on that, but just for this is city funding, and um, you know, people have a right to know.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh uh Attorney Anderson will get that information for you.

Uh that is a matter of public record, as you well know, and we'll be we'll share that with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Colleagues, is there a motion on line item 6.3?

Motion.

There's a motion to send line item 6.3 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.4, contract number 600 3765-A4, 100% city funding, amendment number four to provide an extension of time only for legal services as needed for acquisition and title clearance issues associated with real estate involved in the Joe Lewis Greenway project.

Contractor Lewis and Monday, PC, contract period through December 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract $300,000.

Colleagues, is there a motion to approve or discuss?

There's a motion to send line item 6.4 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.5, contract number 600591-a two, 100% city funding.

Amendment number two to provide an extension of time only for legal advice regarding the development of clean energy and energy efficiency.

Contractor Riven Oak Law Group PC contract period through December 31st, 2026.

Total or increase is zero dollars.

Total contract amount 200,000 dollars.

Colleagues, is there a motion to discuss motion, Matt Chair?

Discussion.

Um the law department.

Can you all just explain to us what this contract is for?

Through the chair, yes, ma'am.

Uh Riven Oak uh law firm in the personage of Valerie Brader, uh is an expert in dealing with the legal issues associated with public utilities, most particularly those agencies, those entities that are uh under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Public Service Commission.

Uh Valerie has been invaluable in helping us shape our uh solar uh program as it relates to uh all of the various documentation that's been presented to this council, most particularly the DTE contract, the Light Star contract, uh, as well as the resolution uh of necessity.

Uh she also provides uh support to us for our sustainability work uh and for the EV charging program uh that we have here in the city of Detroit.

Uh she is a a one of uh very small group of experts uh in this area uh and has been a member of our uh sustainability team almost since its acception.

Thank you for that.

Colleagues, without objection, I'd like to combine line item 6.5 and 6.6.

Line item 6.6 is contract number 6005617-83, 100 percent city funding, amendment number three to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds for real estate services and relocation assistance, contractor Zalzmer PC, contract period through June 30th, 2026, contract increase amount two million five hundred thousand dollars.

Total contract amount seven million seven hundred thousand dollars.

And if we can ask for you all to join us here at the table.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Yes, good morning.

Uh, through the chair, I'm Trisha Stein, Chief Strategy Officer for Mayor Deccan.

Morning.

Good morning, Conrad Mallet, Corporation Council, City of Detroit.

Good morning, and thank you so much for being here.

Please give us an update um on the solar arrays and what's happening with this particular contract with Zalsmer.

I'll through the chair.

Let me start uh from a uh wide frame and then uh corporation council can talk through the legalities.

Uh in phase one, those are the three uh areas, uh Grassha-Findlay, State Fair, and Van Dyke Lynch.

We have acquired all parcels, uh, which this legal contract that you just uh brought up has uh been responsible for.

Uh we are working through just compensation uh of a number of parcels.

We have been able to uh reach a settlement with Michael Kelly, which had the bulk of the parcels that were needed.

Uh so we are are working through that.

We also have some deed restrictions uh that we can discuss because I do know um there have been some uh questions to your offices about those.

Uh that is uh just uh for the expansion of the deed that folks hold uh for uh the platted areas around the solar arrays uh to include solar because there is some pretty um restrictive uh deed language just for single-family housing.

So we've added solar there, and if for folks who sign voluntarily, they get 100.

Uh and so we are working through that and and reaching out to homeowners, and we have um uh started on that and and have about 10 percent completed to date.

For phase two, that's Houston Whittier and Greenfield Park.

We are about 80 percent done with the parcels uh acquisition.

We are on track to finish that uh by the end of the year, and uh and and also work through just compensation and making sure that folks uh get uh fair market value and relocation services.

We have on both phase one and phase two relocated everyone but two residents.

One will move at the end of this week.

That's from the Greenfield Park area, and another will move in two weeks' time.

So we have been doing the wraparound relocation services, helping uh folks uh meet the requisite needs uh for housing and and relocating uh those homeowners.

Uh additionally, uh the deed restrictions are also happening for phase two, and we're just starting on those.

Uh again, that's a wider area around uh the the areas that um we need the the deed restrictions to be amended.

That's from a legal update.

I'm gonna let corporation council um talk a little bit more specifically, and I certainly can answer any questions about uh additional work that's being happened in the solar areas.

Thank you.

Madam Chairperson, Council, I uh uh Councilperson Waters.

I I I just want to kind of take you back to understand the complexity of the project that we undertook with your permission.

When Mrs.

Stein says that we are required 965 parcels, uh 245 of which were privately owned.

That that is each one of those.

We're negotiated pro you just didn't walk in and say, uh, I'm gonna buy your property, uh, here is uh our offer, and the transaction takes 15 minutes.

Uh these are numerous conversations going back and forth, number one.

Number two, in those instances, as we promised uh councilperson Waters that we would not condemn any person who was in their property privately owned, and absolutely we worked very, very diligent diligently to be sure that was not the case.

We successfully moved 38 people into new housing, the lion's share of which uh uh meeting the expectation of council president pro Tim Tate, uh uh persons moved to houses in the City of Detroit.

Again, this is a very intense case management process overseeing uh by the Zauzma group.

We supervised the two 200 private acquisitions.

We filed 104 condemnation cases, and I know that the uh councilpersons present really have endured through the process of uh public comment.

Uh the longer the project was out there, the more intense the opposition came to be.

And so uh we had to file 104 condemnation cases to appro to to to acquire the vacant lots, and we had five uh uh condemnation uh appeals where we had to go to court and actually endure a trial on the condemnations.

Five trials, not one, not two, five.

We litigated uh 35 just compensation challenges, 13 of which remain in litigation, with trials proceeding into 2026 if necessary.

Frankly, what we hope is is that the judge will dismiss the cases.

They have to go to trial, they have to go to trial, but we believe that the uh foundation that we have set with the courts, the courts will be able to make the decision without a trial.

We had to anticipate litigating 20 of these uh just compensation cases against Michael Kelly, and as Mr.

Stein's indicated, we finally were able to settle with him uh and get those cases resolved.

The process of lifting the deed restrictions, uh 900 adjacent parcels.

Clearly, this it it it it seems exceedingly bureaucratic, but you've got to prepare the documentation, you've got to present it in court, and the judge has to make a decision.

It's it's it's a process, it's formalistic, uh, but that's what the law uh requires.

We file uh we filed three condemnation cases to clean up any title uh problems that might have existed, and that's where we had the services and can and and and uh I want to thank the uh council members present for voting to extend uh the Melvin Jefferson contract.

We had probate issues associated with family members owning the property who could sign, who had to sign, and we had to work through those.

In phase two, we're in the process of requiring 430 properties, including 104 that are privately owned.

As Mr.

Stein indicated, we've got seven of nine persons who have been successfully uh relocated, two remaining, uh, and we continue to uh uh have presented numerous uh uh condemnation necessity uh actions that we have to defend.

Uh they are not we think potentially uh uh disruptive in terms of the process of the projects going forward, uh, but they have to be defended.

Uh the the lawyers on the other side, no matter what you may think of them, have done a good job of presenting their case in court, uh, and we've had to uh defend.

We've won these cases.

We expect to continue to win these cases, but nevertheless, these are active lawsuits that have to be defended.

We've litigated to date, or Zalzma has litigated today, 24 compensation cases, and uh as we've indicated in the phase two lot, we also were able to settle uh 18 properties that were owned by Michael Kelly.

So there's a tremendous amount of work uh to get to what we think is the appropriate uh uh end result, uh the solar fields, uh, and I'm sure that uh some members are aware, and I think some members were present uh at the opening of uh Van Dyke Lynch, the process goes forward.

Uh I like you am surprised at how long it has taken.

Uh perhaps unlike you, I remain surprised at the vigorous opposition uh to what seems to me then and now remains an extremely uh good idea, both from an urban design standpoint and from an uh environmental management standpoint as well.

So with that, uh Madam Chairperson, Councilperson Waters, I can uh take any questions.

Member Waters.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, of course, my first concern are the uh owner-occupied properties.

How many uh of those were there?

And then uh are there any that were subjected to imminent domain?

Do we have any owners, residents living in those properties who says I don't want to sell, but then we forced them to do so.

I'm talking owner occupied.

That's the first part.

Through the chair, yeah, I'll take that one first.

Uh, there were 36 total.

Uh these were uh PREs or or owner occupied uh uh that were in phase one and phase two, 36 total.

Um all of them were voluntary uh sold.

That's that was the mayor's commitment as we were only going to areas where there was a hundred percent of uh participation and and the owner occupants, uh and then on average, because I I do know that uh you generally ask me the next question, on average uh that sale price was just a little over a hundred thousand dollars.

So we were able to do fair market value uh and and double that, uh, it was a minimum of ninety thousand that the mayor had set out, and so we were uh we did uh uh assessments of them and and then doubled fair market value and and all of them have closed, and then as I said, two are remaining and will be moved out in the next two weeks.

All right.

Um that's good to hear that you didn't take any of those owner-occupied properties via domain.

No, ma'am.

Member Waters uh a point of clarification is that phase one, it's all the chair.

Uh all uh phase one and phase two is 36.

These again are the owner-occupied homes.

EREs.

Okay.

Um I I ask a quick question.

Um can you share um information relative to occupied?

So they may have been uh rental properties, but occupied properties.

Okay.

I I first, madam chair, wanted to address the owner occupied, you know, the PREs.

Then I was gonna come to to the rental piece, and which is okay.

Member Waters has the floor.

Which gets to be a little bit more tricky.

Um, because I want to know how many of those are were um LLCs uh as well.

You know, I I've got this thing about these LLCs.

So um are you able to provide a list?

See, I'm gonna be looking for a detailed list of property ownership and occupancy.

If you are able to provide um each of us uh such a list.

So of those rental properties, um, how many of those were were LLCs?

I mean, folks living in 10 buck two and so forth.

Do you know?

Uh through the chair, um, let me take the questions in in the order that came.

Uh well, no, in reverse order, I'm sorry.

We do not I do not know the LLCs off the top of my head, but we do have that information, and I will send that to you.

I'll send it to everybody's office.

Uh that will not be a problem because we do maintain that.

I just don't have that at my fingertips.

Um, then uh I think your first question was how many were occupied?

There were 22 uh privately owned that were occupied.

This is I'm going phase one and phase two now.

So yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh and so there were 22 and all of those have closed.

We did fair market value.

On average, it was sixty thousand dollars for a private owned uh occupied.

Uh again, there were variations of that.

I I do know your chairwoman's gonna ask me about one particular, so I've got that number, but on average it was 60,000, and uh all of those tenants have been relocated uh through our relocation services and are getting 18 months of rent.

Oh okay, so all right.

The the people who own the properties, who are they and just generically?

Through the chair, it was uh a variety of folks.

There were certainly uh uh individuals or LLCs that owned uh uh uh multiple properties, uh and and uh as Corporation Council ballots as we are still uh in uh litigation with a few uh for just compensation.

Uh that was a mix of structures and vacant lots.

Uh but uh for the most part they were uh you know landlords uh and then um we were able to to um uh come to a fair market uh uh value.

Uh the the private owned vacant houses on average it were 40,000 that we we paid.

And so um I'll say this, Madam Chair.

So how do you how did you respond to members of the community saying that you've been using eminent domain to throw people out of out of their homes and people that did not want to leave?

I mean, how do you respond to the community?

Because you know, things get going and all kinds of things, people believe, you know.

How do you respond to them?

So uh through the chair, council person waters now the the uh Mrs.

Stein and I both sat here with you and and made the commitment that any owner-occupied home would only be a voluntary transaction.

Right.

We said that for those persons who were renting, uh uh we would approach them and give them as as we indicated 18 months uh free rent.

Those persons who were landlords, uh they got fair market value.

In some of those instances, the owners resisted, uh, believing that they were either entitled to more or did not want to give up their property, but those were businesses.

Yes.

And the uh my colleague uh is being very diplomatic, most of the properties were owned by persons who were multiple uh uh property owners.

That is, they owned more than one uh of these uh uh uh uh rental properties.

And so they they were in the business of renting homes.

Uh and so this was a straight-up business transaction.

Now, there were uh people in the community, multiple property owners, who did not believe that their house was fairly assessed, or that their that their properties were fairly assessed, they went to court, as is their right, and we are having uh with the judge a discussion about fair market value.

There has been misinformation put out that says, well, they're taking my property, and people forget all of the various permutations that we just described based on commitments made to this body about who is going to be treated how.

That's that's that's that's a very powerful incentive.

Uh uh as this as this program was constructed by the mayor and this council, it was designed to be uh as resident-friendly as we could possibly make it.

When it came to the business, the people to the uh the multiple property owners, and I won't call out their names, but you know them as well as I do.

I don't want to know.

Well, you we've mentioned Mike Kelly twice.

I mean, we we we we uh uh uh Trisha Stein and I were in uh two days of negotiation with Michael Kelly and his lawyers over an amount finally that we settled upon to get the properties that he held uh that were uh uh slowing up uh the process uh uh in terms of the progress that we had hoped to make by now.

So nevertheless, I mean the bottom line is is that everybody's been treated fairly, everybody's been treated according to the law.

Uh it has turned out to be an expensive proposition, no question about that.

Um you've heard this a thousand times.

I think I've said it at this table more than once.

No good deed goes unpunished.

I continue to believe that this is one of the most progressive ideas that the council could ever uh uh put forward, uh and people still resist.

Um how many anyway?

I'm gonna be requesting a list of the uh a detailed list of those properties.

I don't know how long it's gonna take you guys to put such a list together.

Um but but since you are here, corp counsel, I I want to ask you, because I have reached out to the state legislature to ask that they uh craft a law, we we we pass a law to force these LLCs after they purchase certain number of properties.

We don't want them to be able to hide behind those LLCs.

And I think a a letter of support or something or request coming from you uh to the Michigan legislature would help out the case.

I sign it tomorrow.

Okay.

You could draft it.

I'll get you something today.

Yes, please, because uh it is crazy, you know, what the assessor's office, the border review, and even the law department has to go through because of all of these LLCs, people hiding behind them.

And I just don't I don't think I don't think that's right, and I and I think we've got to get a handle on it.

Um I I'm in in enthusiastic full support.

Okay.

And and through the chair to your first point, uh, the list will be to you, uh, all of you uh by the end of the day.

Oh, by the end of the day.

Oh, 100%.

Okay.

All right.

So it would be uh a detailed list of property ownership and occupancy.

But with owned by LLCs?

Uh what well, any of them.

Okay.

And and I and since I hate these LLCs, yes, I want to see those.

Well, we'll put them at the top, ma'am.

Through the chair, through the chair.

Y'all set member water?

Oh, thank you, madam chair.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

And um, can you add how much we provided for the properties?

I'm interested in knowing so one of my challenges going through this entire process was the speculators that we have in this city and them continuing to benefit from development and and projects that the city brings online because they have they own so much land and property throughout the city.

So I'm really interested in knowing how much um the individual properties received, and if you can share how much the renter received as well.

So I do want to ask a question about that.

So I understand the resources that we provided to the renter for the the owner of that property.

Did they receive fair market value?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

All right.

Um can either of you share the notice process because I've actually had people reach out to me and they've gotten the notice and they say this is the first time I've heard of this.

Um but I know the process has been going on for a length of time.

I'm not sure if they're in phase one or phase two, but what is the notification that's provided to the household?

Go ahead, Jack through through the chair.

I I think that you mean the deed restriction, but we'll we'll talk about it all.

But I know that your office and a few other offices have called us uh in the last few months about deed restrictions and that notification.

So I'm gonna take that one first and then we can zoom out in corporation council can talk about it in in general, how how the other but the deed restrictions certainly, and then there have been people that have come to city council and I've come up uh at your request and others to to discuss uh the deed restriction notification, um, and I have said this on the record.

Uh, the first letter was um uh not our best uh uh messaging.

Uh so we had re we redid that uh and tried to do uh clarification and a fact sheet.

Uh I did bring a copy with me today, and I we did send that to City Council, and I can do that again uh to to explain what the deed restrictions were.

Again, that's that larger platted area around the solar uh and then we had the department of neighborhoods go out because we we did hear that it was uh we needed to spend more time and and explain.

So we did have uh uh uh door knocking and uh communication happen through the spring and the summer and then set up a dedicated line for uh uh uh folks who received this notification to um understand what it was about.

Again, that's the hundred dollars if they voluntarily sign to include the deed restriction um that uh uh allows for solar.

Um we also are going through the the court proceedings uh to uh and then folks can still negotiate uh and and and get themselves out of that and get the hundred dollars.

So that process is ongoing.

We are doing um outreach uh and have a dedicated line and trying to reach uh homeowners and explain to them what that process is.

Um that's the one that I've heard the most about.

That's why I wanted to deal with that one first, uh, because there is some confusion that you know I live blocks or a quarter mile away from solar.

Why am I getting notification?

And that again is uh uh eighty to a hundred years ago when the city was platted as as subdivisions that we had to take everyone within uh those platted areas that include the solar.

And then and then uh uh Madam Chair, uh in general with the condemnation process is all is it's almost the reverse that uh uh Ms.

Stein's uh described.

We started out with the neighborhood people going out and knocking on the doors, having community meetings, making sure that people wanted to, in fact, first of all, be a part of the process, then submit their applications, so on and so forth.

Then we went to each individual house and had each of them sign a letter of intent uh so that all of those persons, the uh the PREs, were absolutely volunteering that they were going to sell their property.

So they signed a letter of intent.

Then we went back with the uh to get their permission to come do the assessment.

We did the drive-by.

Some of the homeowners said, Listen, I just did my kitchen.

I want you to come in and see that.

So we went in, and in many of the instances, there was an actual inside physical home inspection.

So the PREs had tremendous uh interaction with the uh legal team and with the community support team that was in place to be sure that we could get to the exact uh place that the PREs wanted to be based on their assessment of the value of their particular home.

So notice in the very beginning of the process, both for phase one and phase two was extremely extremely uh vigorous.

Uh it was it was case management-like uh in terms of its uh intensity.

Then for the vacant lots and for the rental properties, for those uh uh uh renters, they were also personally contacted.

And the uh neighborhood services people went in first, then the relocation people went in second.

The landlord uh was notified by letter.

Uh and in most instances, contacts from the landlord back to the uh Zalzmer firm by their lawyer was made and the transaction was complete.

So no one uh was a part of the process uh without intense notification.

Uh and in a couple of instances where we actually had to do service of process, um, that was done in person, not just by mail, and we had to do it when we couldn't uh find the person, it was a certified letter, it was posted on the door.

Uh so the uh one of the easiest ways to resist uh uh any kind of legal action is to be able to prove that you were not properly notified.

Uh, this body is well aware of the fact that the city of Detroit sometimes does not do a good job.

In this instance, it was imperative uh that this process uh be very, very, very well documented.

So we are where we are as it relates to the deed restrictions uh that uh uh Mrs.

Stein is has has uh discussed, but the actual condemnation process, the relocation process, uh the purchase process, all of that was uh very, very well noticed.

I appreciate that.

Can can either one of you speak to what happens if someone owns a lot, um, and I think a lot of people perhaps may not have an address other than the lot itself for notification.

If someone owned a lot and they never responded to anything that was provided to the owner of the lot.

Talk to me about what takes place there.

So uh as as as this body knows, Madam Chairperson, Councilperson Waters.

We we have a thing here in the city called CLEAR, which is a uh uh data service that we have through Thomas Reuters, and so we're not delivering notification to a vacant lot.

We are going directly getting the address of the lot and working through the State of Michigan process to identify who is the owner of that lot and identifying on the address uh uh or it if not for the owner, at least for their registered agent.

Simply to make delivery to a vacant lot, you know, just by virtue of the fact that it's a vacant lot, you know the person there is not in fact going to receive.

There's no mail coming.

There's no, there's there's no there there uh in terms of a notification process.

So it's not going to be delivered to the lot.

We're gonna find the owner.

And if we can't find the owner, then we go to court, uh, madam chairperson, and we ask the court to allow us for alternative service, which means that we end up sending a certified letter to the last known address.

It and that's with the court's permission.

That's not just something that we make up on our own.

We acknowledge to the court we can't find this person.

The judge then has to give us permission to do alternative service so that the court is clear that notice at least uh uh has been vigorously attempted.

And corporation counsel, in that instance, um the court could award the land to the city without the city compensating the owner?

No.

Uh we're the the the vacant lot owner, as soon as that person uh makes themselves evident, is entitled to the just compensation.

We're not getting it for free.

Uh that that's that's that's not that's not how this, and as you know, Madam Chairperson, that's a rhetorical question.

That's not how this works.

Thank you.

Um another situation that I just kind of want to talk about in general.

We know that um probate tends to be an issue in the city of Detroit across the board, whether you're talking about this going through this process or not.

Um how would you did you handle a situation for a um essentially someone who inherited a property, however, uh never went through probate to change ownership for that property.

So uh Madam Chairperson, that's why we had Melvin Jefferson, Melvin Jefferson has been doing probate work in this town for 40 years.

Uh we made him available, I think, to at least 10 people.

Uh, and he took them through the process to get the deed in the hands of the judge determined rightful heir so that the property could be sold to the judge determined person who the judge determined uh was the actual uh inheritor of the property.

Uh we went to the nth degree.

Uh and again, I appreciate uh the council's approval of uh Mr.

Jefferson's uh contract because we expect we're gonna need to provide that kind of service and support uh during phase two.

Uh and thank you for that.

And so without objection, I'd like to also combine line item 6.7 to our discussion because that is the contract.

Oh, is it?

I'm sorry, I thought that got approved.

That is contract number 60054-A3, it is 100 percent city funding.

Oh, that's Mr.

Child, okay.

Amendment three to provide an extension of time only for probate law assistance.

Contractor Melvin Jefferson Junior PC contract period would be through December 31st, 2026.

I do have a couple more questions.

Um as you all have gone through this process, have any of the boundaries changed for the solar array?

Through the chair, uh not sent city council approved.

Now, at last summer when or uh or the winter when we were doing phase one, phase two, through discussions, through conversations while we were here at City Council.

Uh we we uh uh met people where they were, if they wanted to be included or not included.

Uh we we've uh you know uh worked on the boundaries up until City Council approved the contracts and the resolution's necessities.

There have been no changes since uh City Council approval, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um and lastly, specifically, can you speak to the need for the increase in the Zalsmer contract?

What specifically is this for?

So it is for uh the remaining uh 20 just compensation cases that we have in front of us, and for the remaining work that we have uh in phase two uh, including the acquisition of the 430 uh parcels, uh the uh deed restriction activity uh that is being engaged in now.

Uh we have filed the there are 48 condemnation cases that have been uh filed to acquire private properties, and we are defending multiple necessity challenges uh uh based on uh phase two as well.

Thank you for that, and my final question for sure is have we stayed within the budget that was originally provided to city council for this entire that question, madam chair.

I meant to say that in my opening statement, and you know I am I do not I'm not Lucy Goosey when it comes to money.

Thank you for bringing that up so I can get this on the record.

Yes, ma'am.

So the utility conversion fund, which is what we identified was the the funding, uh, is uh the budget that we are living uh within for pre-construction uh relocation, uh uh uh real estate and demolition, and we are living uh within that uh uh allocated dollars.

Also, we have purchased the equity fund uh properties, and we have relocated all of them.

Those are the individuals that were in areas that were not selected but had uh wanted to move PREs again, volunteer acquisitions, and so we are in the process of of um selling them or uh uh and we've assessed uh most of them will be sold, those proceeds will come in, so we are making sure that we uh stay within that allotted of funding that was uh set aside for the utility conversion or uh proceeds that will be garnered from the sales.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Uh anything additional, member waters.

Um no, uh Madam Chair, I'd just like to just at least put my motion out there.

I did request she said she's gonna get it to us by the end of the day.

Um the detailed list of um properties, um, ownership and those um and occupancy, you know.

So we're talking owners and we're talking renters.

Yes, ma'am.

And uh, and since you mentioned boundaries, I'd like to add that to there because I don't think um I just want to see the see the boundaries again.

You said that you didn't change the boundaries since no since we approved it.

Um, but I I don't think we had a copy of that.

Yeah, through the chair it won't be a problem.

Uh, they're also uh it's public available, so I'll I'll add uh the approved uh maps uh that were done uh for uh by city council at the time.

Uh I'll include that as well to be clear what we're talking about.

Thank you.

All right, and let's my motion, Madam.

There's a motion for uh Miss Dyne to deliver everything about the uh solar range.

That is exactly what I don't say, madam chair.

Oh, all about solar with hearing no objection, that action shall be taken.

Um, and I do just want to say that I have some residents in Grasshit Finley who are over the moon, uh enthusiastic about the solar array and the support that has been provided for home repair home improvements.

Um I want to say thank you for walking.

I know it's not just you, but you and the team for walking residents through the process of home repair and identifying all programs that they could apply for and walking them through that process to assist them in improving their home.

So many of them feel like they have a new home now.

Uh so thank you for uh going through that process with them.

Yes, ma'am, thank you, uh manager.

Yeah, and I want to say thanks to, especially when it comes to the owner occupied the pre PREs, because I'm pretty sure many of them will probably are probably um my aging population.

I just bet and so that was a unique opportunity for for them.

For them to relocate and get some funding, yes, ma'am, to the chair.

Thank you so much.

All right.

If there is nothing else, member waters, is there a motion on line items 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7.

Uh motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line items 6.5 through 6.7 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, those actions shall be taken.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you.

All right, that brings us now to line item 6.8.

Line item 6.8 is submitting resolution authorization for the city council recess on Tuesday, November 4th, 2025.

Tuesday, November 11th, 2025, which is Veterans Day, and Wednesday, November 26, 2025 through Monday, January 5th, 2026.

Is there a motion to approve or discuss?

There's a motion to send line item 6.8 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.9.

Line item 6.9 is contract number 600 5384-3.

100% ARPA funding.

Amendment number three to provide an extension of time only for installation of fiber cable between Detroit Public Safety Headquarters and the Linden Data Center.

Contractor 5 Star Energy Energy Services LLC contract period through March 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract amount 1,582,366 and 80 cents.

Motion to approve of discussion.

There's a motion to approve line item 6.9 with discussion.

Member Waters.

All right.

I just want to know, Madam Chair, when is this going to be completed?

You know, I want to see fiber caper throughout the city, in fact.

But um when is this going to be completed?

Because now the contract goes through March 31st, 2026.

I believe we have some people here from my from do it.

I see Mr.

Millender here.

Good morning.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Um Robert Millen, director of public safety IT.

Through the chair to respond to Member Waters' questions.

This should be completed.

Honestly, the fiber's in right now we're working on the termination and testing.

So the goal is to have this completed before the end of the year, no later than January of 2026.

All right.

Well, that sounds good to me.

All right.

And what are your uh plans for fiber cable in other parts of the city?

We're still working on that.

I mean, that's a broader plan than this.

This is specific for the communication between our data center.

Right.

We're gonna have to sit down and talk about a more broader plan than that, and that takes a lot more time than that.

So that's the problem we're having to get in that one.

We're really being very Pacific and to get this by Brand to help us fiber infrastructure.

But that plan for fiber around the city takes coordination not only with the city, but other entities around the city to see how we can get that in participation because it's very expensive, one thing.

Exactly.

Yeah, okay.

All right, well, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I I do have a quick question.

Um, so the data center is essentially just house all of the data that the city of Detroit uses.

Um, through the chair, that's correct.

That doesn't house all of it, because we do have cloud services to house some of our data, but all the communications to those cloud services go to our data centers, and we have two of them.

I won't really give out the locations, but we have two data centers that within the city of Detroit's borders.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um do you all utilize AI with any of the data that you have stored?

Currently, no, we don't.

What the city of Detroit is working on the AI, I'm sorry, I'm not saying through the chair, but through the chair, the C of Detroit is working on AI policy right now to start looking at how AI can benefit the citizens of Detroit as well as the employees of Detroit.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Is there a motion?

Oh made the motion.

Yes, there was a motion to approve line item 6.9.

Any objections?

Hearing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Millinder, you can stay seated, I'm sure.

Um, line item 6.10 is contract number 6005784-82.

100% ARPA funding, amendment number two to provide an extension of time for generators at 11 radio tower sites.

Contractor Motor City Electric Tech Technologies, contract period through June 30th, 2026.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract amount one million four hundred twenty-seven thousand seven hundred forty-five dollars.

Is there a motion to discuss?

Motion.

Thank you.

Um, and I I know I sent this question in.

I'm trying to read through the answer, but I'll just ask you while you're here.

Uh, can you just speak to why we're providing generators for these sites?

These sites right now are tower sites for the city of Detroit's 800 megahertz radio system.

As you're aware, multiple city departments use that system as well as our public safety entities.

So we're doing that at these sites because we have to keep them running the power ferry and thing like a power ferry, anything that will occur around the city of Detroit.

I mean, it's crucial infrastructure into how we provide public safety services to our citizens as well as our visitors.

And and how are the radio sites used by the city?

Because our police are 800 megahertz radio, every police officer has a preparatory, or our cars have um council as or something like that.

That's how we dispatch as well as that.

And that's just for public safety.

So these sites are essentially spread throughout the city to ensure they have the technology to communicate.

Right.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Colleagues, is there a motion on line item 6.10?

Motion to approve.

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

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.11, contract number 6006306-A3, 100% ARPA funding.

Amendment number three to provide an extension of time to remove and replace generator for Linden Data Center.

Contractor, Motor City Electric Contract period through March 31st, 2026.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract amount 814,022.

Is there a motion to discuss?

Motion.

Thank you, Member Waters.

Um, can you speak to where we are with this?

I remember this coming before us last year for an extension.

Um through the chair.

I'm happy to say this will be completed without a doubt by the end of this month.

We are we're there now.

We're actually running a generator today.

We're just doing some finalized testing and all that, and we actually run up.

We have all bulkfire generators up at our data center, and it'll be done by the end of this month.

So I'm confident to say that right now.

I'm happy to say that as well.

All right, thank you so much.

Colleagues, is there a motion?

There's a motion to send line item 6.11 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

And line item 6.12, contract number 600 7389, 100% city funding to provide a hybrid on-site off-site mailroom solution contractor Wolverine Solutions Group.

Contract period upon City Council approval for three years.

Total contract amount 1,738,578 dollars.

Colleagues, is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Discussion.

Discussion, member Waters.

Um one second through the chair, if you don't mind.

Can I bring my colleague to the table?

I'm sorry.

I cut you out by mistake, but through the chair.

I'm sorry.

I was going to, I have his name here, so no worries.

I am so sorry.

Mr.

Brandon Sledge Mellon.

Please.

Good afternoon, Brandon Sledge Mellon, Department of Innovation and Technology.

Thank you.

Um I just want you to explain to the community what this actually means that Wolverine will be doing.

Yes, absolutely.

So uh we currently operate a mail room down in the basement.

It requires uh staff and it requires equipment and requires um uh metering the mail.

So basically any time the city needs to send something out, we have a mail room that processes it, pays the postage, and sends it out.

Uh what this contract would be would be doing is actually moving from the current contractor that we have, which is Exceler Technologies, and moving it to a Detroit-based business, Wolverine Solutions Group.

Yeah, it says it talks about on-site, off-site, you know.

I I just wanted to make sure that we fully understood exactly what Wolverine would be doing.

Um through the chair, I'm sorry, through the chair.

Um, so we currently operate the mailroom in within KMAG is down in the basement.

Right.

And so what we would be doing with this contract over the next three years is transitioning it to off-site, um, so we wouldn't have the overhead of managing it ourselves.

Oh is that gonna result in in loss of jobs here?

No, the because the jobs uh that are provided via this contract are contractors, they're contracted staffers, they're not city jobs.

We don't have a city job for this.

Oh, okay.

Um, all right.

That's it for me, madam chair.

Any additional questions?

Member Calloway.

Okay, um if we're moving our mailing operations from this site, how does the mail from this site get to another site?

Is there pickup?

Is there transport?

Are there additional fees for that?

I I'm not understanding what we're doing.

Yes, through the through the chair.

Yes, that is what happens today.

So we have machines we load um, we load money onto the machines and then we pay the postage.

And this it basically happens in bulk, and then we pay a courier service to come and pick up the mail.

Uh so basically what this would be doing is it's the same operation and the same cost, but it's moving into a Detroit-based business as opposed to this is the previous vendor is based in Troy, and they were actually acquired by a European company, and they want to change some of the fees and the rates, so we put it back out to bid.

The highest qualified happen to be a Detroit-based business, and it was awarded.

So yeah, we're we're trying to move off of that and have some consistency here and be able to give them the business.

Yeah.

Well, through the chair, we're always happy when we can um support Detroit-based businesses, which means more than likely they are hiring um or employing Detroiters.

Yes, and that's not always the case.

We send a lot of our business, and I was asking myself through the chair, not that you all can answer this, but I was just pondering this thought.

We send a lot of business to Lavonia, Dearborn, and Troy, another suburban area.

So we are helping to gird up embellish, help support their um the economic states of their cities.

Then I asked myself, are there any Detroit businesses doing business in Lavonia?

Not that you can answer, that's just a question that I'm just saying out loud.

Are there any because we know the percentage of um African Americans living in Dearborn is about three percent, and we gave them a nice sizable contract.

I did not on Tuesday, and I just pondered um just thinking out loud.

Do we ever um have minority owned businesses, black owned businesses based in Detroit, doing business in Dearborn and Lavonia?

Probably not, but we are so um quick and comfortable with extending that courtesy to them because they have the capacity, they have the um the resources and the experience.

I get it.

But um, that was just thinking out loud.

So thank you for bringing a business from Troy to Detroit, where I know they will hire Detroiters.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

Uh thank you, gentlemen, and I am hopeful that this will move our mail a lot quicker than it does today.

It takes a long time to get mail in this building.

So um, I didn't realize the current vendor was not in the city of Detroit, so hopefully this expedites the mail process as well.

All right, colleagues, is there a motion on line item 6.12?

There's a motion to send line item 6.12 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Through the chair, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to line item 6.13.

Line item 6.13 is a settlement request in lawsuit of a lake peoples versus city of Detroit case number 23-008106-NI.

This is for the fire department in the amount of $25,000.

Is there a motion?

There's a motion to send line item 6.13 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.14 is a settlement request and lawsuit of Anthony Collins versus City of Detroit.

And Ariana Nicole Smith, case number 24-007 889- and I.

This is in the amount of 65,000.

Is there a motion?

To discuss.

Discussion, Member Callaway.

Do we have any through the chair?

Do we have anyone on from DPD?

Um would like to know about the um driver's responsibility.

We've been talking about that since 2022.

I think a program was implemented.

Just kind of want to know if we're making any progress.

Um, because some of these cases that we're seeing with some of our police officers, madam chair, and to my colleague member waters, you all know we have to read through.

I don't know how you can back into a car and then you know, not look in your rear view mirrors, and you are a police officer or you're running red lights, or in this type of situation.

So, you know, not trying to say we're not gonna, I'm not gonna support it because it's the right thing to do to settle, but is there anyone on from DPD like to know whether or not um the traffic the driver's responsibility program is working?

Mr.

Washington good morning through the chair.

Um we do have Patrick Emory from DPD online.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Patrick Emory, executive manager risk management, Detroit Police Department.

Um I do not have specific figures for the success of that program in front of me.

I can definitely get those over to you guys and submit those through the chair to yourself.

Um, when might that happen?

Um, I should be able to have that submitted by the end by the end of this week.

Okay, so madam chair.

I'm gonna make a motion to bring this back pending that report.

And also, I'm glad through the chair to yourself, sir, nobody was killed, because it looks like the the police officer was um driving at a it says right here um at a high rate of speed and and ran into a back of a vehicle.

So this is a good settlement, but I would like to see how successful the driver's responsibility program is working since I requested that to be implemented.

I think in 2023, because these cases um we receive these these type of settlements and cases on a regular basis here in internal operations.

So just want to see how successful it's been and whether or not this particular police officer um will be taking that course.

So um pinning the that's my motion pending the um the report from Mr.

is it Mr.

Emory?

Yes, Mr.

Emory.

Mr.

Emory pending the um receipt of his report, madam chair.

I would ask that we um bring this back in one week.

There's a motion to bring line item 6.14 back in one week.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Line item 6.15 is a settlement request and lawsuit of David Gross versus City of Detroit and Christina Messina.

Case number 24-004 781-I.

This is for the police department in the amount of $32,500.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.16 is a settlement request and lawsuit of Curtis Rogers versus City of Detroit, General Services Department.

File number 1475 in the amount of 24,900.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.16 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.17 is a settlement request in lawsuit of Paul Trent versus City of Detroit.

Case number 23-014799-in.

This is for the Department of Transportation in the amount of $20,000.

Is there a motion?

There's a motion to send line item 6.17 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Without objection, I'd like to combine line item 6.18 through 6.20.

These are lawsuit settlement requests for various um third-party providers.

Line item 6.18 is for a specialty medical center in the amount of $18,000 with the Department of Transportation.

Line item 6.19 is for Warriors Pharmacy and the amount of $6,500.

This is also for the Department of Transportation and line item 6.20 is for Van Dyke's final rehabilitation center in the amount of $8,048 and 63 cents for the Department of Transportation.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line items 6.18 through 6.20 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, those actions shall be taken.

Without objection, I'd like to combine line item 6.21, 6.22, and 6.24.

These are similar situations.

Line item 6.21 is a settlement request in lawsuit of International Outdoor Inc.

The City of Detroit.

Line item 6.22 is outfront media.

And line item 6.24 is Lamar Advertising of Michigan Inc.

Is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.21, 6.22, and 6.24 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, those actions shall be taken.

Line item 6.23 is a settlement request in lawsuit of level one physical therapy versus city of Detroit.

Case number 24-008 033-NF in the amount of $15,000.

This is for the Department of Transportation.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.23 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.25 is a request for legal representation and indemnification.

Case number 24-017046-CZ.

This is for the police department.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.25 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.26 is a request for legal representation and indemnification for attorney Victor Monsivay.

This is for the law department.

Colleagues.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

And madam clerk, you you heard the motion.

I heard the motion, but through the chair, if the mic is on, it'll be great.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Line item 6.27.

Without objection, I'd like to combine line items 6.27, 6.28, and 6.32.

Line item 6.27 is a request for legal representation and indemnification for police officer Felicia Manning Peoples in lawsuit of Montez Kennedy versus Samuel Fields at all case number 23-CV-11949.

This is for the police department.

Line item 6.28 is a request for RI for police officer Henry Simmons, the third.

And line item 6.32 is a request for R and I for police officer Willie Johnson.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line items 6.27, 6.28, and 6.32 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, those actions shall be taken.

Line item 6.29 is a request for legal representation and indemnification for police officer Kelly Larson and lawsuit of Robert Pizimenti versus City of Detroit et al.

case number 25-CV-11506.

This is for the police department.

Motion, Madam Chair.

There's a motion to send line item 6.29 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.30 is a request for legal representation and indemnification for for police officer Letarian bail and lawsuit of Ashley Looper versus City of Detroit at all.

This is for the police department.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve, madam chair.

There's a motion to send line item 6.30 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.31 is a request for legal representation and indemnification for Thomas Jones in lawsuit of Christopher Williams versus Thomas Jones et al.

This is for the police department.

Colleagues, is there a motion to bring line item 6.31 back for a date to be determined for the scheduling of a closed session?

Motion, madam chair.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.33.

Line item 6.33 is a request for legal representation and indemnification for environmental control inspector Lacretia Noel in lawsuit of Derrick Kane versus City of Detroit.

Case number 25-C V10797.

This is for the building department.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve, madam chair.

There's a motion to send line item 6.33 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.34.

Is submitting resolution authorization to submit a grant application to the community foundation for Southeast Michigan for the fiscal year 2026.

Michigan Justice Innovation and Workforce Development Grant.

This is for Project Clean Slate.

Motion to approve, Madam Chair.

There's a motion to send line item 6.34 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.35 is a request to amend the 2025 through 2026 official compensation schedule for the detention facility officer, male prisoner, and female prisoner, as well as senior detention facility officers for both male and female.

Colleagues, is there a motion to discuss?

Motion Madam Chair.

Discussion.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for joining us.

There was, I believe someone came down to public comment and mentioned the salaries of the individuals, I believe, that were being paid by the state being higher than what the Detroit police department was able to pay for the detention center, the detention facility officers.

Those are two different uh classifications in regards to what they do.

One runs a jail.

We run a detention facility.

R is a holding facility for about 72 hours.

Uh but to your your question, it does raise their salary.

Um, but a corrections officer for MDOC is starts at around 48 uh and tops out around 73.

Okay, so there their top end is still a bit higher than than this range currently.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns?

All right, seeing none.

Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.35 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Line item 6.36 is a request to implement the 2024 through 2028 labor agreement between the city of Detroit and the employees represented by the supervisors.

Chapter of the DOT Foremans Association.

That is the Department of Transportation.

This is for both the Department of Transportation and the Detroit Fire Department.

Colleagues, is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to send line item 6.36 to formal with a recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.37.

Submitting report relative to a memo regarding the interim suspension of Guyanga and Brian McKinney.

Motion to receive and file.

Line item 6.37.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.38 is a resolution creating the domestic violence and exploitation task force.

Is there a motion to approve or discuss?

Motion to approve, Madam Chair.

There's a motion to send line item 6.38 to formal with the recommendation to approve.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 6.39.

Councilmember Gabriela Santiago Romero submitted memorandum relative to request to release two confidential memo responses.

Motion.

Discussion to the law department, LPD.

Through the chair, Philip Keller, legislative policy division.

Is there's a motion to bring line item 6.39 back in two weeks.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

That brings us now to member reports.

All right, thank you.

Um Madam Chair.

So this Friday started at 5 p.m.

It's um our annual um harvest fest, which is going to be um so for family and children.

Um it's gonna be at the Vellodrome.

Um on uh Mac and I 75.

So in generally, we have a couple thousand families uh uh people to come through.

So I I want to extend an invitation for those that are listening and you know some um children that are interested come through, and it's a safe environment for them to come by and grab candy and toys and so forth.

And so that's this Friday, 5 p.m.

Um, I don't think I'm saying that right.

The um, I think there's another name to is that right?

Okay.

Uh 70 uh Mac and I 75.

All right, so the other thing is I want to just read a uh statement for um for our chief bedison.

I want to commend Detroit police chief badison for taking immediate action.

When Chief Bettison reviewed video of the Detroit police officer's conduct toward a woman that was shot and literally faced death after cooperating with police.

Thank you, Chief Bettison.

Chief with his profoundly swift action has served notice that police misconduct will not be tolerated on Bettison's Watch.

Detroit police chief Todd Bettison said an officer violated several department policies when he shot a woman six times following the traffic stop on Sunday, October 26th.

The cop violated several policies, Bettison said, and found body camera footage of the incident to be concerning.

The woman survived the shooting and won't be charged with a crime.

Bettison wants the officer who shot her to be suspended without pay.

Detroit police chief Todd Bettison said an officer violated several department policies when he shot a woman six times, injuring her following a traffic stop on Sunday, October 26th.

The chief is now asking the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners to suspend the officer immediately without pay.

Thank you.

And Member Waters, did you want to request that a resolution be drafted in support of his request?

Oh that would be great.

Thank you.

Motion.

There's a motion to request the LPD LPD draft the resolution in support of the suspending the officer without pay.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Look at EPU over there.

Okay, Ms.

Look.

Oh Member Calloway.

Thank you, madam chair, and thank you for that.

Um member Waters.

Um upcoming community events in chap um in District 2.

Signite Grace Hospital invites all community members and residents to this year's trunk or treat.

It is today from 5 to 7 p.m.

And it will be in the parking lot of the hospital at 6071 West Outer Drive.

That is today from 5 to 7.

Trunk or treat sponsored by Sinai Grace Hospital.

Everybody's invited.

You do not have to live in District 2 to have fun at the parking lot on the parking lot for the trunk and treat at Sinai Grace.

Next, District 2 City Council Community Relations Team will host its final office hours of this month tomorrow from 10 a.m.

to 12 noon at Tristrategic Community Partners located at 10240 West McNichols Road.

Stop by to share your concerns, ask questions, and learn more about the work that my team and I do in our community.

So that is tomorrow at Strategic Community Partners located at 10240 West McNichols Road, and it is our final community relations office hours until um next year.

Tomorrow we'll be hosting our district two resident engagement meeting to discuss that WMBA and the Detroit City Football Club developments.

The meeting will begin at 4:30 on Zoom.

We invite all residents to join the conversation.

Again, you don't have to live in District 2 to be a part of this conversation.

You might have questions about these two wonderful new developments coming online.

We're hoping if you have any questions, please join the Zoom call.

We'll have all the players there on the phone, not the players, but we'll have all the um folks who um are involved with these developments on the call to answer any questions or concerns you're gonna have, or you may have.

So that is tomorrow, and that is 4:30 promptly on Zoom.

You can call my office at 224-4535, or you can visit my Instagram at Angela for Detroit for more information.

Lastly, the home property tax exemption hope application closes on November the 7th at 4:30 p.m.

We are encouraging everyone, even if you don't think you qualify, you may qualify.

That's what Mr.

Marcus Twyman says, who represents District 2.

You may qualify.

So don't say you don't qualify until you find out that you that you don't or you do.

So the um application process closes on Friday, November the 7th.

If you need assistance, please call 866-313-2520.

Or you can visit Detroit Mi.gov slash hope.

Thank you, ma'am chair.

Thank you.

And I just um I'm really excited.

I'm about to head out for a groundbreaking uh in district four.

A lot of times there are development projects that come through us, but they don't always see the finish line.

So is it's good to see the continued um interest in District 4 and in our neighborhoods.

So uh heading over there to the Arthur Murray, what used to be the Arthur Murray Dance School will now be residential apartments above ground and um commercial retail on the ground floor.

So uh it works, it happens.

Um so just looking forward to that, and just looking forward to uh running around District 4 for trunk retreat um at our two rec centers as well as our police precinct on Friday.

So thank you all for your patience.

Um if there is nothing else to come before us without objection, we shall stand adjourned.