Like I would like to call back to order the formal session for today, November 14th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, will you please call a roll?

Sure.

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Scott Benson I'm a fair duhall the third.

Present.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Councilmember Gabriel Sajobiro.

Present Councilmember Mary Walters.

Present.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Colloway.

Present.

Councilmember Cole Minion the second.

Here.

Council President Poetin James Tate.

Here.

And Council President Maybe Sheffield.

We have a call on present Mr.

President.

Thank you, ma'am.

We're back in session.

Thank you, colleagues, for coming back.

All right.

So uh we have gone through all the referrals, so we are now at our voting action items.

Uh line items we are 16.

Uh understanding committee reports for budget finance and audit standing committee from the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Councilmember Durrhall, a resolution line item 18.1.

It's contract number 6007524, 100% major street slash city funding to provide salt rock sodium chloride bulk on as required basis.

Contract the Detroit Salt Company LC.

Total contract amount 2 million 129, 750 dollars.

That's for citywide.

Councilmember Durhall, a resolution.

Thank you so much.

Member Durrhall.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Move for approval for line item 18.1.

There's a motion to approve line item 18.1.

Colleagues, any objections?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

Request a waiver for line item 18.1, Mr.

President.

There's a request for a waiver on 18.1.

Any objections?

Seeing none, a waiver should be attached.

From the office of the chief financial officer.

Councilmember Durha, a resolution, line item 18.2.

Member Durhal, line item 18.2.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Line item 18.2 is a resolution of authorization, amending the master installment purchase agreement.

Uh move for approval for line item 18.2.

Thank you.

There's a motion to approve line item 18.2, colleagues.

Any objections?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

From the office of the chief financial officer, office of the assessor.

Councilmember Durhal, a resolution, line item 18.3.

Member Durhal.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Line item 18.3 is a resolution of authorization approving the expanding of the existing boundaries of the Bagley neighborhood enterprise zone homestead NEZH area.

Move for approval for line item 18.3.

Thank you, sir.

There's a motion to approve line item 18.3.

Any objections?

With discussion.

Member Benson.

How much area does this leave the city with when it comes to any Z move forward?

Uh I think there may be someone from CPC with that information or planning.

Whoever can assist us with that.

Through you, Mr.

President.

Uh member uh that's a vice chair.

I'm sorry.

That would be another that would be the office of the assessor.

Uh if Mr.

Horn or someone is on, but in committee, as we discussed, it leaves us still a significant amount of uh I don't have the number off the top of my head.

Maybe Member Santiago Romero does as well, but a significant amount of uh opportunity throughout the city.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Chair.

Uh yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, um, from our committee, I asked the same question.

Um we are allowed 15% in an easy homestead.

We would go from 13.78 percent to 13.95 percent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues again.

There's been a motion to move uh for approval line item 18.3.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

Chair, yes, uh member calloway, request a waiver.

There's a request for a waiver uh on line item 18.3.

Any objections?

Seeing none, my parents will be glad to know as well.

Uh a waiver shall be attached.

Absolutely.

Oh, cool.

Uh, from the office of the city clerk, city clan city planning commission.

Councilmember Durha, a resolution, line item 18.4.

Member Durrhall.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Line item 18.4 is a resolution of authorization for neighborhood enterprise zone certificate application for 96 newly built condominium units within the new Hudson's Tower within the Roscoe Development Company LLC, neighborhood enterprise zone area has been recommended for approval by the CPC as well as committee.

Move for approval for line item 18.4.

Colleagues, there's a motion to approve line item 18.4.

Any objections?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

Request a waiver for line item 18.4, Mr.

President.

There's a request for a waiver from line item 18.4.

Any objections, colleagues?

See none.

A waiver should be attached.

Quick point of order, Mr.

President.

Uh to through you.

The clerk.

Uh I request a waiver for line item 18.2 as well.

I don't think so.

No, you did not originally through your president.

I didn't.

To Mr.

Durham.

So to you, Mr.

President, I'd like to request a waiver for line item 18.2.

All right.

There's a request for a waiver on line item 18.2.

Colleagues, any objection?

See none, a waiver shall be attached.

For the internal operations standing committee from the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Councilmember Johnson, 13 resolutions, line items 19.1 through 19.13.

Contract number 2870456-A13.

100% city funding.

Amendment 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 Peddock and Stone PLLC.

Total contract amount $12,950, $122.56.

That's for law.

Contract number 600-6158-A2.

100% risk management funding.

Amendment 2 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.

Total contract amount 600,000.

That's for law.

100% city funding.

Claims management and reconciliation.

Solicitation, balloting, disbursement, and computer software support.

Contractor Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.

Total contract amount 600,000.

That's for law.

Contract number 6003505-A6.

100% city funding.

Amendment 6 to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds to continue litigation services for reverse conviction lawsuits.

Contractor Nathan and Kimanski LLP.

Total contract amount 11,550,000.

That's for law.

Contract number 600-3765-A4.

100% city funding.

Amendment 4 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.

Total contract amount 300,000.

That's for law.

Contract number 600591-A2.

100% city funding.

Amendment 2 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.

Total contract amount 200,000.

That's for law.

Contract number 6005617-83.

100% city funding.

Amendment three to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds for real estate services and relocation assistance.

Contractor Zalsmer PC.

Total contract amount 7,700,000.

That's for law.

Contractor 5 Star Energy Services LLC.

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

That's for do it.

Contract number 6005784-A2.

100% ARPA funding.

Amendment 2 to provide an extension of time for generators at 11 radio tower sites.

Contractor Motor City Electric Technologies.

Total contract amount 1,427, 745 dollars.

That's for do it.

Contract number 6006306-A3, 100% ARPA funding.

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

Contractor Motor City Electric Company.

Total contract amount $814,000 $22.

That's for do it.

Contract number 6007389, 100% city funding to provide a hybrid on-site slash off-site mailroom solution.

Contractor Wolverine Solutions Group total contract amount 1,738, $578,000.

And last line item 19.13 is the resolution for the city council recess regarding contracts.

Thank you.

Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Move for approval on line items 19.1 through 19.13 with discussion.

There's a motion to approve line items 19.1 through 19.13 with discussion.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Just want to be sure my colleagues received the correction letter for 19.13 relative to the city council recess.

I did not present.

Yes, the the Mr.

Whittaker.

Yes, sir.

The recess resolution had to be changed because the week prior to Christmas, um the contracts will come to LPD for analysis and the preparation of the TEDA report on that Tuesday, December 16th.

But because the the following week is the Christmas week, and the city will be closed on Wednesday, that is the normal day that you would have to notify um LPD and the clerk of your holes.

So we're going to contract that that period to Monday.

So you'll have until Monday the 22nd to notify the clerk and LPD and purchasing of your whole and we'll provide an action report by the the 23rd.

And that should give everyone enough time to do everything they need to do before the city closes on the 24th.

So that's the plan.

And that's what the correction letters designed to reflect.

I don't believe I have one in front of me, but if it's been filed with the clerk's office, then I will be fine.

Sounds like Member Benson, you said you did not.

I have not, Mr.

Chair, but I did speak with the LPD, and I'm clear on what that crux letter says.

Mr.

President, we did receive the amended through the clerk office.

That's part of the counts.

Okay.

So there are any further discussions.

Member Benson.

Line 19.1.

Can you just clarify what if any outstanding uh court actions or legal actions are occurring now for the extension of time for the legal representation for post-bankruptcy restructuring and revitalization?

That's line item 19.1.

Through the chair.

Yes, sir.

Graham Anderson Law Department.

Um one of the final things that we're working on is has to do with a lot of the pensions, and it is it's a large-scale, tedious operation.

I've um uh I have a goal of having Miller Canfield come in sometime in January, February, early in 2026, and uh lay out in internal operations, whoever's on that committee at the time, of course, any council member be um able to attend and just show that here is what has been accomplished in this time.

Here's what we are still working on, and here's kind of the final few innings of wrapping up this um bankruptcy litigation.

It's something that we believe would be important for transparency, um, not just for this council to know, but for Detroit citizens, as is um you know this is uh historic uh things that we've gone through in this city, and it's uh it's not uh easily explained, so I think it's something that's worth um a full presentation.

Looking forward to it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, um member Caloway, yes, thank you, thank you, Mr.

Chair, and to um my colleagues' point I had requested during internal operations when this came before us that we have a date where Miller Canfield can come before this honorable body and um brief or update us.

Um it's um 11 years later, it's a whole decade later later and 13 million dollars later.

Um, and so I know they're not asking for an increase today, but they're asking for an increase in terms of time.

So um I would like for them to come before us before we approve this contract, just to give us an update.

I've been sitting on this council for four years and I've been asking, and they they've not appeared before us, and I ask you through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson.

I asked you during internal internal operations to have the meeting scheduled.

So can we bring this back in January when they appear before us so they can explain to us why they are asking for an increase in time but not an increase in funds, which is great.

But um it's 11 years later and $13 million later.

Through the chair to Mr.

Anderson, through the chair.

Currently, we're waiting on the tax tribunal judge to issue some responses, some opinions that we've been waiting on.

Both parties have been waiting on.

Um, so I know that's one of the the big reasons.

Um at the moment uh why we are um in this long delay.

So it it would be beneficial to move this contract before the end of recess.

I I understand your concerns.

Um but but a lot of this has to do with things that are out of our attorney's hands that it's really waiting on the tax tribunal judge.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Anderson.

Mr.

Chair, um this contract doesn't end until the end of December, and if you said that you've requested a meeting to come before us, then I don't understand why we can't just delay the approval of just an extension.

They go until the end of December.

Um we come back in session and first to the first of January with a new body.

I just believe we need to be briefed.

It's been I've been asking for four years.

If they they've not come before us yet.

We just approved 13 amendments, and this has been going on since um 2012.

13 million dollars later, and they they don't come before us, sir.

We need to be briefed.

Yes, through the chair, and um uh I I remember um speaking, I think it was maybe two weeks ago we were speaking on this issue.

Um I believe it was the will of the committee to have something in early 2026, but if if that is we'd rather have it um in November, I I can do what I can to try to move up that timeline from uh January till uh November.

Through the chair, that's not my request, Mr.

Anderson.

I just simply said, can we I'm I'm gonna make a motion to bring this back in January when they appear before the body.

I'm not saying do it in November, that it hasn't happened yet.

You got the request two weeks ago, so we're back here today, and is back before us.

When I asked two weeks ago that we have a meeting with you know, Miller Canville, which we can't do it now, we can't do it until January or February.

So um Mr.

Um and through the chair, Mr.

Anderson, I made the request, and I I'm not making it for November, it's kind of too late.

Yes, but um thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

No that uh member young, you had your hand raised.

Uh I I just wanted to say that uh we have been joined by um uh district five member elect uh Renata Miller is here with us, so I just wanted to let everybody know that she's been here and anybody to say hello to her and uh congratulations on your victory.

Hello, see you congratulations.

I are we done with this one.

Well, not yet.

I didn't know if there was anyone else who had their hand raised.

Nope.

Okay.

Okay, I had questions about discussion for the other ones as well.

Yes, ma'am.

Um for um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um for um the uh line item nine, um six.

I'll be a no on that one and also but before I'm a no, I just need to make sure whether or not through the chair to you, Mr.

Anderson, whether or not line item 19.6 uh for river ribbon oak law group is does it have anything to do with the solar farms?

With the chair, yes, it does.

They're advising.

So um I object to that one.

Um, Mr.

Chair, if the time is appropriate to object.

Not yet, but it will be.

It is it's coming up.

It's coming up.

Okay, so I'll hold off my um other objections when we move through, but I know um member Johnson moved to approve through 19.13, but I have some objections.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, any further discussion?

Seeing none, uh line items 19.1 through 19.13 have been moved for approval.

Any objections, colleagues?

Member Santiago Romero, 19.6, 19.7, and 19.8.

All right, thank you.

Any further objections, colleagues?

Yes, Mr.

Um, Councilmember Callaway's um objecting to line item 19.1.

19.6, 19.7, and 19.8.

The last three have to do with the solar farm initiative.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Any further colleagues?

Seeing none.

Um clerk.

Those items passed, Mr.

President.

Those actions shall be taken.

Although all the items have been approved, noting the objections.

All right, dropping down to line item.

19.4.

The from the law department, madam clerk.

Councilmember Johnson, 23 resolutions.

Line items 19.14 through 19.36.

Line items 19.14 through 19.36.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Move forward.

These are various lawsuit settlement requests and requests for legal representation and indemnification.

Thank you.

There's a motion to approve line items 19.14 through 19.36.

Any objections?

See none.

Those items shall be approved.

As I'll scroll down.

All right.

From the Office of the Chief of Financial Officer, Office of Development and Grants.

Councilmember Johnson, a resolution line item 19.37.

Councilmember Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, this item has been requested to be removed from the agenda.

Uh the grant application is going to go in a different route.

Um, and applied for by a different entity.

Um, so with that, I move to remove line item 19.37.

Colleagues, there's a motion to remove line item 19.37 from the agenda.

Any objections?

Seeing none, we shall remove line item 19.37 from the agenda.

And action shall be taken.

From the human resources department, classification and compensation division.

Councilmember Johnson, two resolutions.

Nine items 19.38 and 19.39.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Move for approval.

Line item 19.38 is a request to amend the 2025-2026 official compensation schedule for the detention facility officers for both male and female prisoners, uh, as well as the senior detention facility officers.

And line item 19.39 is the implementation of the 2024 through 2028 labor agreement between the city of Detroit and the employees represented by the supervisors chapter of the DOT Foremans Association.

Colleagues, there's a motion, there's a motion to approve line item 19.38 and 19.39.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Under resolutions, council member with the Callaway or resolution line item 19.40.

Member Callaway.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

This is a resolution creating the domestic violence and exploitation task force.

Motion to approve.

It's a motion to approve the resolution.

Line item 19.40.

Discussion.

With discussion, member young.

Uh member Calloway, can I join you?

You absolutely can, sir.

Thank you.

See no objections.

That action shall be taken.

Touch a waiver, Mr.

Chair.

There's a request for a waiver on 19.40.

Any objections?

Seeing none with discussion.

Just for the rules.

Is this for next year?

Starting next next term.

Yes.

Do we have to redo this next year?

If I'm not mistaken, the rules require we do this in the beginning of the year, if I'm not mistaken.

Everything expires this year unless the date's already there.

Just want to make sure that we're doing this properly for procedural.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Under your rules, the task force is an annual special committee.

This is I be honest, we have to think this thing through because I don't know if I ever it dealt with uh a task force happening at the end of a term.

It might be better to have it done because you're not going to really do much in December anyway.

It may be better to have this done in January.

But it'd be up to you, I guess.

You're going to be here next next term.

So here that's the first thing.

It doesn't create that kind of a problem.

Yeah, but I understand what you're saying, Mr.

Benson.

Just for procedural purposes.

Mr.

Chair, he has his hand raised.

I think I have to member young.

I is it okay we just go through with this.

I just don't want to be the guy that like passed up with an opportunity past this.

I mean, even though we're supposed to do this next year, we've already taken it up.

I don't want to go through the process of getting rid of it, because I don't want to have that conversation.

Well, how come you got rid of the domestic?

You know what I'm saying?

I mean, if it doesn't happen, I'm willing to take it on the chin.

I just don't.

This is something you I really want to support is the serious issue, and I don't want to have that conversation.

You know, trying to not have these conversations at this time of the year.

So can we just go through with this anyway?

And what's the harm?

Sure.

You're already here.

We can just go through with it.

Just go through with it.

Yeah.

I think the only one the person who's raised it right now is Member Calloway.

I don't know if it's actually out in the chair.

I was fine with moving it forward, and then my colleague to the left brought up the um the brought up the issue.

I don't know if it's an issue, whether or not we can proceed.

But if we can proceed, I'd like to see us moving along.

And because we just voted on it, I attached the waiver.

I don't think the earth would cave in if you move it along.

I ain't trying to focus.

So yeah, we can move it along.

Member Waters.

Yeah, and I don't think there's an issue moving along because in January, we all have to resubmit the task forces.

Absolutely.

Uh that we have so we have it this year.

Come January, you just say continue these specific task forces.

There you have it.

Yeah, sounds good.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

I think we've approved, moved, and approved it.

Did I vote?

We didn't vote on it yet.

No.

We're at the waiver stage.

That's right.

Member Benson asked during the waiver stage.

Is there a any objection to a waiver?

Seeing none, a waiver shall be attached.

Under resolutions.

Council member Johnson, a resolution.

Line item 19.41.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Move for approval on line item 19.41.

This is to reappoint Anthony Sherman to the Board of Zoning Appeals representing District 7.

And the term will end December 31st, 2026.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion to approve line item 19.41.

Any objections, colleagues?

Mr.

Chair.

Uh with discussion, member member Callaway.

Okay.

Um, Mr.

Chair, is he currently serving?

And when does his um term end?

Because we do have a new council person who may want to have her own selection in terms of who serves on this board of zoning.

If his um term is about to expire, I say let it organically naturally um expire, and then allow the new councilperson if it can happen, uh, make the appointment, make the recommendation for the appointment to serve on this board.

Any further discussion, colleagues?

Uh member Durrha.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

President.

Uh, we have already had that discussion with the incoming council member uh who will be there as well, which is why the term is going to be expiring 2026, uh as opposed to some of the other terms that'll be expiring earlier.

Uh as it sits right now, his term was already set to be expired.

Uh and there will still have to be business conducted, obviously, by the BZA, and for them to keep a quorum.

He currently sits uh again on he sits on this uh he said he sits on the BZA and has I think for the last two terms.

Uh so folks are very familiar with him as well.

Uh but that was a question I raised as well, because I don't like to uh bind future legislatures to decisions I make.

Uh, but it is something that they're comfortable with and at least gives him a year to get uh talk to the incoming council member and give that council member the opportunity to make their choice uh and find someone if they choose to replace them.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Colleagues line item 19.41 has been moved for approval.

Any objection?

See none that action shall be taken for the neighborhood and community services standing committee for the mayor's office.

Councilmember Young, two resolutions.

Line items 20.1 and 20.2.

These are two requests for two separate events in 2026.

Member Young.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I move to approve line items 20.1 and 20.2.

That's motion to approve line items 20.1 and 20.2.

Any objections?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

For the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Councilmember Young, a resolution line item 20.3, contract number 600 6980-a1.

Contract number 6006980-A1.

100% city funding.

Amendment one to exercise renewal option for animal care supplies for the City of Detroit Animal Care Shelter Contractor.

Raymond Enterprises Incorporated.

Total contract amount 223, 603.

Councilmember Young, a resolution.

Thank you so much.

Line item 20.3.

Member Young.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I move to approve line item 20.3.

There's a motion to approve line item 20.3.

Any objections?

See none.

Then action shall be taken.

For the office of the chief financial officer, Office of Development and Grants.

Councilmember Young, a resolution line item 20.4.

Councilmember Young.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I move to approve line item 20.4.

There's a motion to approve line item 20.4.

With discussion, member calloway.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, is anyone on from GSD?

This is wonderful.

I've been advocating for historic Fort Wayne since my um my visit there two years ago, and I think uh member uh waters and I have put um money in uh in the budget.

So I see that this is a grant for 750,000 dollars with the match.

Have we identified the source for the match from the city through the chair to Mr.

Washington?

Mr.

Washington.

Yes, through the chair.

We do have Alex Weathererough from GSD.

Mr.

Wetheroff.

We're gonna pull the individual over.

Promote them.

Mr.

Rather, please introduce yourself for the record.

And I don't know if you need the question restated.

If so, we will do so.

Uh good afternoon, Alex Weatherup, Assistant Director of General Services.

Apologies for the delay logging on.

I did hear the question.

Uh and uh through the chair to Councilmember Whitfield Callaway.

Um I just sent this message out.

I apologize for not having it ready.

Um we do have match identified.

I believe it's a combination of of city dollars and grant dollars.

I can get that for you.

Um but I I apologize if I missed the beginning part if you're asking what the the these are gonna be used for.

No, through the chair.

I didn't uh I just wanted to know have we identified the source for the match, not what they were going to be used for, is whether or not we identified the the source through the chair, yes, it has been identified.

I can get you the details momentarily.

I apologize for not having a handy.

That's great.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Weatherup.

Thank you.

Colleagues, there's a motion for approval for line item 20.4.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President.

There's request for a waiver.

Okay.

Uh any objection.

See none, a waiver should be attached.

Member Young.

That was which one?

All right.

Uh, for the planning and economic development standing committee.

Under unfinished business.

Council member Durhall and ordinance noting a roll call.

Also noting that this line item was postponed from last week's formal session, which was the formal session of October the 28th.

Line item 21.1.

Okay.

Um member, so this item we did we go through the whole.

You we I read it all.

Yeah.

I was looking at that other one.

I think that was yours.

All right.

Um member Durhall.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, as mentioned before, this has already been read into the record uh and was considered read.

Uh this is a bring back, but uh this is the zoning ordinance.

Uh so I move that the ordinance be placed again on the order of third reading and consider read.

In hearing no objections that action shall be taken.

Member Durhal.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I move the ordinance be passed as submitted.

Discussion.

Um discussion for sure.

With discussion, Member Johnson, then member waters.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, is there anyone who can speak to the request about transportation and provide an update?

Mr.

Washington, do we have anyone available?

Through the chair.

Um, I believe Director Bush had been assisting with this item.

Okay.

Is she available?

She is online.

Okay.

We will promote her.

Good afternoon, Director Bush.

Please introduce yourself to the record.

And if you need us to restate the question, we can do so.

Good afternoon.

Alexa Bush, Director of Planning and Development.

Um, through the chair, yes, it'd be helpful if the question can be restated.

Thank you.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I was not expecting Director Bush, but I know in committee.

My motion was to remove the parking from this particular amendment.

I know Director Todd had been working on that, and I'm not sure what the latest is on the request for the removal, the approval of the removal, and um what is before us today.

See director Todd in the committee of the whole.

Come on down.

Director Todd, am I confusing this one?

I saw that I saw the look on his face.

Good afternoon.

Um thank you, um, Mr.

President, through your chair to Member Johnson.

If we're again, my apologies.

Texting and doing too many things for all the different items that are uh before you and the different moving parts and personnel.

As it concerns the removal of the parking provision, again, law department did do that as requested, and that was provided to you at the last session before this was carried over.

If there was additional amendments that you were looking for, we're not aware.

Uh through you, Mr.

President, to Director Tide.

No, that is what I'm referring to.

I just want to make sure that it has indeed been removed.

I know there were some additional discussions.

Um, and I'm not sure if anyone is prepared to share what the discussions have been, but I just want to ensure that it has been removed and that any additional conversation and how we move forward in the future, uh, we can have those conversations and then um propose any amendments as needed.

Certainly.

Uh again, through the chair, and uh do apologize.

I am now remembering some of those additional discussions uh as it concerns this issue.

Yes, the item that uh uh would have extended the parking provision that is already in place into traditional main street overlay districts for private lots that would have extended it to the uh municipally operated lots has been removed per your request.

We did again receive uh the um approved as the uh or rather the amended and signed version of the ordinance from law department.

We can verify that the clerk does in fact have that copy and that that is the copy that would be acted upon again, should your honorable body be prepared to as it concerns some of the other items relative to the uh municipal parking facilities, uh those discussions are ongoing.

Uh and since this provision is being removed, um, then we would have opportunity to continue to work with the administration to the extent that the outgoing administration wants to follow up further, or the incoming administration still wants this to be an issue, and we will otherwise take direction from this honorable body uh in terms of anything that you would like the commission specifically to work on in that regard.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Uh member Young.

Yeah, well, referring to uh the adaptive use.

Oh, first of all, always good to see you, sir.

Great work as always.

Uh we we we gotta talk about some other work I need for you from marijuana, but we'll get to that later date.

Uh you know what I'm talking about.

Uh so right now I want to talk to you primarily about this issue.

Uh my concern is one about the um school aspect of this.

And I just want to say um is it so adaptive reuse?

I think that's the next one.

That's that's that that's wait, hold on.

Yep, that's 20.12.

Yes, sir.

Oh, okay.

Well, well, I'm always getting ahead, so I'm not surprised.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Um, on uh on this issue.

Um, I think that this is really good.

I like a lot of these things.

My concern was that you were able to build um the uh the golf uh miniature golf facilities in some of these places that are industrial, and I just want to know uh about the cleanliness of those of those areas from my understanding as I read that right.

Some of these places can be done.

I think it might be light industrial, but it's in industrial areas.

I just want to know the environmental aspects of that.

Has that been taken to account for what we're doing here?

Through the chair to member young, I want to yield for just a second.

Ms.

Murphy is looking it up.

The specific provision that we have in this proposal, I believe, limits it to the SD1 and the SD2.

So I don't think that we're looking uh I don't think that we had prior to that had any provisions for those in the industrial districts.

So this would be the missed mixed-use districts, and yes, the SD2 does allow some very light industrial activity within it, but this is not the same as your full um scale uh industrial zoning districts.

Okay, and so that's the same thing, and that's the same thing as some of these uh body art facilities as well, in terms of what we're talking about tattoos and things that they need because I'm looking at you know, because I'm looking at it right here, talking about M1, M2, M3.

That's industrial.

Right.

And and if I may, too clear too clarifying.

I'm not saying I'm opposed.

I just want to, you know, I just I just don't want people to get cancer or you know, touch it and turn to a ninja turtle or something like that.

You understand what I'm saying to you.

Yes, understood.

And as it can as it concerns the item, Ms.

Murphy did just clarify that in the current ordinance today, yes, those activities are allowed with it within the industrial districts.

We can check further to see what, if any additional regulations we may have here locally or the state may have as it concerns the cleanup, but given that this would be like unto some of our other recreational sites where you um where we go in and even some of our development sites where we go in and we can encapsulate the sites.

Uh I would think that that would certainly be the case here uh in order to protect any and all users for recreational purposes in this case, or even in those cases where we go in and then we encapsulate for uh those instances where in fact we've got residential development, but you can encapsulate a site in order to mitigate as well as remove contaminants uh again per the the requisite um solution for the given situation.

And I also just want to say this for clarity because I'm looking at this here.

When we're talking about brew pubs or microbreweries or small distilleries, I understand for the purposes we're not talking about like liquor stores or the traditional liquor stores we're talking about, we're getting complaints here.

I just wanted you to kind of clarify for people who are listening here when we're talking about that.

What exactly does that entail?

Again, through the chair.

So that would be not a um retail situation, uh store setting, but that would be more of your restaurant and bar type situation.

That's what we're looking at there.

So it's just allowing for that diversity of different configurations and different sizes, different instances wherein someone can engage with uh alcoholic beverages.

Brew pub where they're actually doing something on site uh versus a bar where you can where they're the brew pub where you're actually preparing uh the uh spirit uh the item on site versus uh just a regular bar where you're doing with uh packaged uh items that are being made available for service.

So you so you say you're like your restaurant area, your bar and grill, things that nature when I'm talking about people you know selling alcohol or things that nature.

I'm not knocking that one word everybody's gonna make sure people understand that's not what we're talking about with this, correct?

Okay, I'm done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See no further discussion.

Anyone didn't say enough we didn't.

Oh, I'm sorry.

My apologies.

But I'm gonna go first to member.

Fine, go ahead.

I'll let you go to D2 first if she wants.

It's we all gonna talk.

Okay.

Member wars.

All right, cool.

I don't have a lot to say, but I do want to say this.

We need to slow our road with these ordinances.

I haven't spoken to a single community organization who's pleased with these ordinances.

They say we are acting too fast.

Well, they haven't determined how it affects all of them, and I'm talking about a whole bunch of them.

And I just believe that it's totally disrespectful of us to do this when so many of our community organizations are calling on us not to do this.

They're asking that we slow this down, that we don't make any decisions right now.

This is being rushed, I don't care what anybody says.

And until we can properly educate our communities, get community buy-in because we really don't have it, especially our communities have stuck and stayed, paying the high property taxes.

And here we are, once again, ramming something down their throats.

Well, I don't like it, and I'm opposed to it, and I think that we need to slow this thing down.

Let's revisit this thing next year.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just and for the record, I I don't disagree because we had talked about that in committee about how all of these different zoning amendments have now started to stack on top of each other.

We will not during the session be addressing the R2 Billmore homes.

Uh particular, I know of that particular collection of amendments, just for the record, so that folks know that.

So we at least pull that out of the atmosphere.

That one does not exist for this session of council at this particular moment.

But I believe I saw another hand.

I was next.

Um my apologies, Member Cal.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And um, I can't support this um right now either.

Um we were in an executive board meeting with Palmer Woods, and um yeah, we're not on board, they're not on board.

My folks over in my district are just not absolutely on board with this.

Um, to say that um a mini golf course could be built um with um within 500 feet um for land zone for residential, and then also to say that to remove a requirement for neighborhood petition to establish this mini golf course, you don't have to have a petition, which means the residents don't have a say so.

I'm not comfortable with that.

They should have a say so if there's going to be a mini golf course in their neighborhood.

Don't you think they should have a say so?

But we are robbing them of the opportunity to even have a say so because it says here that um to remove the requirement for a neighborhood petition to establish a mini golf course within 500 feet of land zone for residential.

Then it says um with the brew pubs, the microbreweries, they won't be selling or serving alcohol.

And if if they're not, then I I'm not understanding because you I think someone just asked you through the chair to Mr.

Um Todd whether or not they will be selling alcohol if the brew pubs and microbreweries, small distilleries, and wineries.

Um, I'm trying to understand will they be serving and selling alcohol?

If they are, do are they going to have to have a liquor license?

Because I do believe we're about 240 over the limit for the state to even have liquor licenses in the city.

Um, so we have a lot of violations going on that we're going to address in the new year, but we're already over the state limit with the issuance of liquor licenses.

So there's it's riddled with concerns, and I cannot support this knowing what my residents are saying to me.

And member Waters was at the executive board meeting with Palmer Woods, and they're not on board yet.

They're not comfortable.

Not that you we can't get them there.

But um Sherwood Forest, Palmer Woods, Greenacres, we're just not there yet.

We are just not there.

So I cannot support this right now.

Don't want uh mini golf course popping up um in my neighborhood, and then I have no say so.

That's what this says here.

We have no say so.

And um, so there's a couple other issues that I'm finding with this.

I'm just not comfortable with the speed of lightning that is being rushed.

That's my opinion.

I've been watching all of the sessions, and people still have a lot of concerns, and to overlook these concerns and not address them properly and appropriately, it's just unacceptable in my estimation.

So I cannot support this right now.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Todd, Director Todd.

Thank you, sir.

Um, through you to member Callaway.

Certainly look forward to uh providing you any additional information and clarity that you need.

But with respect to the concerns that you just listed, Ms.

Murphy and I will try to address the one with regard to the liquor to make sure that we understand what the question is and the concern with respect to what the actual proposal is.

But with respect to the miniature golf, I do want to clarify again, it's only being allowed in the SD1 and the SD2, and it is still a conditional use.

So it would still require petition and hearing uh for the for the public.

Not petition.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Not not a petition, I'm sorry, but it would still require a hearing to be held at Building and Safety Engineering.

It'd still be a conditional use, special land use hearing would still be required.

So the public would still get the chance to weigh in, and again, this is coming.

This particular proposal, the eFus behind it is a community proposal that someone's been trying to do for years, and we were trying to find a way to do it that was consistent with the way in which recreational activities are done across the city within our neighborhoods, but even with that, still leave in a hearing process.

Mr.

Todd, it says to add crematories and pet crematories in PD districts.

Can you explain that provision?

Yes, this is a use that is already on the books, and what we recognize is that the PD, which is plan development, is a special zoning district, one which this body has special uh legislative control over.

We just recognize that we were not allowing it in that particular district.

So again, this sixth general text amendment is picking up a lot of things that have been missed.

It's picking up things that have been requested from various sources, community council elsewhere in the city.

So that's why it is referred to as a general text amendment.

That again is a case where we recognize that there was an omission in the district that we had a use that was not being uh properly uh regulated within a given zoning district, the PD, which again this body has full control over.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I am in full support of many of these zoning changes.

We have brought them up.

We have turned to best practices to the research that shows all of the great changes that can come with this.

I am not in support of this process.

When the administration came to me earlier over the summer with the build more homes zoning initiatives, I said no, because there are already so many things that we're working on.

We cannot give the public enough time to understand all the changes before us to be able to provide their inputs.

And quite frankly, it sounds to me like the damage has already been done.

The public is already confused, they are already pushing back, they are not appreciative of this process.

I believe that we should bring all the zoning things back into the top of the year.

Many of these things might just need a little bit of clarification, a little bit more feedback, more public education, but to rush this through to leave people feeling as if they're not heard, to feel as something is being um put like pulled under them.

When a lot of these changes are exciting, the public is asking for them.

They will provide more housing, more usage of our space.

It's gonna be great.

I just don't appreciate this process.

We are making this seem bad when there are a lot of solutions here, and I would appreciate it if it would just give this time, but this process the time that it needs and the public the opportunity to understand.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Any further discussion, colleagues?

Member Young.

Thank you.

Um I really like a lot of these zoning changes.

I think this is a good thing.

Normally I would agree with um Member Santiago Romero in terms of the speed of it, but the reason why I'm in favor of it is because I know there's a lot of people out there that are hurting.

A lot of people that are out there, you know, trying to rub two nickels together, and this is an opportunity, trying to make a dollar to 15 cents.

This is an opportunity to do a lot of things that are in development, a lot of things towards housing that people need, a lot of things in terms of and listen, I I mean again, I I'm the type of guy, I mean, I understand I respect people's neighborhoods.

Some people's neighborhoods wouldn't like this sort of thing.

I'm a little bit different.

I wouldn't mind, you know, a miniature golf shop and then you know a little beer and wine store afterwards, after work, I could go and roll and unwind and drink beer, you know, and eat steak or whatever.

I feel that's a good thing.

You know, they built a dog park and a dog daycare right around the corner from me and didn't consult me on any of it.

You know what I mean?

So I understand people feeling some type of way.

I feel still talking about a lot of stuff.

But I think overall, the reason why, you maybe you correct me if I'm wrong, but I just feel the reason why people are so aggressive with this is because the need is so great, and this is an opportunity to be able to address that need.

I mean, unfortunately, one of the biggest issues we're dealing with now is poverty, which unfortunately has gone up from 31% to 34%.

And so people are trying to get this stuff out here so we can have these developments so we can address this as quickly as possible.

So I understand that we want to be able to do this and do our due diligence and make sure that the public is aware of this, but I also want to make it clear that time is of yes, it's here, and we don't have a lot of it because there's a lot of people that are hurting.

And I just want to ask uh one more question.

We were talking also about the issues involving all-street parking.

I just wanted to ask you from my analysis recently that I read the off-street parking costs.

Um cost people's rent, the increase of 1,700.

That's a give or take.

Might be a little bit more than that, because I think it's eight thousand dollars per space.

I think it's uh thirty-five thousand dollars per um garage space.

It's like fifty thousand dollars underground.

And you know what I'm saying, in terms of developer costs, which goes to rent.

Will these requirements or reducing of these requirements reduce that cost at all in terms of rent?

And do we have a number of how much would be reduced by again?

And we have that broken down by neighborhood and overall throughout the city.

And will this contribute to that?

So again, through the president's chair to member young.

Again, most of that discussion is contained within the COO proposed ordinance, housing and let's build more housing parking ordinance that the that we're not taking up.

Not taking up.

Okay.

But but quickly just to say what we're seeing with respect to those costs, the result of the tariffs of uh of greater economic uh issues.

The attempt was the way exactly the the attempt in in in the other ordinances to find a way of reducing development costs so that those other costs can be better borne by the developer and maybe less uh passed on to uh the end user or occupant.

I well look, I mean I remember there was a young gentleman named Coleman Young Jr.

who talked about implementing the land value tax for reducing property taxes.

I mean, you know, I I'm I'm oh I'm young enough to remember that young guy.

Um I I I but that's another topic for another day.

But I just wanted to ask does this touch on that at all, or is all of those property requirements in the legislation that were not taking up in Wallman zoning?

Because it seems like there's they're kind of it might be tangential, but it seems like they're kind of connected to me.

And I just want to know what is the connection in that.

If not, then my questions are done.

$1,700 is a lot of money.

Right.

Uh again, Member Young, I I think it's safe to say that uh there's no direct impact by either this proposal or the next one on your agenda that would deal with that.

There may be some indirectly related items, but but but there was nothing that we were intending to do with uh the sixth general or the adaptive reuse that would have necessarily had a direct impact on that.

I'm done.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'm done.

Thank you.

Uh we have Member Durrhall, then uh Member Santiago Romero, then Member Waters.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh and so uh as someone who's sponsoring the ordinance that we will not see today, uh which has you know drawn a level of uh discussion around it, uh I would be remiss if I did not say uh with a number of these ordinances, ordinances, including this one.

This is not anything new.

Um Mr.

Todd and his team have worked on these ordinances for over a year.

Uh they have been heard in PED.

They have had public hearings, they have had discussions, they have folks, you know, called in.

So this is not something that just happened two weeks ago relative to these ordinances.

Uh contrary to popular belief, uh, you know, I do think it's important to engage folks.

And we've seen that during this process.

The past ordinances or the ordinance that we even won't see today, and I'll remain as germane as I can to this particular ordinance, has had over 28 meetings throughout the community.

This ordinance, I can't talk about how many times Mr.

Todd and his team uh have met even in crafting this ordinances.

My my advice for someone who won't be here next year, that even as these ordinances come up, it is also incumbent upon us as council members to take this back to the community when we find out that information to engage the community and work as best as we can with the administration to engage the community with these ordinances and this information that we have.

The fact of the matter is at one time here in the city of Detroit, there was an ordinance of how you parked a horse carriage.

Uh and we transitioned from that.

Uh and we are transitioning now as a city, and it is my firm belief that if we don't tackle some of these issues, such as zoning, we will be left behind uh farther than other cities that are similar to us in population uh as well as growth.

Uh people fear change, but people more so fear that in which they don't understand.

Uh and it is incumbent upon us as leaders to help them uh understand it.

And if they choose to not support it at that point, that's one thing.

Uh but we have heard many things about ordinances and the zoning ordinance, particularly that are just not true.

Uh, you know, we have had had pushback from the historic districts on another ordinance, and they weren't even affected because they weren't R2 to R6.

So getting the information out so people can have the right information, I believe is very important.

It does take time uh to do that, but as someone who won't be here next year and be a regular citizen, it is my hope that even our council members engage more, work closer with the administration on ordinances like this so the people are not scared.

Because when we don't move legislation like this forward, it is really keeping us behind uh as a city.

And that and that is my uh opinion to that.

Uh I was gonna say call the question, Mr.

So I will not uh but but again uh wanted to put that on the record because uh I appreciate Mr.

Todd and his team for the for this work uh and this framework.

And it takes a lot of time, you know, relative to zoning to to see and create a vision for our city where we become more walkable, where we create more or greater uses for the land instead of just having vacant lots, parking lots, or otherwise that are not productive uh in use.

And so um that's my two sense about that, Mr.

President.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just briefly, I just wanted to add that I don't believe holding this up and bringing it to next year is gonna hold up any housing projects.

Um, those take time.

We might as well give this the time to uh to allow the public to understand what's going on.

These ideas are not bad.

I'm in supports.

I just again think that we messed up the process, and I would be happy to sponsor this bill or whatever is needed for zoning next year.

I have been talking about it.

I'm in supports.

Um, but when the administration decides to move faster in other ways that I do not support and do their own things, we are here um and quite frankly just want to give us the time that we need to do this rights to make these changes.

Thank you.

Member Waters.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I'm gonna say this.

Um this is not going to address any poverty, okay.

Let me just first and foremost say that.

The other thing that I want to say, and that is um of our communities believe that this really destroys the very fabric of their of their neighborhoods because there are so many unknowns about what can happen.

They talked about a person being able to build um something similar to a duplex or whatever in a in a in a um bacon lot next to them that they don't.

They talked about garages um uh being turned into apartments, you know.

Um there are a number of things, and I'm just gonna cite a few of these community organizations that have been crying out loud, uh asking us to slow uh slow us down.

This is just some of them.

Uh that's the University District, Boston Edison, Indian Village, Russell Woods, Sherwood Forest, Palmer Woods, and others.

And I just think that we owe it to them to do exactly that.

We are talking about neighborhoods who who have pay very high property taxes as well.

And like I said, that's just a few of them.

They have other partners uh in this as well.

It's not just these communities, there are others, and so on on behalf of all of those communities, I'm begging us, let's give it just a bit more time.

Let's have more conversations with them, please, because they have been helping to carry this city.

I mean, and that that's what I'm asking.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And just for clarity, those items that you mentioned, Member Waters, all of them are in the the ordinance that we're not gonna be taking up.

So just for the record, I mean, and that was that was intentional on behalf of PED because we heard that.

Okay, that was a concern.

So that's why we want to move those out of the way to allow for us to deal with the items that have been discussed over the years.

That the item that you just mentioned, that popped up this year.

Okay, well, let me just say this to you, Mr.

Chairman.

Listen, they don't like any of these ordinances right now, is what I'm trying to say to you.

They just do not.

I put that in because that has that was a a conversation that has been had.

I wanted to throw some of the concerns that they had, and I know that's something's gonna be coming back to us, but right now when they when they talk about R1 and R2s and mixed use and all that, they have problems with that.

So I'm just saying, I just wanted to relay because today I am their mouthpiece.

That's how I see it.

Um relaying the message from our communities, from our neighborhoods, their concerns, and I'm not gonna be so pompous that I'm gonna make that decision for them.

I need them to weigh in more.

I need them to be a part of it more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Benson.

Thank you.

Sounds like there's a significant level of uh concern and trepidation with this ordinance.

I would motion to remove this ordinance and then start the process again in January.

Um, if we don't remove it, sincerely doubt it's gonna get a vote this year, they say just cut the middleman out now, remove it and sort of process again in January.

And I'm more than happy to uh support anyone when it comes to sponsorship, and then I think we really need to have a conversation about how we do community engagement, although based on the conversations I've had and the narrative from uh Member Durhall, there has been a six an significant amount of community engagement here, but it's obviously it's just not enough right now to give my colleagues a level of comfort.

And then I think we really need to have a conversation about how we do community engagement, although based on the conversations I've had and the narrative from uh Member Durhall, there has been a six an significant amount of community engagement here, but it's obviously it's just not enough right now to give my colleagues a level of comfort.

So my motion is to remove line item 21.1.

Member Benson, would you uh allow before you make that motion uh a colleague who's in the queue to speak for the motion?

Okay, thank you.

Member uh Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and um I I feel like I should apologize to the City Planning Commission because I know when we had the discussion about the R2 zoning, I elevated a number of things.

I elevated a number of things that I have concerns with because of the precedence that it could set around building around development in this city.

Um I think as we've mentioned during PED, the challenge with these ordinances are that they're all coming at once.

And it's difficult to decipher and understand the difference between all of them.

Um I don't Director Ty, can you speak to just bringing this back at the beginning of the year?

Will it have any will it cause any problems, any concerns if we were to bring this back at the beginning of the year?

Um, and perhaps it gives more time for the city planning commission who presented the text amendments to us.

This is not coming from the administration, this is coming from the City Planning Commission.

Um can you speak to what challenges it might present, if any?

Thank you, Mr.

President, through your chair to Member Johnson.

Um, in general, as we understand it, having anticipated this along with a number of the other things when it comes to end of term.

Our understanding from the law department is that uh this item, these these items, and again, there are a total of three, the one that you're dealing with now, the sixth general, then there is the adaptive reuse ordinance, and then there is the uh screening and buffering ordinance, all which again started well over a year, some two, some three and one, even as its origins back in 2018.

It is most unfortunate that they have come to you in this fashion.

Let me answer your question, and then if you'll give me the privilege to say one thing publicly that I have not fully stated, trying to be polite.

Amen.

Um as far as we understand it, as long as we are within the 120-day period of viability, these items can come back without having to start over from scratch at the planning commission.

That may require either before you leave uh before you end this term of council or at the very beginning of the new term for some of them to have resolutions uh passed to extend their viability.

So we'll verify that the timing on each one.

But uh so so that answers the question.

It will not affect things.

We're not in any way troubled by uh a change in the timeline from that standpoint.

We stand behind the work that we did on these, and again, many of them are actually rooted in community.

We do understand in the in in the case of the uh sixth general uh that because it covers so many different things that may then cause a combination of troubled items or trouble, uh trouble and confusion for for community.

Um, when they were going through the commission, uh that was not so much the case.

But what we did do was we actually had two public hearings, I believe about six months apart because we went back to address community concerns.

Again, the problem is that started in 2023, and this is the thing that I've been polite about, but I'll be a little bit more direct.

You got this piling on because, as I believe council members, uh, you have experienced, but certainly the planning commission, historic designation advisory board has experienced, particularly over these last three or four years.

It appears as though our items get set aside in the law department.

These things did not all come through the planning commission at the same time.

They came through over this period time periods, but unfortunately, we keep waiting and waiting and waiting for ordinances to be approved as to form for the work to be done that in the past did not take anywhere near as long as it is taking these days.

So we need much greater support, we need much greater capacity from law department to support these efforts so that this in fact does not happen to uh fall upon this table and to fall upon the community in this way in order to create additional confusion on top of something that is already complex and difficult to understand when you've got one text amendment, let alone four at the same time.

And again, as much as we uh I will say enjoyed the exercise, if you will, of trying to process the administration's request.

Uh it definitely did influence things.

It influenced things positively and negatively.

Uh, it's caused a great deal more attention, which we want to see, and we want to see our community be more engaged and have greater understanding, but it has not served the greater good in the sense that it didn't have to be this way.

We could have taken the necessary time and we would have had that time had we followed or been able to follow a course which we're far more used to, which would have been you would have had this text amendment and then had the plenty of opportunity to engage with that in its in isolation in and of itself, and then maybe three or four months later you would have had the next, as opposed to the way in which they have come all in succession just over the past four months, four or five months for something that we've been working on as far back as 2018.

So that's it.

I appreciate you giving me that uh indulging me.

He even said he even said that real nice, didn't he?

That's Mr.

Todd.

We love you, man.

Um member Benson.

Um are we prepared for a motion now?

Is there anybody motion to remove line item 21.1 from the agenda and bring back from the 21 point one from the agenda.

There's a motion to remove line item 21.1 from the agenda with discussion, please.

So I know it was mentioned that a resolution uh would be necessary to allow for a 120-day extension, I believe that is.

Uh, when could that extension be provided to this body?

Mr.

President, in that we can certainly get it to you in enough time to be acted upon before you you recess.

We could walk it on if need be at the formal if that's the desire.

We know we of course have missed today's submission date with the clerk in order to get it on through the the regular channel, but we would certainly be able to get it before you even as a walk-on at next Thursday's committee if that's the desire, and we can do that with anything else that uh would fall into the same category.

Okay.

All right.

So the clock is ticking because that's the last PED meeting.

And I'll just say, as the chair, we I appreciate the work that you all have done.

We have worked with you, followed you.

Um there's been numerous community conversations that were separate from the administration uh over the years.

Uh we've called you out to meetings and you were there.

We showed up to meetings and you were there.

Um you provided us in PED uh information that we needed as well.

It is extremely unfortunate that we're in this situation.

But again, we you, I will say specifically while you were sitting there at that table, Mr.

Ty, you did your best to try to peel apart the different uh uh uh ordinance amendments that were before us, but again, here we are.

Um, but that is not because of you and your team.

So I want to make sure you all understand that we appreciate uh the work that that you all have done up to this point, and we need to have a line of demarcation on who's doing the community work and who may not be doing the the work that we want to do, and and also the prep that's necessary and the cause of confusion.

So I personally want to thank you all for the work that you have been doing uh on on these particular items.

Uh but there is a motion to, unless there's any further discussion, uh member young.

No, I just want to keep it brief.

I just want to say again, thank you so much.

First of all, I just want to say I do believe that uh these zoning policies will create smaller business, which will reduce poverty.

I just want to make that clear.

One, uh just you know, respectfully, just fundamentally disagree.

But secondly, I just want to say, I know you've been working hard.

I appreciate all the hard work that you guys have done.

I'm ready to vote on this now.

I'm gonna be objecting to this.

So I just want everybody to know that I appreciate you.

Look forward to working with you guys in the future.

Thank you all for your perpetualism.

And uh, Dr.

Powers, I just want to say Ray Hadzar, thank you so much for helping us get to that rules committee.

That would have been a lot harder.

I mean, I wanted to pull whatever hair I have left out of my head.

So thank you, and I appreciate it.

Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor to remove line item 21.1 from the agenda.

Any objections?

Objection.

Objection, Councilmember Durha.

Councilmember Yah.

And Council President Pro Tim James Tate.

Colonel Cassidy.

Discussion.

So uh that is that motion passes.

That motion passes, that means that we shall remove line item 21.1 from the agenda.

Member Benson.

Thank you.

And so what I heard from uh Mr.

Todd was that there should be a conversation regarding this type of support from the law department when we hit the budget cycle.

I just want to uh keep that top of mind with my colleagues that we're not seeing level of support that we need in the law department is stretched too thin.

And I think that could be a situation with management from the 11th floor, and we will know we will now have a new mayor, and so we should have that conversation with her early on, and we should look at this as a potential solution through the budget process as well to ensure that we have the level of support we need from our law department to get these ordinances taken care of and reviewed in a timely fashion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So on to 221 under unfinished business.

Council member Durhal and ordinance not in a roll call.

Line item 21.2.

All right.

Uh line item 21.2.

Colleagues, uh, are we still in the same boat as this as I don't have my my colleague reading four pages of a script?

Motion to remove the line.

Okay.

There's a motion to remove line item 21.2.

I wish I would have done this when we were doing all this discussion in committee.

Mr.

Chair.

Oh, before we do that, but there's a motion to remove line item 21.2 from the agenda with discussion.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Can we at minimum ask for the city planning commission to just give a brief overview of what this is?

Can you do it briefly?

It's a good one.

It needs to be done though.

I can attempt.

But I do believe Mr.

Jeffrey is online.

We ask that he be brought in and he could probably do it the fastest.

I think uh rector Bush is very long-winded.

Through the chair, I'd be happy to take a summary if we don't.

Oh I can let Kamani take a fresh crack, but happy to support a brief overview of this particular item, the institutional building adaptive reuse ordinance.

Yeah, guy who runs the office after uh Mr.

Jeffrey, we're gonna ask him to provide it to us and give it to us briefly.

Thank you so much for the director.

Mr.

Chair, Council members, a very brief synopsis of the adaptive reuse.

We're allowing um it seeks to allow for institutional buildings such as schools, churches, uh religious institutions, uh libraries, uh fire stations, police stations, any any type of institutional building to be adaptively reused for approximately 11 uh buildings or um I'm sorry for 50 new uses, and so right now many of those building types are in R1 and R2 districts, so the only thing you can reuse the past is a single or two-family house, generally speaking.

So this would allow them to be adaptively reused, and the key part of that is that they will be able to be reused uh by going through a special land use hearing.

So there still is an opportunity for the community to weigh into that process where they're invited to a public hearing at the buildings and safety department.

Um they can weigh in.

Uh conditions can be added uh for uh you know that that project to be able to go forward, um, or it can be denied.

Uh and then there's also incentives for you know the project to be established, parking incentives, loading incentives for loading spaces, um, and things of that nature.

Uh then there's also a part of it that establishes tactical preservation, which is essentially uh incremental reuse of buildings.

So that's essentially building code uh provisions that allows developers to incrementally uh fill spaces of a building one space at a time while making the rest of the building safe, but filling a space at a time.

A good example of that is Michigan Central Train Station.

They couldn't they could not bring their building online all at once, but they filled one floor at a time until the building was back online 100%.

So that's called tactical preservation.

So that's that's the general uh gist of the ordinance.

I think that's uh as succinct as I could get.

I think it was on point.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Jeffrey and uh member Johnson.

The floor remains yours, and then we'll go over to Member Durr.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, so thank you, Mr.

Jeffrey.

I just want to um be sure that I understand this that there is still a pathway forward to utilize these buildings.

I know uh there's been a lot of uh discussion about vacant school buildings throughout the city of Detroit.

We've seen some of them go through the process to be rehabilitated into apartment buildings.

Um so a developer could still go through the process, albeit a lengthy process to rehabilitate the building to utilize it for something else.

This would create an opportunity for them to do it perhaps quicker, and it costing a little less money because they don't have to go through rezoning and a number of other things to be able to reuse the buildings.

Is that correct?

That is through the chair, that is correct.

Um there are different pathways that somebody could get to that and go right now.

Um this is you know, some some people may already be in the commercial district, so they could do that by right.

Um, but if you are in the residential district, then uh you have to rezone today.

As you heard, you know, some of the challenges that we have today is the timeline, sometimes a rezoning, depending on how long it might take to get through the processes, you know, through uh, you know, through the entitlements and law department and all you know, everybody that's involved, it could be you know, six months to a year, sometimes even more.

Um, so that's part of it the timing.

Um, so it just depends on what their zoning district is and other other factors as well.

So this definitely uh could expedite that process, saving time and money.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'll just say again, as we've gone through the process of public, this is what people have been asking for for certain in the neighborhoods.

How do we transform the buildings or these structures that just blighten blighting our our our our neighborhood our block and this allows for this to happen in or at least a pathway for it to happen in a uh less cumbersome way for those who are trying to uh seek to redevelop these particular properties.

This is the one without a doubt that I've heard more so than the other things that have been popping up, and other zoning uh amendments that have been proposed to us.

This is the one that I'm most excited about because of how many properties unfortunately we've had to demolish because no one is taking a bite on it because of the cost and the challenges that associated with the zoning.

So I I would hope though it has been moved, I would really hope that we should allow this one to move forward.

Uh hold on one second, we're gonna go to colleagues first.

Uh member Durho.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I just simply wanted to say the same because the last ordinance just died, uh, which I believe was a good ordinance based off of ordinance that we are not even seeing today.

Um the the ordinance that people have been writing in about is not on today's agenda.

Uh and the last ordinance, which we have removed from the agenda died, and there is now a motion to remove this one.

Uh and this it these are not the ordinances that people are writing in about the historic districts or otherwise.

They were writing in about an ordinance and all those groups that were named that is not on today's agenda.

Uh and so I again it is important to understand these ordinances in which we're voting on so we don't further add to the confusion of the public.

Uh and so when we hear the the calls from public comment, they're not calling in about adaptive reuse.

They're not calling in on the previous zoning ordinance.

They're calling in about one that is not on today's agenda.

So it would be my hope that we move this one forward.

We don't allow this one to die as well.

Uh, because this one has had a considerable amount of engagement as well, and I believe it is good for our communities and the adjacent corridors uh to our residential uh communities.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Member Waters.

All right, um, thank you.

I I just want to mention the fact that um if it's in a residential district, will it cause uh problems because of parking noise?

That's number one.

Then number two, uh, will it be used for housing only?

And so people are confused about the various ordinances and what it means to their particular communities.

That was the reason um that I that I made that motion.

And I get what you're saying, because there are some buildings in various neighborhoods that need to be renovated.

But I just I'm just asking for an opportunity to help educate folks in the various communities so they know know what we're doing and to explain to them, have um staff to explain to them okay.

This is not mean more parking issues for your neighborhood.

This does not mean more noise.

This is gonna be specifically for for housing.

Uh if if that is the case.

They need some level of comfort.

And so that that's where I am, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Um, Member Callaway.

Thank you so much.

Um, and to my colleagues' point, if these weren't bundled um in the way that they are, and we can take them individually, it wouldn't be as um uh perplexing for some.

But because we bundled them and brought them all at once, it's confusing.

And so that has been the sentiment of my community in district two.

We should take them, unbundle them, and deal with each ordinance separately.

Because the way that they've been presented, it's bundled.

And so that's why I can't support them.

Um we do have a project in District 2 that is working, it's react uh redaptive use for Hick and Botham Elementary School, and I would ask everybody to go over there and take a look at it.

Cherry Line and Chippewa.

Excellent project under the um developer um Rod Hard of it.

It's amazing.

So I know it can work, but the way that we bundled these, it just causes problems.

And that's why you know we're here today, and that's why some of my residents are not comfortable with moving forward the way that they've been bundled.

So I it would be my recommendation that um we not that we kill them all right now, bring them back to life in the new year, and unbundle them, separate them out.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

But it it sounds like as we're unbundling, we're bundling them back up for for 26 as opposed to now.

Mr.

Chair, I'll just chair the next one.

What I was saying is just maybe one at a time, because right now we're taking them all together, and that that when I say bundle, they're being grouped together.

When I say in the new year, individually, maybe one of the first 60 days, one of the first 30 days, one of the first 90 days to meet the requirement of the 120 days so they don't just die on the vine.

But to bring them all together at once, it's we're kind of combining them, and it's confusing.

So I when I say bundle, I mean they're bringing all being brought today.

If we can set them out and give a comfortable time period to digest this one and then digest that one, then it won't seem so bundled up.

That that's that's what I was saying.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

And last for me is that this is one again it if we have now unpacked, we've taken two of them off of those bundles that we've talked about.

One was the R2 that no longer exists anymore in 25.

We've also taken uh line item 21.1 off of the list as well.

So that it's no longer a part of the bundle.

So now we're looking at this one that again, everyone's talked about this being a worthy, you know, adaptive reuse of the buildings within our community.

To your point, I've seen what they're doing with Higgins Botham.

It is awesome.

So uh these are kind of the things that we're talking about, Mr.

Chairman, that's gonna be happening.

Can they give an example?

Is that one of the examples?

Just so for the community that's listening.

Yes, we talked about that during the the public hearings in the community.

Anything else other than residential will be used.

So you have some churches that are in residential areas that are just sitting vacant.

Uh it it'll allow for that particular property to be reused.

For what?

For another use.

I'm just saying for what?

I mean, give me an example of it.

Okay.

But is it going to be specifically for housing?

See, that's what I'm I'm trying to get to.

I don't know.

It depends on what's going on.

If it's housing, the communities will relax about it.

But if you're talking about nightclubs and whatever else, I don't know how they're gonna feel about it.

And it's I mean, you know, so there wasn't there's a motion on the floor to remove it.

There's a motion on the floor to remove line item further discussion, because I want us to again the playing time.

Member Young.

Thank you.

Um has there have you talked to DEGC about the economic development aspects of this in terms of increase to gross domestic products, in terms of the property value increases?

Have you talked to DPD in terms of the crime um reduction through environmental design?

Have these been at all discussed in terms of what these what these changes would could potentially do through the chair through the chair to member young with regard to your first question, we've not had the conversation with DGC uh specific to this.

We have a general understanding of what you're leading to when it comes to environmental design.

We've had conversations off and on over the years, over the decades with DPD, and there is a shifting set of values sometimes from the crime prevention perspective from a planning and design perspective.

But yes, we come together on those things and we would like to actually engage them even more because we want to have an even more holistic approach when it comes to community.

Um and uh was last having those conversations with Chief White, uh started them with Chief Bettison when he curse came on, but have not followed up.

But that is that is definitely the sort of holistic approach that we want to uh expand upon and really uh try to uh uh bake make bake further into the fabric of what and how we do.

Do you have any estimates in terms of how much property values can increase in terms of how much I mean we got I mean our our gross domestic product is like 70 billion dollars now in the city.

Do you have an estimate of how much that can increase with these forms?

Again, through the chair.

I will leave that to uh to our chief assessor to the finance people within the city to put more appropriate numbers on that, but to the extent that we eliminate blight to we to the extent that we can now in reinvigorate properties that will have a benefit not only to that immediate property property but to the surrounding area.

Uh Higginbotham, a great example.

Uh St.

Agnes uh over on Rosa Parks, uh just south of the boulevard was another place where church was looking to be adaptive reused.

It was mixed use, it was going to be some commercial office as well as housing in that case.

Um, but one where that church sat on the edge of the community on the corridor.

Um so we were again sensitive to it.

There are a number of examples.

There are a number of of instances with uh with churches and other buildings that are waiting in the wings for this ordinance to move uh to to to move forward.

Absolutely.

Um so uh we can we can seek to get that uh and uh sort of analysis uh and bring that to bear uh if and when this item comes back.

No, I appreciate that, and that's important because we need to have that community perspective, and I think that's important.

People who want it from the community, and I don't know if this is the FTE or if it's a partnership with DEGC, but I think that the next time we're doing this, somebody should equip you with the numbers economically in terms of what this means in the neighborhood and the communities, and for people whose property values have been undervalued, who now will increase a benefit from that if these policies come to bear.

I don't know how to do that.

I don't want to get into your wills because I don't know exactly what you need, but I definitely think somebody should be able to help you with that.

So thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I'm done.

Thank you.

So, colleagues, there is a motion on the floor.

I yeah, I wanted to ask you.

Further discussion on the motion.

Um I just wanted to ask, you know, we've been at a few community meetings regarding these ordinances.

So I want to ask the team up here to do a simple analysis.

Put it just in layman terms.

Don't get too fancy with it.

Oh, don't get too too fancy with it.

So that we can distribute those to the various communities so that they understand exactly what each ordinance does.

Don't think that we can we're gonna be able to require them to go through these long ordinances and and understand all this stuff, all right.

So if you can break it down like we they used to do in Lansing, okay, do an analysis or summary or something, something that people can understand, and so that we can distribute it in in the various communities, then that way people will know what what they're dealing with, and then if they want to refer to certain sections of the ordinances, they can.

But I did tell some of them that we we would break it down for them uh so that they can email around their various uh community organizations and understand what we're proposing here.

Director Todd.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, through you to Member Waters.

Uh we did do that per the request that was made by your honorable body a few weeks ago, so six general text amendment, I believe that's uh summary sheet was circulated about two, two and a half weeks ago.

Unfortunately, to my fault, we did not circulate the adaptive reuse until this morning.

I thought that it had gone out, but we did not circulate that until this morning.

But again, we're happy to, and we recognize that that does make it more manageable uh as you stated, uh, for someone to be able to glean what the crux uh the primary issues uh uh of a particular ordinance are.

A lot of those simple bullets or short explanations will engender more questions, but at least it stems from a more um uh from from a from a more easier to grasp um uh pre presentation of the ordinance.

Well uh I well I wish I had seen it because I could have given it out while I was meeting some of them, just so that they will have that.

So I mean, instead of trying to refer to certain sections in the ordinance and all that stuff.

So but I but I will make sure that they receive uh the information, and I think that will help uh help guide them somewhat.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any further discussion, colleagues?

Uh as stated there is a motion on the floor to remove line item 21.2.

Are there any objections?

Yeah.

Councilmember Durha.

Objection, Member Johnson.

Objection tape.

Peterson we shall remove line item 21.2 wait a minute it's it's it's even though it stays staying stays stays what was it what was the comment it's gonna remove it we didn't oh that's right that's right four four so it fails four four four fitness okay um bring back line 21 point two in one week there is a motion now to bring back line item 21 point two in one week discussion to postpone the vote for one week with discussion member Johnson uh through you to whomever can answer one week from today is next Friday um what what does that actually mean discussion well well the next formal session is Tuesday then we have one more so we would have to come back on Tuesday if I'm not mistaken is that correct Dr.

Powers so we have yeah discussion member and so obviously it's a level of concern about voting today and so this gives colleagues an opportunity a few more days and if we want to do one more we could do one more bring back and then possibly have a vote on this to give people an opportunity to meet with staff and get a level of comfort if it's not here yet they may not achieve that but if we're unwilling to remove it today then this at least gives people an opportunity to have more conversations and if colleagues want to vote today then we could you can vote that motion down and we can vote today which is my rationale behind that motion something by colleagues just these member uh durho to to member Benson's point and kind of what member johnson was articulating what what do we plan to accomplish between now and Tuesday uh and if the sentiments are still the same and we'll be spending the spinning the wheels again and we'll postpone it another week for another Tuesday uh I believe the fact of the matter is that if you are against it right now and you are not compelled to really find a reason to vote for it you are going to be against it uh on Tuesday not necessarily so order oh order so order if that is not the case and I'm I'm just saying in practice of us and we we've seen this movie before we've been here before if if if it is to say hey I want to get to the point where we can understand it more maybe get something from the administration to get out to the public in that meantime today is Friday close of business in 15 minutes so you only got Monday one business day to accomplish what you want to accomplish I guess that's that's my point if not you either voted up or you voted down and that's just you know where I am in my recommendation or again it'll come back Tuesday and we're saying we postpone it for another Tuesday which we're gonna have a stacked agenda on the last Tuesday so that is that is just my my question in that regard.

Thank you member Warner yeah so through you to member Durrhall I want an opportunity starting tonight I'm gonna email out that summary to the various community organizations.

I'm gonna I'm gonna email a lot to them and they are the they are the kind of groups that are going to respond pretty fast so that gives me this weekend and then Monday to receive responses for them I just need to have them to react to it.

That's it that's all I'm that's all I'm saying just so they know member johnston uh thank thank you Mr.

Chair and Member Waters if I can make a request of you because you represent the whole D the whole D you know district four has five vacant school buildings five vacant school buildings that we've been trying to repurpose and identify developers to repurpose them so I'm just asking that aside from in addition to the historic communities that you reach out to others as well just to understand expensive historically order order okay all right especially where those institutional buildings exist libraries schools um utility buildings things of that nature just so that um people in the surrounding community can weigh in as well thank you Mr President Mr.

President.

I just want to make sure that's the first thing.

Order, order, order, order, speak through.

Speak through the chair, please.

I am, I am just wanting I want to make sure that these various community organizations, and they're just not historic ones, Member Johnson, that are asking.

All right.

I cited, I named a few of them.

And some of them were not historic that I mentioned, just so you know.

So I it will give me an opportunity to send something out to them.

And I know that they would appreciate it.

Sometimes you can get a little bit more with honey.

You know, so I'm gonna send them that that summary so that they can review it, and then I can get some responses from them.

And send it to Jeff Chimers, member Johnson, send it to all the other areas that we possibly can.

I think we owe that to them.

I'm just asking everyone at this point.

Please please speak through the chair.

All right, yes, yes, sir.

Speak through the chair.

We get a little anxious here.

I know it's it's 448.

And we still got an agenda.

Speak through the chair, please.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Just briefly, I knowing that we are removing many of these types of ordinances.

If we're left with this, um, this is very exciting.

Um, I think this will provide the public a little bit more time if you bring it back to review what is in front of us, the one and only thing uh for us to move this through and kind of at this point.

Yes, load on the process, make it more clear, which is really what I've been asking for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So, colleagues, again, there is a motion.

Oh, I'm sorry, member Benson.

Call the question.

That's what I was waiting for.

There's a motion to call the question.

Any objection?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

There is a motion on the floor to remove line item 21.2 point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

Did that there's a motion to postpone it till next session correct?

My apologies.

I'm stuck.

There's a motion to postpone the vote for line item 21.2 for one week or until the next until the next formal session.

Any objections?

Objection, member yo.

Objection, member Durrall.

Clerk she'll note those two objections.

Clerk will note Mr.

President.

Thank you so much.

Um, the action shall be taken.

All right from the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Councilmember Durhall, 12 resolutions, line items 21.3 through 21.14, noting that they are all contracts for the housing and revitalization department.

Contract number 600492-A2.

100% city funding.

Amendment two to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds into amend reporting requirements for the management of ARPA funded community development neighborhood beautification program, many grant activities.

Contractor Wayne Metropolitan Community Agency Action Agency, total contract amount, 2 million 582, 809 dollars.

Contract number 6007525, 100% sent city funding to provide emergency assistance with an escrow account program developed for tenants living in real token properties that have coal violations and unsafe living conditions.

Contractor United Community Housing Coalition, total contract amount, 136,000, 25 and 25 cents.

Contract number 6006140-A2.

100% ARPA funding, amendment two to provide an increase of funds and a man contract terms and conditions for housing placement, education, employment, emergency health care, or other forms of public or private assistance for homeless or at-risk individuals.

Contractor Wayne Metropolitan Community Action Agency.

Total contract amount, 1,607, 830 dollars.

Contract number 606216-A2.

100% ARPA funding.

Amendment two to provide an increase of funds for program administration of our neighborhood opportunities funds program.

Contractor SP Grace LLC, total contract amount, 2 million 500 2000 368 dollars.

Contractor, community health, and social services center incorporated, doing business as Chaz.

Total contract amount, 580, 868 and 37 cents.

Contract number 606747-A1.

Contract number 6006747-A1, 100% city funding.

Amendment one to provide an increase of funds for 220 beds for drop in shelter services for those experiencing homelessness, contract or cast community social services incorporated.

Total contract amount six million one hundred and ninety-six thousand eighty dollars.

Contract number six zero zero seven four seven nine, one hundred percent city funding to provide homeless support outreach AMPM Contractor Motor City Mint Mission.

Total contract amount four hundred and twenty thousand line item 21.10 contract number six zero zero seven five zero zero one hundred percent CDBGDR funding to provide management of the down payment assistance program contractor national faith home buyers total contract amount 10 million four hundred seventy thousand contract number six zero zero seven five three eight one hundred percent city funding to provide drop in emergency shelter beds at six two six east grand boulevard contractor Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries total contract amount two hundred seventy thousand contract number six zero zero four three four zero three two A4 92 point nineteen percent ARPA funding ARPA and 7.1 7.81 percent city funding amendment four to provide an extension of time and an increase of funds for housing resource website contract x g incorporated total contract amount 2 million four hundred fifty three thousand nine hundred ninety-eight dollars and seventy five cent contract number six zero zero seven five one nine one hundred percent CDBG DR funding to serve as the project manager for the Jefferson Charmers flooding and floodplain mitigation study and projects contract Detroit Building Authority total contract amount 20 million last contract is contract number 600 5146-82 100 ARPA funding amendment two to provide an extension of time only for tax foreclosure prevention canvasing services contractor detroit people's community total contract amount 331400 dollars council member Durha 12 resolutions uh member durha can we get a um motion to discuss please so move mr president uh so we probably may have the the same word that I have about 21.8 yes sir okay so member Durhaw thank you Mr.

President uh would like to make the make a motion to postpone line item 21.8 for one week uh let the record reflect uh inside the contract right now it reads as the number of beds being 185 or the number of beds should read as 185 and not 220 so motion to bring back 21.8 uh on Tuesday's session all right there's a motion to bring back to bring postpone pardon me to actually would they remove that one uh and then submit the correction corrected letter through you mr president my my understanding is that the correction can be submitted next week uh when we pass it if we were to remove it then we would cause it to be referred again from my understanding but only re I'm sorry my member I share the only reason I said that because what was requested of me was that it was a removal so that's the only reason why I'm asking that question uh Mr.

Washington uh now that I know you're listening to us uh I got a request for a removal and it sounds like the request that went to member vice chair uh was for a postponement to allow for the correction letter I know we've done that in the past but I know that um in the message to me it said removal mistaken yes through the chair um if we could just postpone it to the next session okay there is a motion to postpone uh line item 21.8 to the next formal session any objection discussion with discussion member Benson just typically is there something more to this than just the the number that the numbers that don't tie typically I mean you would have had a a correction letter by now it is now close to five o'clock is there something more to this this could have this letter could have been generated hours ago that we're not saying through the chair um member member malik uh mr washington through the chair no that is the only item um unfortunately it just wasn't called until about thirty minutes ago and I know it'll probably take some time for the department to get the signatures and sign off to formulate document okay thank you all right thank you all right colleagues there is again that motion to postpone we approve that one I don't think we did the vote yet I didn't think so any objection to postponing line item 21.8 uh until the next formal session see no objections that action shall be taken member Durha thank you uh Mr.

Any objection to postponing uh line item 21.8 uh until the next formal session.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Member Durrha.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

President, I'd like to move for approval line items 21.3 to 21.7 and 21.9 to 21.14.

Discussion.

Okay.

There's a motion to remove to move the items for approval as mentioned by uh member Durhal with discussion.

Member Benson.

All right, looking at line on 21.12.

This is a close to 200,000 dollar contract um increase to an existing contract with the extension only going for another two months.

Just out of curiosity, why such a short why such a short extension?

And then what's the plan for this website post 31 January 2026 through the chair?

Mr.

Washington.

Yes, if we can promote Chelsea Neblet.

We shall promote Ms.

Nebleth out for service.

Ms.

Nablet, thank you for joining us.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

And if you need us to restate the question, you shall do so.

Absolutely.

Um good evening, everyone.

My name is Chelsea Neblet.

I'm the chief of housing solutions in support of services and HRD.

Um I did hear the question.

Uh so to the chair, um, to council member Benson.

Uh the HRD, uh, the housing revitalization department issued an RFP to rebid out this work um on August 14.

Excuse me, August 14th of this year.

Um, the RFP closed on September 22nd.

So we are in the final stages of uh new recommendations for our affordable housing portal, and this will be back in front of council upon um return in January.

And so we need the short time extension in order to finalize the procurement processes.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Discussion uh with excuse me, with further discussion, member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh line item 21.13 um is what several residents from the Jefferson Chalmers community either came down for or called in for.

Um, and while I do appreciate the work that we have been able to do thus far with this particular contract, I do have a couple of items that I'd like to get a little bit more uh specificity in the resolution for uh and so with that I would like to um I move to postpone line item 21.13 until Tuesday.

Okay, there is a motion, colleagues, to postpone the vote for line item 21.13 until the next formal session.

Any objections?

None that action shall be taken.

Any further colleagues?

Mr.

Chair.

Um member uh Callaway move to postpone um moving 21.9 forward.

I'd like to get a report uh from them.

I know we just approved the contract for them in July for the hotline.

Um and I objected to that.

I have never seen the the work that they've done.

I've seen their van out um periodically, um, but I certainly want a uh report from them uh for this almost half a million dollars.

Um so um postpone line item 21.9, sir.

There's a motion to postpone the vote until the next formal session for line item 21.9 colleagues, any objection?

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Mr.

Chair, uh member Callaway.

Um, what happened with line item 21.12.

I know um council member Benson had questions about it.

Um, because I find the website um kind of lackluster, and they're asking for an increase um of close to 200,000 dollars.

So um how do we move on?

Did we postpone it?

No, ma'am.

It's it's being rebid.

It's the RFP out right now for the service to um continue into the new year, and we should have that contract as Ms.

Neblet indicated uh at the beginning of the year.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Any further colleagues?

Seeing none, there was a motion to approve my apologies.

Uh member Santiago Mero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Just real briefly on 20.12.

Um, if we can also to that question, see what the results have been.

Do we know how many calls have been made?

Do we know how many folks have been housed?

There's a lot of money that's being put into this website.

And I also have not heard it be useful when we don't have the housing in place for people to be housed.

So instead of putting money into a website, would rather put money into services, um, but would also just like to know the results of the usefulness of this websites can be shared now or could be shared later.

Um, but that's information that I think will be helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Santiago Romero.

Ms.

Nebla, do you have a report that you can provide to the body, or is it uh a report that has to be generated um to the to the chair, yes, we can we can work on the report and provide that to the body.

Okay.

Do you think you would be able to have it by next Tuesday?

To the chair, yes, we we can provide it by next Tuesday.

So the website is related to listing um the city's regulated affordable housing.

Um and so that is related to being able to apply and understand which properties are available, and so we can um have a report that generates the visits, how many people have enrolled and some updates about usage.

Mr.

Chair, yeah.

Member Callaway, Mr.

Chair, and and to my colleagues, um Gabriella Santiago Romero, it would be great um to get these reports in advance of asking for more money.

We never get any reports.

We've had discussions about the same contract, and we just we question it, and we just don't get the reports and uh in in in um in advance of it coming before us again for an increase.

So I I have I think it's a very lackluster type of website, and we're paying this company that looks like it has a suite um in San Francisco, California.

When I know this work could probably be done locally and maybe save the city a few bucks.

Um, but um I don't know if that's the will of folks who are in the decision making position to save the city a few bucks.

I I'm a taxpayer, I like for somebody to help me save a few bucks, but I think this is just a poor use of funds.

Um, and um this 200,000 dollars can definitely help people who are homeless and not going to some website, and a lot of times they don't have phones, they don't have access, they have to go to the library, which are not always open to even access this website.

So I just think it's a poor use of money.

I've said it before, and this is a very lackluster, um, unhelpful website.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

So now we're gonna be bringing it back though.

Um it's gonna be postponed.

Yeah, thank you, ma'am.

Uh member uh waters.

Okay, thank you.

Boy, did o to my colleague from district two and from district six.

Uh yeah, I mean, then we had to go all the way to California for it.

Um we could use these resources in the Kamaya Davis Family Resource Center.

Uh huh.

We really could.

Um I just have to say, no, anybody that has called my office looking for a place to live, they've never said where can I check on a website?

And I'm pretty sure when they've called the Kamaya Davis Family Resource Center, they have not asked about a website.

They don't think of a website, they need help right now.

Now, if you're talking about people who are trying to purchase a home, maybe maybe they might do that because now they're looking.

But other folks who are in desperate need, it's not gonna happen.

So, why don't we take these resources and put them where they can be used just a bit better?

I I don't get it.

Uh, how long has this website been around?

I've never seen it.

Ms.

Neblet.

Um, to the uh to the chair, uh to member waters.

The website has been around since 2023, and so we can absolutely include um the enrollment.

So the connection is through the Detroit Housing Resource Helpline.

And so we've enrolled just over 7,000 households for notifications when new housing development come online.

So I'm listening to all of the comments and we'll ensure that this is a part of the report.

Okay, yeah, okay.

Um so when you provide this report, it's gonna show us you know, give us some some data, tell us you know what the usage has been.

I mean, and and how many people has it helped?

I'd kind of like to know that so that we we'll know that if if in fact we are spending our money wisely.

Can you do that for us?

Absolutely and I just want to say um you are always so great, you know.

When I call to try and get people placed in and shelters and so forth, you're just you're on it.

So I do want to thank you for that.

Mr.

Chair, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Mr.

Member Waters asked how long has this contract been in place?

And um she said that it's been in place since 2023.

I'm looking at 2020 21.

So is it 2021 with the fourth amendment, or is it 2023?

Because uh, you're saying 2023, and I'm looking at something that says 2021.

Um to the chair to member Callaway, my apologies.

Yes, 1127 of 2021.

Um, I looked at an incorrect date, so you are currently six.

Okay and through the chair to you.

This is the fourth amendment for uh a website that a couple of my colleagues have been complaining about since we've joined the council, and we continue to renew this contract.

So I do think it's a poor use of money for to me an underutilized website for folks who are in desperate need of housing.

I just don't see that we're getting the bang for our buck.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues.

There's a motion motion to approve line item 20 line items.

No, 21.

Line items 21.3 through 21.14 minus 21.8 21.9.

All right, as well as 21.13.

Did I miss any others?

21.12.

12, yeah.

12 as well.

12, yeah.

And 21.12.

All right.

Any objections?

Uh member young uh objection on um postponing 21.12.

Oh, geez, oh please.

Is there one objection from beyond for number two?

Line of 21.12 to postpone that one.

Clerk.

I have that, Mr.

President.

That action passes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you so much.

From the housing and revitalization department.

Councilmember Durrhall, seven resolutions, line items 21.15 through 21.21.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, these are various awards uh and grants 21.15 is the annual home home uh R C D B G C D B G C V C D B G D R and C N I revised awards, same thing for 21 uh 16 with the addition of age d and pf uh 21.17 uh is the approval of a commercial rehabilitation uh district for W Detroit LLC and 21 uh 18 are uh through 2120 are various commercial rehabilitation certificates as well.

Move for approval for those line items.

Thank you, sir.

There's a motion to approve line items 21.15 through 21.21.

Any objections, colleagues?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President, request a waiver for those line items, please.21.

Any objection?

See none, waivers should be attached.

And Mr.

President request a waiver for those contracts, whichever ones that we move through because it's chopped up.

But uh I believe it's 21.3 to 21.7, uh 21.91 request one more time.

I'm sorry.

What waivers for line items 21.3 to 21 point 14 7 21.90 11 and 14.

All right, if my notes serve me correctly, Madam Clerk, are you clear?

Okay, in other words, all the line items except for the postponements for the contracts.

Uh any objections?

See none waivers shall be attached from the planning and development department.

Councilmember Durhal, eight resolutions, line items 21.22 through 21.29.

Member Durhal.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh these are various property acquisitions uh for properties uh around the city.

Uh move for approval for line items 21.22 to 21.29.

As a motion for approval for line items 21.22 through 21.29.

Colleagues, any objection?

Discussion with discussion, member Callaway.

Um, real quick, um like to know um line item 21.23.

Why is the city buying property from DPSCD?

Um they might even owe us money because we are um we regularly demolish their buildings.

I don't know if we always collect.

I know we attempt to collect, so uh they might owe us.

So have we looked into that?

Because we do demolish their buildings.

So I don't know if anybody from demo and construction can answer the questions, but they should be giving us this.

And what are we what are the city's plans for this use at 352 4th Street?

Why are we acquiring this property for what purpose?

And paying 43,000 dollars for it.

So I don't know who can answer that, Mr.

Chair.

That's a HR, not HRD, but uh planning.

With Mr.

Trung, if I'm not mistaken.

Uh Mr.

Washington.

Yeah, yes, for the chair, that is correct.

Mr.

Trong is online.

All right, if we can promote Mr.

Trong.

When you see yourself on the screen, please introduce yourself for the record and the floor is yours.

Uh good evening, this is John Trong of the Housing Revitalization Department with the Real Estate Division.

Uh through the chair to Councilmember Callaway.

Uh, unfortunately, I cannot speak to um if there's anything owed uh to demolition in the city.

I can't speak to the transaction.

Uh we're paying 43,000 dollars for 3528 Fourth Street.

Uh this is uh parcel that's within the Midtown West uh project, part of this acquisition and the reason behind it is the city is uh reconstructing Fourth Street at that quarter.

This is uh kind of the last piece of the puzzle.

Uh we've acquired adjacent parcels from Detroit Rescue Mission Ministries as well.

Um the the 43,000 dollars was the appraised uh price that's uh per their policy.

Uh this deal is also approved by their school board members as well as their administration, and that's that's the reason behind the price.

Um but I I cannot speak to any potential uh money owed for demolition um as to you know the sales price offsetting against that.

Okay, through the chair to you, Mr.

Trong, where are we getting the money from to pay for pay?

The the funds will be from general fund dollars through our uh real estate funds uh with the Detroit Building Authority for real estate services.

Okay, Mr.

Um Mr.

Chair, thank you, Mr.

Trong.

I'm um making a motion to postpone um until Tuesday, and then that'll give um director counts an opportunity to um describe um where we are with collecting dollars that um sometimes DPS CD owes us for tearing down some of their buildings and for other um other engagements.

I'll just say I'll leave it at that.

So um my motion is to postpone this if there is any further discussion, Mr.

Chair, for just a week to give Dr.

Um Director Council an opportunity to let us know where we are in terms of um collecting whatever is owed to the city from DPS C D because it might be a wash, they might just owe us 43,000 dollars, and then we don't owe them any, you know.

We don't owe them anything to buy the building.

Thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Thank you.

There is a motion to postpone until the next formal session line item 21.23.

Colleagues, any objection?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Any further discussion?

See none.

There was a motion to re to move uh for approval.

Line items 21.22 through 21.29 minus line item 21.23.

Mr.

Chair.

With further discussion, yeah.

Um, this is on line item 21.25.

Uh my staff and I were trying to find out, and this is in District 2.

Um, this LLC, what are they purchasing this um property for at 3239 Puritan?

I don't know if through yourself, Mr.

Chair to Mr.

Trong, if he can tell us that because we weren't able to find it.

Mr.

Trong.

Yes, this is John Trongan Housing Revitalization Department of the Real Estate Division uh through the chair to Councilmember Callaway, adjacent LLC.

Um their their principal and owner is a property management and rehab company.

They're looking to renovate and rehab this property to use for their offices and headquarters.

Okay, Mr.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Tron.

I'm going to ask that we postpone this for a week.

It'll give me an opportunity to talk to the owners.

I kind of want to get a better understanding.

I know the area, and I just want to know exactly what they're planning on doing there.

Um so um I uh move to bring this back um in a week, Mr.

Chair.

So there's a motion to bring back uh to to postpone the vote for until the next formal session uh for line item 21.25.

Any objections?

See none that action shall be taken.

Any further discussion, colleagues, on any of the items.

Okay.

Uh there is a motion to approve line items 21.22 through 21.29 minus line items 21.23 and 21.25.

Any objections seeing none, then action shall be taken.

Request a waiver for those items, Mr.

President.

It's a request for a waiver on the items that have been approved today.

Any objections?

See none, waiver should be attached.

Under resolutions, madam clerk.

Councilmember Durha, on behalf of council president pro tem James Tate, a resolution line item 21.30.

Member Durrhall, thank you, Mr.

President.

This is a resolution urging modification of the Detroit Land Bank memorandum of understanding move for approval for line item 21.30.

Thank you, sir.

There's a motion to approve line item 21.30.

Any objections?

Discussion with discussion, member Benson.

All right, thank you.

Looking at section three, term shall read as follows.

Maybe I'm not clear here.

It sounds as if we want to have the MOU sunset every year.

Is that accurate?

Uh no, sir.

We what we were looking to do is allow for minimal changes to allow for the new council and new mayor to uh be seated so that we can have a more robust discussion about what all the changes would look like that we're uh potentially looking at for the um Detroit land bank MOU.

We're at the end of the term at this moment and it's been expired for about two years now when we've been looking at the same.

A year to give the new seated council an opportunity to uh negotiate council and mayor, yes, sir.

Okay, and then just looking at the CLT provisions, are those equivalent to what community partners receive now internals?

Um the subsequent the subsection community land trust shall read as follows.

Are those the same provisions and discounts as given to current community partners?

So uh to I know Member Johnson, that was one that she had negotiated with the land bank, so I want to give her an opportunity to speak specifically about that particular one.

Uh discussion is can anyone the land bank could cooperate that that's true?

I don't have an issue on the land here though.

Mr.

Washington, is the land bank available chair.

No, we do not have a representative online.

Okay.

How would you like to handle that item, Member Benson?

Uh is Member Johnson returning.

She will be returning.

Okay, motion I believe.

Motion to move this line out to the end.

All right, there's a motion item 21.

This is 2130.

Yes.

Okay.

Just wanted you to state it.

All right, thank you.

There's a motion to move line item 21.30 to the end of the agenda.

Any objections?

Um noting one objection.

Clerk was no mr.

President.

Thank you so much.

That action shall be taken.

Mr.

Chair.

Uh member Benson, yourself administration.

This may I want to request to ensure that we do get somebody from the land bank who can address that later in the meeting meeting when this comes back.

Mr.

Washington.

Yes, noted uh through the chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

All right, for the public health and safety standing committee under unfinished business.

Council member you want on Councilmember Whitfield Callaway in ordinance noting a roll call.

Also noting that this line item was postponed from the last formal session.

Line item 22.1.

Member Callaway.

Just correct remind me that we did she read the script already.

Okay, so we gotta start from the top.

Okay.

All right.

Randall.

Member Cow.

Okay.

Ordinance to amend chapter 26 of the 2019 Detroit City Code Law Enforcement by renaming Article 3 to Citizens Patrols and dividing the article into two divisions, division one being citizens radio patrol assistance program containing section 26-3-1.

Extablish Section 26-3-2.

Administration, Section 26-23-3-3, form of assistance, sections 26-3-4, eligible expenditures, section 26-3-5, allocation of assistance, new citizen radio patrols, section 26-3-6, conditions of assistance, section 26-3-7, violations of conditions of assistance, and section 26-3-8, no city supervision, and division two being citizen neighborhood blight patrol containing section 26-3-21.

Allocation of assistance, new citizen radio patrols, Section 26-3-6, conditions of assistance, Section 26-3-7, violations of conditions of assistance, and Section 26-3-8, no city supervision, and division two being citizen neighborhood blight patrol containing section 26-3-21.

Administration, Section 26-6-23, eligible expenditures and form of assistance, Section 26-3-24.

Allocation of assistance, new blight patrol, section 26-3-25.

Condition of assistance, Section 26-3-26.

Patrol membership qualifications, Section 26-3-27.

Patrol and reporting, Section 26-3-28, patrol conduct rules, and section 26-3-29.

No city supervision to provide for citizen neighborhood blight patrol.

Point of order, Mr.

President.

Oh council member Callaway, I move to take from the table.

No, I don't have that.

Point of order, Mr.

President Read Quick.

I don't have it.

I have what you gave.

Thank you, Ms.

I I was just gonna say a quick thank you, Mr.

President.

I was just gonna say a quick point of order.

Um I know she read through the title, uh, but the motion to take from the table wasn't said before the title was read through, and then obviously laid these on the table at the end.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Okay, for the record, I had the wrong script.

That's what it was.

That's okay.

All right.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Member Callaway.

I move the ordinance be placed on the order of third reading and considered red, sir.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

I move the ordinance be passed and submitted.

There being a roll call required with discussion.

Member Young.

I'll let member um Romero go.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just want to briefly um say I really appreciate the idea uh to address blight and eliminate blight.

Um, I did not see how this will eliminate blight.

It mainly reports it.

Um, so I won't be in support of this.

Uh if we have many ways of reporting through our app through our through our emails and calls, and ourselves, I believe we're all reporting the blights.

Um, we're just not addressing it.

Um, so I actually have a a request of motion for LPD uh to help with the report on municipal solutions to remove and eliminate blights.

Um I've mentioned in the past we see like in downtown people going around with actual trash bins, removing picking up, I think the a downtown partnership development calls them.

I'm not sure if they're associates or liaisons from downtown, but they are actually removing the thing.

Um I have been to other countries like Mexico uh where they have people that are hired by the city literally sweeping the streets of the neighborhoods.

Um just the reports, um, if any creative solutions like this one, trying to be creative in how we eliminate bright, um, but making sure that we actually removing it.

I don't want to cause more aggression with residents saying I just reported it, it hasn't been eliminated because we what we're missing here is the funding to address the blight in the first place.

Um so that's a request of motion for some support in thinking of solutions.

Um, and that is my my my only comment on this.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

So can you state the motion though?

I motion for a report uh from LPD to share any municipal solutions to address and eliminate neighborhood blight or debris.

Um noting again we've got downtown development authority, other places, other cities that, and this could create jobs for for residents uh to be able to help us maintain um our neighborhoods in our city.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor.

Uh member Young, is there a comment on the motion?

I I had a question on the legislation.

Okay, for clarity.

Is that okay to ask or do we do the motion?

We'll do the motion first.

Colleagues, any objections to the motion?

See none, the action shall be taken.

Member Young.

Thank you.

From my understanding, I thank you.

Um, through the chair, excuse me.

Uh, from my understanding, member Callaway, looking at this.

This is just people who are patrolling these areas just to make sure that they see blight.

This is basically this is observe and report.

We're not encouraging people to like get involved or tear down abandoned buildings or do things that nature, correct?

This is just if you see it, you can write a report, or you can take a picture or a photograph and give it to your local the Don Head, correct?

That is correct, so the chair.

All right.

And um, uh, may I, Mr.

Chair?

Yes, ma'am.

This is modeled after a very successful ordinance that's already on the books.

It's called the Citizens Radio Patrol, which has been in existence for 37 years and very active continuously in Green Acres.

We have seen a drop in crime.

Those folks who volunteer their time are the ears and the eyes of the community, and we need those same or similar eyes and ears on blight.

We know we have a blight issue in the city.

I can speak for district two.

We have a blight problem, and these this blight ordinance was driven by and inspired by residents of district one and district two.

They attended a meeting and they brought it up.

So that's this has been inspired by those groups of folks.

So this is a wonderful ordinance, and I'm just um looking forward to it being approved and um activated.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Further discussion, member Young.

Yeah, and I just want to make sure this is just for clarity because I because I'm reading through this, and I just want to make sure again, this is just observe and report.

We're not encouraging people, um, they're prohibited from carrying firearms and things that nature, so it's not like they're gonna be policing.

These areas are being evolved, and that they're not gonna be giving out tickets or deputies to be able to give out tickets.

This is just purely just observe and report, correct?

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Um, this is modeled after again the citizens radio patrol, all right, which makes them the eyes and ears of the community.

They have no um responsibility to engage, interact, or communicate with anyone who is illegally dumping or otherwise, and they will receive 70 percent 70 cents on the mile as our citizens rail patrol volunteer.

So no, thank you.

I'm done.

No interaction.

That's that's all I want to know.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

No interaction.

Thank you, attorney Anderson.

Through the chair, Graham Anderson Law Department, just to your question, uh, Councilmember Young.

Explicitly 283 or 26328 D patrol members shall not initiate contact with or interrogate persons suspected of prohibited activity.

Observe and report only.

We don't want people saying, hey, you know, that's a mess there.

Just observe and report as you said.

Thank you.

Or cut or issue with tickets or cutting you know, going after people, dogs, okay.

I don't think thank you.

Uh any further colleagues saying none, there being a roll call required.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Whitfield Callaway.

Yes.

Councilmember Young.

Yes.

Council President Sheffield.

Councilmember Benson.

Councilmember Durho.

Yes.

Councilman, yes.

He's hanging out back there.

You'll look like you pass there.

Councilmember Johnson.

Councilmember Santiago Romero.

Yes.

Council President Pro Tem Tate.

Yes.

Councilmember Waters.

Yes.

Mr.

President, that motion passes.

Um the ordinance is approved.

Councilmember Callaway.

Thank you, sir.

Um, I move the ordinance be passed as submitted, and I move the title to the ordinance be confirmed.

Any objections?

Hearing no objections, then action will be taken.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, from the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Madam Clerk.

Councilmember Santiago Romero, 24 resolutions.

Mr.

President, I would like to line items 22.2 through I believe 22.14 are all construction and demolition contracts for this.

So for the sake of time, yes.

I will read the contract number and just the amount for um these contracts.

We won't be mad at all.

Thank you.

I like yeah, you read a whole contract up.

Got out voted.

Line item 22.2 is contract number 6005667-A4.

Total contract amount 2 million 595 90,000.

Contract number 6005965-A1.

Total contract amount 3,937,500.

Contract number 6006412-A2.

Total contract amount 1,565,469 and 92 cent.

Contract number 6005686-82.

Total contract amount 5,73,875 and 93 cent.

Contract number 6006322-A2.

Total contract amount 1 million 365,000.

Contract number 6005966-A1.

Total contract amount 3,937,500.

Contract number 308-8018.

Total contract amount 17,820.

Contract number 3087959.

Total contract amount 15,200.

Contract number 3087958.

Total contract amount 17,472.

Contract number 308 8042.

Total contract amount 16,600.

Contract number 3087862.

Total contract amount 25,400.

Contract number 3087861.

Total contract amount 17,100.

Contract number 3087568.

Total contract amount $59,824.

Line items 22.15 through 22 point 19 are all for the health department.

Contract number 600714-A1.

Total contract amount 200,000.

Contract number 6006713-A1.

Total contract amount 400,000.

Contract number 6006497-A2.

Total contract amount 3,600,000.

Contract number 6005072-A1.

Total contract amount $66,584 and 25 cent.

Line item 22.19.

Contract number 6005088-A1.

Total contract amount $4,163,842 and 24 cent.

Contract number 3087963.

Total contract amount 97,582.

That's for police.

Contract number 6006567-A2.

Total contract amount 1,500 456, 290 and 82 cent.

That's for public works.

Line items 22.22.

Contract number 6007224-A1.

Total contract amount $303,000.

That's for public works.

Contract number 6007528.

Total contract amount $76,740.

That's for transportation.

Contract number $0.006780-A1.

Total contract amount 120,000.

That's for transportation.

Last contract is contract number 308-6203.

Total contract amount 63,000.

That's for transportation.

Council member Santiago Romero, 24 resolutions.

Motion to approve.

Seeing none, line items 22.2 through 22.25 shall be approved.

From the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Developments and Grants.

Councilmember Santiago Romero, three resolutions.

Line items 22.26 through 22.28.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you.

Mr.

President motion to approve these are all various grant applications and acceptance.

There's a motion to approve line items 22.26 through 22.28.

Any objections?

See none.

Then action shall be taken.

From the Department of Public Works, City Engineering Division.

Councilmember Santiago Romero, eight resolutions.

Line items 22.29 through 22.36.

Member Santiago Romero.

Motion to approve, Mr.

President.

These are all various petitions for encroachments, vacations, etc.

There's a motion to approve line items 22.29 through 22.36.

Any objection, colleagues.

Seeing none, then action shall be taken.

For the request to speak before Detroit City Council.

Councilmember Santiago Romero, a resolution, line item 23.1.

Also noting that this line item was postponed from last formal session.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, as I mentioned earlier today, we have spoken uh with Tanya.

We have referred her to Member Calloway's office since she is in her district for support.

She still wants to come before the full council.

Um I believe if we have not already, we will be inviting her to speak at our evening community meeting, inviting her to spend four minutes for public comments.

But if she does not want to join us for the evening community meeting, she's requesting to come before the full council.

I'm not sure who will be chairing next formal session.

Um, but that is her request.

We have done what we could.

Um, but she would like to talk about um the process that in her experience regarding B seed um and her concerns that she has, which I think is valuable for the full council to hear.

Um, so that is those are my updates regarding this request.

Uh we can bring it back until council president is here, or we can decide to um we can invite her to ECM, and if she says no, prepare to have her speak before us um at our next or final formal session.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Uh what is before us is now the request to speak before council.

Colleagues, how would you like to address that?

Discussion with discussion, member Benson.

I'm prepared to vote today.

Okay.

All right.

There is there a motion.

Motion motion motion to approve line item 21 point, excuse me, 23.1.

Are there any objections?

Objection, council member Scott Benson.

He wears the alpha jacket.

He wears the alpha jacket.

Yeah, no, we got we gotta get that away from her.

I don't think that's gonna change though.

Or is one objection clerk?

That motion passes, Mr.

President.

All right.

We shall so we'll have to decide allow the president to determine when she is allowed to speak before the body.

Okay, that action shall be taken.

We will now move to the new business agenda from the law department.

Councilmember Santiago Romero, an introduction of an ordinance, line item 24.1.

Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Before I turn it over to Member Durr, whose um ordinance this is um for other PHS items.

Uh, would like to request a waiver on 22 points 15 and 22.16 what were those numbers again, ma'am.

22.15 and 22.16.

There's request for waivers for line items 22.15 and 22.16.

Excuse me, and 22.17.

As well as 22.17.

Any objection.

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Mr.

President.

Uh member Johnson.

Uh thank you.

I would like to request a waiver on line item 19.38, which is the compensation for the detention facility officers.

That's a request for a waiver on line item 19.38, colleagues.

Any objection?

Seeing none, a waiver should be attached.

Thank you, Mr.

Presidents, and I will yield to Member Durhal.

Member Durho.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh move that the ordinance be read twice by title order printed and laid on the table.

Are there any objections, colleagues?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

For the president's report on standing committee referrals and other matters from the budget finance.

Oh, did I miss one?

Yes, there is another line item associated with the ordinance set in the public hearing.

Oh, madam clerk.

Councilmember Durhal, a resolution set in a public hearing.

Line item 24.2.

Uh there it is.

Member Durhal.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh move to set a public hearing uh Monday, this upcoming Monday at 11 a.m.

I'm sorry, Monday, the 24th at 11 a.m.

There's a motion for a public hearing for the date as mentioned by member Durrhal for line item 24.2.

Any objection?

No.

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Member Waters.

Thank you.

I just want to ask.

Um, I thought the um my recommendation from Monday, I think it was, would be in here.

The three strikes you're out.

It hasn't been amended yet.

Who's the director to?

Through the chair.

Those amendments were made to uh council member waters.

I don't see.

Um I can make sure you receive a copy.

I certainly saw a corporation council sign the amended copy myself.

Okay, all right, because this is okay.

This is not the amended copy then that I have.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now for the president's report on standing committee referrals.

Mr.

President, you you want to do a walk-on?

We do have a walk-on, or you want to do it after your referrals.

Uh I didn't know we had a walk-on.

We have a walking on their calendar for the 2020 the 2026 year.

Walking on the resolution to approve the city council calendar.

Okay.

Does everyone have a copy?

Discussion.

Don't we also have something?

Hold on one second.

We do have that.

But does everyone have a copy of the calendar?

Okay.

Discussion.

With discussion, member Johnson.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

President.

Was that not included in the item in IOS?

The calendar?

Yes.

This calendar right here with the revised one had not been voted on yet.

It should have been, but it mistakenly got missed.

So we're walking in on today.

And just for clarity, that's not the item that Mr.

Whitaker and I were were discussing when we talked about when items were being referred and when it would be open.

Oh, okay.

I had that all together.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues, is there a motion to walk on to new business uh for vote line?

Excuse me, the walk-on for the 2026 Detroit City Council calendar.

So move.

See no objections.

We shall walk this on for new business.

That's the only one.

Um, Mr.

President.

So then now we walked in on.

So council member Johnson, a resolution.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh move for approval for the walk-on.

There's a motion to approve the 2026 Detroit City Council calendar that has been walked on.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

And I believe we do have line item 21.30.

Already, yes, Mr.

We must revisit.

Uh is there a motion to discuss line item 21.30 college.

Seeing no objections, we shall discuss line item 21.30.

Um member Johnson, there was a question regarding the uh CLT provision within the MOU to determine if it uh comports with what is currently uh available for CL for community.

You know, I'm gonna allow thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So through yourself to Member Johnson, uh subsection three community land trust.

There are a number of discounts for qualifying CLTs.

Are these discounts any different from what's um currently available for community partners?

Uh through you, Mr.

President, to member Benson.

That's a great question.

I know the breakdown for community land trust.

I don't necessarily know the breakdown for community partners.

It was based on the type of development um that was being done by the community land trust as to what the percentage was, but it's between 50 and 80 percent of fair market value.

But through yourself, Mr.

Chair to the administration is anybody available from the DLBA through the chair.

Yes, sir.

We do have Director Daniels online.

Okay, we can uh promote her, please.

Good evening, uh CEO Daniels.

Good evening.

Uh didn't know if you heard the question.

We can certainly uh restate it if necessary.

Um I did hear the question asking if the discounts being offered to the CLTs were different from community partners.

Um actually the discounts that were offering to the CLTs, um, as council member Johnson indicated is based on the type of projects, and it is the same discounts that we do offer to individuals, any nonprofit that is doing that type of work.

So up to 80 percent for affordable housing projects.

Okay, thank you.

All right, colleagues.

Is there a motion for line item 21.30?

Motion motion to approve.

There's a motion to approve line item 21.30.

Any objections?

Objection.

Noting one objection by member waters.

Okay.

That action shall be approved.

Okay, we are now we still got there.

We go for the president's report on standing committees referrals and other matters from the budget, finance, and audit standing committee.

Two reports from the office of contracting and procurement.

The two reports will be referred to the budget finance and audit standing committee for the internal operations standing committee.

Eleven reports from various city departments.

Seven reports from various city departments, seven reports will be referred to the neighborhood and community services standing committee for the planning and economic development standing committee.

Five reports from various city departments.

Five reports would be referred to the planning and economic development standing committee for the public health and safety standing committee.

Mr.

President, there are 21 reports from various city departments.

However, we have a request from the OCP to remove line item 30.16.

There is a motion to remove line item 30.16 with discussion.

Member Benson.

What's the reason for the removal?

Mr.

President.

Uh member Santiago Romero.

We were told that it was submitted prematurely and needs to go through CIAT's process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So there's a motion again to remove line item 30.16 from the agenda.

Any objections, colleagues?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

So Mr.

President, there will be 20 reports from various city departments.

The 20 reports shall be referred to the public health and safety committee under the consent agenda.

There are no items, Mr.

President.

Is there a motion to suspend amendment reports?

Motion.

See no objections that action shall be taken.

Under adoption without community committee reference.

There are no items, Mr.

President.

Under communications from the clerk.

A report on approval proceedings by the mayor.

The report will be received in place on file under testimonial resolution and special privileges.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Move for approval.

Yes.

Yeah.

So that's 35.1, 35.2, as well as 35.3.

Move for approval.

There's a motion to approve the items as noted.

Seeing no objections, an action shall be taken.

There being no further business to come before this body.

Mr.

President.

Mr.

Whittaker.

I don't know if you want to go back to this, but you did indicate you wanted to find out when the teamsters might expect a check.

Thank you.

Okay, um, Mr.

Washington.

Let's get somebody out of the bed.

Through the chair, I do see Ms.

Colbert is still online.

Okay, let's go back to some way day.

Through the chair, I do see she is a panelist.

I'm not sure she might have stepped away from her device.

Okay.

Miss Mr.

President President, while we wait for Ms.

Colbert, I believe we also talked about asking Director Clifton to come on to speak about the stop log system or flood mitigation.

Mr.

Washington, do you have uh Mr.

Clifton available as well to address that question that Member Johnson just raised?

Through the chair, I believe he may have jumped off.

So if you give me just a moment, uh member young, as we wait for the uh two speakers, my staff did reach out to the uh teens or secretary treasurer and uh to also talk to uh the uh HR director at D star and stated that the teams just receive their pay increase on 1212 25 prior to Christmas.

Uh she said they are working on trying to get it to them sooner, but cannot promise that.

So 1212 for certain.

Thank you, Member Young, for that information we still wait for Mr.

Washington, yes, Mr.

Clifton is about to join now.

Okay.

When he arrives, we shall promote him has uh miss colbert on some way arrived yet, sir through the chair.

Um, I do see her still on as a panelist, but I have not received a response just yet.

Um about them pissed at eight in a row.

How about them lions?

Yes, it will get past the playoffs first.

That's real.

Yes, sir.

Um Tyrone Clifton has joined.

Mr.

Clifton, you see yourself on the screen.

Please introduce yourself for the record.

Don't be shy at 55.

Hello, uh the chair, Tyrone Clifton, director, Detroit Building Authority.

Good evening.

I don't know if you've been monitoring the uh session thus far, but we can certainly uh repeat the question uh that is directed towards you if you would like.

Yes, please could you repeat?

I just logged back in.

All right, thank you.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, good evening, Director Clifton.

I know we've been communicating uh via email in regards to this, but there were uh a couple of questions brought forward during public comment indicating that the Detroit Building Authority had received some funding for flood a flood mitigation study.

Um can you share with the community if you have received flood mitigation dollars either from uh the city if DB the DBA has utilized any of its own resources towards a flood mitigation study?

Um through the chair, uh thank you, Council Member Johnson.

Uh no, we have not received any funds for flood mitigation.

Um, as uh been communicating with your office earlier today.

We've had uh a handful of things.

Uh I want to be very clear about this.

We had three items come up to city council for approval related to flood mitigation and flood studies, um, and they were not supported.

So we have not received uh funds for any flood studies that were we would want to do.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um member Young.

Would it be appropriate for us to be able to declare an emergency or use emergency funds to be able to provide a study for that and the funds required so we could get this project moved?

I would just hate for us to not be able to get this project moving.

We god forbid have another flood or something that happens in this community.

Through the chair, that would not be through Tyrone Clifton.

Um obviously that would be through this honorable body for the for that decision to be made.

Could I do that, Mr.

Whitaker?

You think or no?

Do you know who I would ask?

That's executive.

Was that executive?

Okay.

So so if I was gonna do that legislative, it'd just probably be through non-binding resolution, right?

All right.

All right, thank you.

I see we uh okay.

I'll talk to you after we get up out of here.

All right, thank you.

Uh, for our last speaker, uh, may have Ms.

Cobert Osamoide.

Yeah.

The floor is yours, ma'am.

I motion.

Okay.

I did find out from um our HRS, our H RIS team.

So as it relates to the Teamsters, their rates will be adjusted on November 28th.

They will come on the just the November 28th check, and the retro of the following pay period, which will be December 12th.

Okay.

Okay.

That sounds like the answer that we were looking for.

Colleagues, uh, any additional business before us?

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion.

See no objections, that action shall be taken.

This meeting is adjourned.