The budget finance and audit standing committee for today, March 23rd, 2026.

Good morning, Madam Clerk.

Morning.

Will you please call the role?

Absolutely.

Council President James Tate.

Yep.

Council President Pro Tim Coleman Young.

Here.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway.

Councilmember Mary Waters.

Present.

Councilmember Gabriela Santiago Romero.

Present.

Councilmember Miller.

Member Miller indicated that she would not be present for today.

So her absence is excused.

Quirk will note.

Councilmember Denzel McCampbell.

President.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

President.

Councilmember Scott Benson.

That's nine.

Mr.

Chair, you have quorum.

Thank you.

We have a quorum, which means we're now in session.

We will start off with our first budget hearing of the day, and that is with the law department.

Corporation counsel and your team, please come down.

Get to the table.

Please feel free to introduce yourself and your team.

And the floor is yours to present.

Madam Clerk, if you can please note that we've been joined by Member Callaway.

The clerk will note.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr.

President.

Good morning.

Hit that button in front of you to the red turns green.

My name is Conrad Mallet, Corporation Council of the City of Detroit.

Seated next to me is Ms.

Tanya Long, my chief of staff, as well as the uh supervising attorney over over the governmental affairs division.

Uh the rest of my team, Graham, Crystal, Diamond, Ramsey, and Ron are all here as well.

And with that, Mr.

President, we can begin.

Okay.

So your PowerPoint has been queued up.

It has.

So, Mr.

President, we will start with the mission statement of the law department.

We are, as you know, a charter mandated independent department that strives to deliver exceptional and efficient legal counsel and representation to the constituent branches of the government, to the various units, and to the various agencies.

Organized by division, we start with our appeals division.

This is a small but mighty group of three attorneys.

We represent the City of Detroit in all civil and criminal appeals up through the United States Supreme Court.

We have 30 appeals currently, Mr.

President, that are open and being managed by that group.

We have a specialized tax appeals division, the major vast majority of which are going to be commercial tax disputes.

211 of those were managed by this group in 2025.

This is the team, Mr.

President, that manages as well all of the casino tax uh uh litigation that is currently uh remaining ongoing.

We then move over to the Blight Division, and you will see that there are 192 Blight cases that are open.

And I would remind this honorable body that there are only seven lawyers in the Blight Division.

These men and women are handling on average 27 cases, 27 open cases uh uh apiece.

We have 159 currently, we have 19 cases on appeal, 24 business closure cases, and then these are important.

Uh BC and DPD regularly go out on the weekend, Mr.

President.

Uh they particularly look for unlicensed businesses or businesses that might be uh uh selling material uh that our young people don't need.

Uh closure then requests come in on Monday, averaging about 15 or 16 each Monday morning.

Uh this is a very, very busy group.

These are very, very important uh cases, particularly as it affects the neighborhood uh quality of life.

We have 60 uh commercial nucleus abatement cases.

Uh councilperson Callaway, unfortunately, I can only report 13 cost recovery uh cases.

We have 19 FOIA cases.

These are, Mr.

President, where persons claim that what we have done is not served them adequately in getting their information that they've requested in a timely manner.

We have 34 cases of residential nuisance abuse uh uh abatement and nine cases for show cause, largely for when the city of Detroit is not a party to the case, but they want to have participate in their particular cause of action, a member of our city government who has not responded uh uh by his or her own motion to the subpoena that they've received.

I want to take a quick second uh to again acknowledge for this legislative body uh and call particular note to councilperson Callaway.

Uh it looks like real token, at least if you read the newspapers on the verge of bankruptcy.

I think that were that proven to be true, the City of Detroit would have a have uh be able to take a large amount of responsibility for that.

We set up with uh UCHC a very, very, very vigorous, well-run escrow program, which currently has in it almost 750,000 available to repair the homes that the uh uh real token tenants are currently living in.

I'm hoping to come to this body, if not this week next, with a final consent agreement where uh a receiver takes over the uh uh repair program that we know that has to take place.

Uh I don't think this body would all be a surprise to learn that about 50 of these homes in fact have to be uh demolished.

And I would point out to you that there are people living in these 50 homes that have to be demolished.

We are moving them out as fast as we can, but this is a very complex case, uh, and I think that uh uh the team led by uh Tamra York Cook has done a phenomenal job.

19327 West Chicago is there as an example of a couple of things.

These are hard cases to win.

We have been dealing with 12327, uh 1932 7 uh Chicago since 2023.

Uh this is an old convent located across the street from a school.

Uh it used to be uh run by the Samaritan Group as a veteran transitions housing.

Samaritan stepped away, stepped away, sold the property.

It then became an office building.

The neighborhood was quite satisfied with that.

Then it got sold into, and I don't want to name the names of the persons particularly, but what I will say, uh Councilperson Waters, many of the same people associated with this particular address, in fact are uh uh uh uh a part of our deed fraud uh investigation that's currently going on with the Register of Deeds and with DPD.

Uh so you can see that there is some commonality uh associated with this.

900 West McNichols is just an example of a business closure, and you can see that what we are focused on are those organizations, according to DPD, particularly, who are selling alcohol uh to minors.

The next is our criminal enforcement and quality of life.

These are where our ordinance violations are handled, uh, speeding tickets, so on and so forth.

264,636.

You can see that there are also cases that we handle uh uh uh with a memorand of understanding uh uh under the auspices of the Wayne County prosecutor.

Uh we are continuing to work on building up that division as we approach uh this next uh budget year.

Uh there was the ordinance passed by this honorable body, which we are uh intending to make sure that it's enforced in an organized manner at the least amount uh of cost uh possible.

We then go on to uh the division that Ms.

Long leads, and you will see that this group very, very, very busy.

You all are the beneficiaries of some of their work on a regular basis as it relates to ordinance uh creation, but you will see that they handle the third-party subpoenas, they handle the responses to uh FOIA appeals uh and largely uh the liaison between the City of Detroit, uh, the law department and this honorable body.

This is an essential service, and as I indicated last year, uh this team handled 760 different projects.

We then go to the Freedom of Information Act.

And if you saw this weekend, you saw that the State of Michigan uh is already engaged in using artificial intelligence uh to handle some of their FOIA uh issues.

We had 11,752.

That number continues uh to grow.

We have our artificial intelligence project uh going.

Uh once we get that stood up, uh hopefully we can come back to this body, get an adjustment as it relates to fees, because as you saw, part of the reason that the State of Michigan's uh FOIA program was in the newspaper was that they were charging for software services, basically work that was being done by the computer, as if it was being done by uh regular state employees, and the persons thought they were being overcharged.

We'll certainly, when the time comes, take a look at that.

Our labor and employment division uh is currently handling 64 cases.

I will say the good news for this legislative body is that the number of supervisor versus employee harassment cases has gone down.

This is employee to employee.

Uh this honorable body regularly asks what is the law department doing with training.

I think that some of the training that we have done has in fact penetrated with the supervisors.

Uh we still have work to do uh with some of our uh non-supervisor colleagues.

Workers' compensation speaks for itself.

We have 28 of those cases currently going.

We have the largest litigation group uh in in the state of Michigan.

Uh currently we're handling 388 lawsuits.

Last year we settled 161, and we had 28 lawsuits that were dismissed.

You can see that in terms of the claims, uh no fault in general liability.

Um I do think, as I've said to some of you before, that with the raise in pay that we have gotten for the D DOT bus drivers, we have also gotten a higher quality of driver.

I think that the incidence at D DOT cases will go down.

Uh I know the chief uh is particularly focused on making sure that uh all of the DPD officers obey both the policy and the ordinance as it relates to uh uh uh driving in their cars.

Those have gone down slightly, uh, and we hope that we continue to see uh that downward trend.

Uh if you look at it, I do want to point out that often, and I know that uh last year when I came uh up here and my team was here, uh, there were questions about does the law does the law department settle all of its cases, and the answer is no.

But it certainly sometimes feels that way, I expect uh from this honorable body.

Uh I just want to point out that we fight often, we fight hard, and we often win.

If you look at Arnold versus City of Detroit, uh that was a uh summary judgment on behalf of the city.

We avoided there a uh $400,000, that was a jury verdict, uh, and we had a $400,000 exposure.

Wolf versus the City of Detroit is very important.

This was a case, Mr.

President, where you had landlords who were being paid by the federal government and the state of Michigan directly for the rent owed them by their tenants.

What uh the administration had required was was that before you participated in this program that you bring your rental property up to code.

These uh landlords chose not to participate in that program, believing that uh the imposition of the requirement that you bring the property up to code was a violation of their constitutional rights.

Uh they were uh dismissed based on uh not having standing, and initially uh demanded from the City of Detroit 20 million dollars.

This was a huge victory uh for us.

It didn't get a lot of press, but it was a very, very important uh demonstration of what the law department is capable of.

In Khalil versus Wilson, summary judgment reverse conviction case.

Uh in uh Chancellor versus Gill Hood, another summary judgment in a reverse conviction case, and then Williams versus Rose.

If you look at the uh costs associated with Khalil versus Wilson, this was an expensive case for us to to manage, but nevertheless, uh had we lost the demand from the uh Mr.

Khalil was in excess of five million dollars.

The 198,000 that we spent in defense, particularly as it relates for the prison call review and uh Arab translation services, though expensive, uh proved very, very, very uh cost effective.

Our TED Division uh works extremely hard.

You all know that.

You approve every single contract that comes through the TED Division, and every single contract that comes to this body comes through uh that group of men and women.

Uh they have participated in all 15 of the significant affordable housing loan deals, that Sanctuary, that's Brewster, that's Clement Kearns.

Uh they have worked diligently uh on the Lee Plaza, and uh rumor has it that the Fisher Building, uh Fisher plant deal is finally uh closed.

Uh I drove by there this weekend.

If that once that deal finally is closed and work begins, a whole area right off I-75 is in 994 is going to come back uh to light.

The TED Division was directly participatory along with HRD, obviously, in that particular work.

We had 30 directly negotiated land purchase agreements and assisted in 30 more.

Also, just remember with Ted, you also had the Joe Lewis Greenway, you had the airport mini-take.

You finally had the successful reuse of the Uniroyal plant site, the implementation of the pilot program, and the DCFC Stadium deal, which was the sale to the football club of the old Southwest Hospital, then the demolition, then the clearance, and then all of the financing necessary to build the stadium.

Very complex deal.

This body is intimately familiar with it, and Ted was a part of that transaction every step of the way.

And that is in addition to the various general counsel work that we do on behalf of some of our department colleagues.

We had 20,370 files open.

We provided representation to 16,296.

And unfortunately, 4,074 persons, because of uh income uh restrictions, were not eligible for representation.

We are assisted in that process again by our great partner, United Community Housing, Lakeshore Legal, Michigan Legal Services, Legal Aid and Defender, Neighborhood Defender.

And here is, I think, a very, very important statistic that our executive director, Diamond Connolly is particularly proud of.

8,600 of the tenants that were represented actually were able to stay in their homes.

We do have the indigent defense services that we run per grant from the state of Michigan.

And if you can look at the intensity of the work that this team provides, we did 10,343 in custody interviews.

We were arraignment counsel in 82,824.

And the number of cases, not necessarily number of clients, but the number of cases, 119,000.

There just is a lot of work to be done to steer people away from contact with law enforcement.

Cummings McClory, Nathan and Kaminsky, Plunkett and Cooney Cooney, Seward and Peck and McDonald, McDonald and Bass largely provide for us reverse conviction support.

Foster and Swift in the person of Dora Brantley, a really very brilliant employment lawyer, handle some of our more complex uh employment cases.

David Fink, longtime former member of the law department, is very involved in our census work, very involved in dealing with uh the election commission work.

Uh we are re-energizing for what we know to be a very difficult election season coming.

Our relationship with Floyd Allen is particularly important.

He supplies labor relations services for us as well as doing much, much more of our cost collection work, uh, particularly as it relates to the the case involving Motor City Law.

Melvin Jefferson, this is just something that was an important addition to the high quality work that I think the team provided with the solar project.

Here, Melvin actually provided probate services when you had the son or the daughter living in the house that the mom had left him or the dad had left him and hadn't gone through probate and it wasn't in their name.

Riven Oak was our energy council and they just really do a phenomenal job for us in terms of the intimacy with which they know uh that particular area of the law.

The Miller Law Firm is handling a particularly difficult litigation case for us right now, uh Storic District Commission versus Nicolette.

Tim Devine, Tim used to be the general counsel for uh the Detroit Land Bank and has been particularly helpful for us as we have had to gear up for the for the Gyanga uh uh litigation.

L Hart Consulting, this is a structural engineer uh who has done a workforce with the Detroit Medical Center.

Uh this isn't something that got quietly done under the radar, but 20 million dollars worth of parking structure improvements were done as a result of the law department in partnership uh uh with uh my former colleagues over at the DMC.

Uh as you would expect, however, no entity is anxious to spend uh 20 million dollars.

We were able to get that done.

Uh and lastly, I would just simply say, Mr.

President, uh that the law department remains very, very, very busy.

Uh we are we are doing good work.

Uh we have not expanded the number of lawyers uh uh in a in any number of years.

Uh and I think that uh I know that it it in my judgment, which of course is biased, I think we're doing some of our best work.

And with that, Mr.

President, the law department is prepared to take questions.

All right.

We shall now begin with questions starting with Member Santiago Romero.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Good morning to the law of departments.

Thank you for being here.

Um appreciate the work that we do and really have not heard regarding Lelands.

Want to take the opportunity to ask if they have any updates regarding Leland.

So so I I I am delighted to report that we had a very successful mediation session with Judge Popke on Thursday of last week.

Uh I had hoped to go into with my colleagues into bankruptcy court on that next day, Friday to uh uh present to Judge Oxhome the uh final uh mediated settlement.

Uh councilperson, uh Dennis Foley, who is the uh uh counsel uh for the tenants union, could not get his clients together to get them to approve it, so we could not enter it in.

I am hoping today that we will be able to, by stipulated order, have the mediation agreement that was struck Thursday entered into the court today.

So I think that we have a settlement.

I think that uh councilperson, you'll be very pleased uh by uh some of the direct support given to the tenants by the owner pursuant to this agreement, and I think we have a very organized way for them to retrieve their belongings, and I think that we can get all of that work done uh in an organized manner in the next 30 days if it gets approved today.

Through the chair, thank you.

Um thank you.

I appreciate that.

We will continue to check in as well with the tenants.

Um but my next question is how again can we avoid this from happening?

There were conversations around working with B seed um to identify properties that might be at risk of having this happen as well.

Where are we in that process?

I know that me member Johnson talked about supporting in that in those conversations.

We are in budget now, but April 7th, we should be good to go.

Um wondering have those plans started yet.

Um, if not, that might be uh a closing resolution that we can make um that we begin to really work through.

Um plans to protect tenants.

So just wondering have those conversations started with BC.

Yes, ma'am, they have.

We've identified 15 properties.

We've been in conversation also with the health department.

Uh we have a plan where what we're going to do based on the number of tickets that's been issued by BC to these commercial, excuse me, to these multi-residential uh facilities, is to go in with the owner, uh take a look at all of the various uh tickets that have been issued and all of the requirements to bring the building into compliance, have public health with us at the same time to do a public health assessment.

And either we can councilperson enter into a consent agreement with the owner to bring those buildings up to code within a precise period of time, or we're going to begin a uh a lawsuit against them, and we're going to begin uh in anticipation that the building at some point will be ordered closed to begin in an orderly manner saying to the tenants, you have options, you should take them now, you should begin to move out of this building because at some point it's going to be closed.

So, yes, ma'am, we've started that process, uh, and and I think it's going to be uh particularly the participation of the health department uh is going to be quite helpful.

Through the chair, good to hear.

Um, and I think that's part of the process.

I think there's also opportunity then to not just leave the apartments or or the buildings empty.

Um I believe there's an opportunity then for the city.

I could there then be opportunity for the city to take over the property and create housing for people.

I think that's a larger conversation that's gonna take a lot of resources, a lot more planning, but I think that's another piece of this conversation that that we can have.

Um to see this also an opportunity and to again plan ahead.

Um and quite frankly, I would rather us plan ahead to a point where we're not taking property that at this point is going to be demolished or is gonna require millions of dollars to upkeep.

Um again, I I believe if we stay ahead of the game, if we see a problem property, um I would just like us to be a little bit more proactive in in how we conserve our properties and and protect our tenants.

Um happy to hear that you're having those conversations now with B seed.

I think what I'll do is for closing resolution, um, because this is really a priority um for us.

Um trying to think of the language here, Mr.

President.

I think just for closing resolution, um notes of the law department working with BC D and the health departments um to proactively maintain our public properties.

I'll leave it at that.

We can work on the language um and whatever that task force looks like or whatever that the the body of work looks like.

But for now, that is my motion.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion on the floor, noting that it will be provided in writing.

Uh for further clarification, any objections?

Discussion with discussion, Member McCampbell.

Uh member Santeo Goromero, if I can join you on that.

Yes, sir.

All right, Ms.

Corley, if you can note, colleagues, any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Presidents.

Um we have so much work that we're working on now, making sure that we're taking care of our residents and that we are holding other people accountable, like Munoz and others.

I I say this because there are people wondering what we're doing.

We're working on these things.

So uh councilperson, I can I can say that uh Mr.

Munoz contacted us last week.

He indicated along with BC that he has a hundred properties that are not currently occupied that will this week or next receive their certificates of compliance, and he's working with HRD to have those properties that will have their certificates of compliance uh occupied by families in need.

Uh this comes at a particularly important time as we're trying to relocate real real token uh tenants into more high quality uh housing.

So uh I think that the the efforts of this body uh are are really beginning to produce fruit.

And I would also add council person in your closing resolution, think about involving Detroit Housing Commission.

They are designed to own and manage as opposed to HRD, and it might be an opportunity to see what their participation could look like, and perhaps we could expand their jurisdiction by making a contribution to them, which would give them authority over the because this is all they do, and and my argument might be that maybe they would do it better.

Through the chair.

I I've had those similar thoughts, and we're having those conversations, so yes, we can also include them.

Um and just want to make a note for Munoz.

Happy to hear that he's getting their certificates, just want to make sure that we are verifying that the property they're safe.

Um I've I still hear too many terrible stories of Munoz taking advantage of families, especially those that are undocumented.

And we still have uh uh uh an open lawsuit uh with them, uh councilperson.

So it's not like he he's gotten away or anything like that.

Very much still uh in our side.

Correct.

Thank you, us us as well.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Member Callaway.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good morning, everyone.

Good morning.

Thank you, um, corporation council for your leadership.

Um thank you to your staff.

Um thank you for the work that you've done on the um real token.

Um whole fiasco when I brought it to your attention.

Um we didn't know that it's now up to 700 properties.

I I read just recently that it's 700 properties and they are filing bankruptcy, and I'm glad that they're filing bankruptcy.

But my question is, and I I submitted some questions on March the 12th.

So I won't go over those today.

So while listening to you, I have several others, and I'll submit them in writing, but I we um I can I can ask two at the table and I'll send the other ones.

Um with respect to um real token filing bankruptcy and us having to incur the cost of demolishing 50 um properties.

I think you said, is that an escrow?

Because I think you gave me a figure of 750,000 dollars.

Is that money that's in the escrow?

Yes.

So are we going to use, I don't know if the judge will allow us, I don't know.

I've been trying to follow it.

But is there a possibility that we can I know we talked about putting a lien on whatever the um John Mark and Remy Jacobson have?

What about the cost of um demolishing the 50 properties that the city will have to incur a rich um up front?

So the 750,000 council person, as I'm sure uh uh you are you would insist, go into uh tenant housing uh uh um redevelopment.

So it rehabilitation.

So that's not gonna be available to the city of Detroit when it comes to uh costs associated with uh being demolished.

We will, if they actually do file for bankruptcy, list ourselves uh as a creditor.

Uh we do have uh uh uh a case, frankly, that I authored.

Uh uh uh the Walker case, which allows us to go after in certain circumstances, the uh and these these limited to tax, but we should try to expand it.

Uh tax foreclosure, but we should try to expand it, go after the personal assets of the Jacobson brothers as it relates for this for cost reimbursement for the city of Detroit.

So uh yes, ma'am.

Uh the escrow dollars are only for the tenants.

That's their that's essentially their money uh as it relates to the houses that they live in.

Um we would incur the cost of demolition in the normal course, but we would be a creditor.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, so thank you for that.

Um my second question goes to FOIA.

You said there's 7,052 requests, and that you've been using AI.

No.

Oh there's 11,752 requests, yes, ma'am.

And and we have got we got an award last year, Mrs.

Long, of some amount of money to introduce AI as a solution.

Uh, and we are working through uh uh that project now and hope to introduce it uh as I understand it from the newspaper article that I read, State of Michigan is in front of us and they are using AI as a part of their FOIA uh collection of information uh system, and so we're gonna uh take advantage of what we now know they know uh for our project and see if we can speed ourselves along.

Okay, thank you so much, sir.

And I I ask that because we've been having AI conversation discussed ad nauseum for the last two weeks, every day we've been um listening to AI.

And um, so I am going to ask that maybe you can help.

I don't even know if it's appropriate, Mr.

Chair, but we need to put the whole conversation of AI and our roll out of it as a city.

I went to the National League of Cities last week in DC, and that's all they were talking about, how some municipalities are already incorporating it, incorporating it, the use of AI in a more uniform, non-fragmented manner.

What's happening with the city, which I'm seeing is fragmented.

You're using it, the department of neighborhoods used it on benounced to this council last year.

Um I think it was rolled out in two of our districts.

I remember hearing it was rolled out in district four, and I do believe it was used in district three.

And um, so I was surprised, and they also had our city logo on their document, these these um this company.

So I'm asking um from I don't know if I need a legal opinion, but we need to put this in the I'm gonna make a motion that it goes the whole discussion goes into the closing resolution because as a city, each department should not be rolling out AI in a fragmented manner.

You know what I mean?

Just to protect ourselves, there needs to be some processes, processes, procedures, and policies in place with the use of AI, so it's not used in a fragmented patchwork type of way, and that's what's happening.

Um some departments are using it this way, you're using it this way, but there needs to be some type of standard or uniform process with the use of it with permission.

So it would have to be in the closing resolution, the law department and IT involved, so we can make sure the safeguards are in place, and that's what they're doing across the country and other cities, and not rolling it out in such a um fragmented patchwork type of um manner.

So um that was my question.

Um with your use of AI, that's great.

Um, but we still need some type of policy in place to make sure that the safeguards are in place if we are going to use it as a city or certain departments.

So thank you for that um corporation council.

But that is um for closing resolution, um, Mr.

Chair, that we put that whole conversation into the closing resolution with respect to how the city rolls out in a legal manner, AI and not and and in a more uniform, standardized um cohesive type of manner, if that makes sense.

But that needs to go into closing resolution, and I hope that you'll help us tailor our message so we're not all over the place like it sounds like we are.

Um, and thank you so much, um, corporation council.

Mr.

Chair, that is my um motion for closing resolution.

Thank you so much.

There is a motion on the floor, colleagues, uh with discussion.

Uh member pro tem you.

Thank you, uh Mr.

President.

It just boils my heart over there when we're talking about artificial intelligence.

I really appreciate that.

I appreciate that.

Member Callaway, what you brought up.

No, but but what you're saying all seriously knows is is a serious point, and I think that we should have it in a more centralized fashion.

I I I was just asking, would you be open to also expanding that conversation, not just to artificial intelligence, but also to um the smart cities and the internet of things, so we can have a broader conversation about all that technology together, because all of it is connected the internet of things, the cloud of things, the robotics, 3D printing, all of that is connected and they all connect together.

And so I was wondering, would you be uh be open by having a broader conversation about all that to connect it, or did you just want to kind of keep it with the artificial intelligence piece for now?

Through the chair, may I?

Yes, ma'am.

I'd rather keep it a narrow focus on AI because to me that kind of complicates it.

The way that I've recommended, and I still would like to work with you on the other topic as well.

Absolutely.

Mr.

Chair, thank you.

If I may just respond with further discussion, pro Tim Yeah.

No, no, and and and and that's fine.

The the reason why I'm saying it is case artificial intelligence count.

I think the only other industry where it has an impact on every other industry like that is energy.

And so the reason why I'm saying that is because it just connects with so many different things.

You want to make sure that you have something that's broad and encompassing for technology in the future.

But I definitely think that and usually through smart cities, you would start it out with a challenge.

That's not a called challenge rate anymore, but you get a grant from the federal government.

That money's not available now.

So there is discussion about governance and laws.

I think that would probably be better too after discussion.

We had it through ordinance, and I have some drawn up.

So I'll talk to you more about it in the future in terms of how you want to do it, but or maybe like through an authority or through a coordinated council or something of that nature.

So I'll talk to you more about it.

But I just want to get that gist of it is to let you know the broadness and the scope of all the things they touch you.

So the chair.

Thank you.

I'm done.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Um Pro Tem.

I would love to work work with you on that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

And further discussion, I know that there was uh in the collection of bills approved by uh Congress and signed into law.

Um big beautiful bills, uh, there was some prohib uh uh prohibition on regulating AI in some capacity.

Yeah.

Um so we need to make sure that that is also kept in in consideration as we move forward, um, noting what we uh are allowed to do, what we are not allowed to do based on federal law, where we can go right up to the edges of things um without crossing over and becoming in violation.

I think that needs to be part of the discussion conversation.

Um, and I think that's what we should have, like a real discussion.

I know the closing resolution really gives our intent of things and where we wanted to go, but uh, I know at some point we're gonna have to have that conversation.

I know the director Thompson uh mentioned that he was looking to bring uh policies our way as well.

So I would love to hear more about how we uh what we're looking to do matches up with what the federal law allows us to do, and while our hearts and desires may want to do certain things, there may be some level of prohibition.

I just want to kind of make sure we level set and keep that in mind as well.

Discussion.

Um with further discussion, Member Calloway.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

And the reason why I brought that up and um and requesting that it goes into closing resolution because of my um the sessions that I attended last week in Washington DC.

Um they're using several cities across the nation are using um AI with respect to public safety um and um in ways that we're not using it, but they're using it very uh um expansively in cities that are near Detroit, so and states near Michigan.

So they it's being used.

And so that's why I'm glad that we're gonna put it in closing uh in the closing resolution um to further discuss it and also um to know to make sure that we are not going to violate any federal laws, which I don't think we will because some of our departments are already using AI.

Uh we know that to be true, and we've seen evidence of that with some of the presentations that have been provided to this honorable body.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

And just for for clarification, I support the the the motion.

It's just again ensuring that we keep in mind that there are potential guardrails that we have to uh abide by along this journey because there are some things that I've seen uh that I don't like and I don't want.

Um but there may be a prohibition for us to uh keep that away from the city of Detroit.

Discussion, Mr.

Chair.

And this is my then we will be voting on this motion.

Yeah.

Because again, it sounds like we're all on the same page.

We are.

But and I would also recommend um, Mr.

Chair, that perhaps a part of the closing resolution is to require training.

I know some departments are are training their people.

Um I'm going to be having a training, and I know some other department has have had provided training for their staff, so maybe we can do, you know, require all of our employees, the 11,000 employees that I understand we have to go through some type of training that we are all going to um have to take.

So we all understand it.

But thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

With further discussion, Member McCampbell.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

I one, I agree that there needs to be an overall conversational AI and the use of it.

And Member Culloway, if I can join you on this.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Corley, if you can know, colleagues, there's a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you.

Member Benson.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

So my question is going to start with misdemeanor court.

So or the prosecutions rather, a misdemeanor ordinance, which talked about how we're going to start using the prosecution, the Mars Cruiser's department for the City of Detroit.

Talk about that, talk about where we are, and then let's talk about how that has impacted the health safety and welfare of our residents, because it was direct support of the Wayne County prosecutor as well.

So council person through uh uh President uh Tate.

Uh we're working to hire the persons necessary uh to do that work uh once this budget gets passed, number one.

Uh number two, I do think it's important to note for this honorable body that we have got to take a look within the confines of the budget that we currently have, how we are going to continue to provide felony arraignment services.

Uh that was an ARPRA funded uh project, which we believe had great uh uh impact, uh just to be sure that as our indigenous friends were represented uh uh through the law department program paid for by the State of Michigan, that there was balance uh before the magistrate.

The magistrate obviously made the decision, but I will say that more tethers were uh uh put in place.

Uh uh more confinement to home uh was put in place in anticipation of various court hearings per se.

Uh we've got to look at maintaining some level of felony arraignment present presence uh in 36D on a regular basis so that an imbalance uh is not created while at the same time we go forward uh with the uh prosecutions associated with the ordinance passed by this body uh uh this past year.

Uh we believe that we're going to be able to do this work within the confines of the budget that we currently have and and look forward to some of the cross-training uh that's gonna have to occur with the men and women who currently work at 36D along with the new persons uh that we intend to hire.

But I think that with what this honorable body can be assured of is that uh the work will go forward uh and we will come back uh very early in the process to indicate to this honorable body how we are distributing the resources so that we're that the coverage that you all expect takes place.

Okay, and then just looking at your budget, we talk about 1.765 as proposed revenue to the general fund.

Then looking at where does the do misdemeanor ordinance fall on that as far as the ability to generate revenue, and then where do the actual attorneys and cost of that department and their hire fall within the budget because I'm looking at your FTEs.

I don't see anything that specifically addresses prosecution.

Yes, sir.

Through the chair, member Benson.

And we believe that we have the personnel to stand up that program or continue that program appropriately with the number of individuals that we have.

We we would not have had a um this is for prosecution.

What we have is this is how many seniors you we identify, this is how many um assistant corporation counsels we identify.

We have an org chart that identifies where each one of those positions land.

Currently the eight people who are working in that area are tasked, and so this is just moving them into an FTE position within the overall budget.

Okay.

And it would be helpful to be able to look into the budget and identify where they're going, and that obviously is going to take a modification of what we see here, but our ability to look at that and say, oh, I see where those seven are going, or those five, that would also be very helpful just based on I'm looking at the budget, and you'll see assistant corporation council, 19 proposed, uh senior assistant corporation counsel, 30 proposed, but we can't identify specifically where they're going.

That would be helpful in this situation.

Through the chair, may I respond?

Thank you, sir.

Member Bownson, I I believe that that flexibility really needs to stay with corporation council as new initiatives are stood up or as an area may need more uh more um support.

What I think we can do though is we can identify for you, we keep a we keep an org chart with all of our names and positions, and are happy to provide that information at any time that you'd like to see it.

Okay.

Yeah.

And so that is a request then.

Do I need to make that via memo?

No, sir.

You can just ask for it.

I'm asking for it now.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And there's no, I want to make sure it's very clear.

I'm not indicating that you all should lose any level of flexibility by identifying or naming where your resources go, just our ability as an oversight body to review and see the documentation that we're given, but the ability to have that org chart will do just that.

And then separate, my second question is going to be resource when it comes to CPC staff, planning and zoning.

The ability to have an attorney assigned specifically for zoning law, for text amendments, for writing of ordinances will be very helpful.

I mean, we do have at times some very heavy lifts, and it can be difficult or at least very, very or it takes this is in the eye of the beholder, probably a lot longer than we would like for it to take.

And I believe having resources specifically dedicated in that space will be very helpful.

Question is can we make that happen?

And if not, why?

Go ahead, Con.

Thank you.

Through the chair.

We are working on our processes with CPC, and I believe that there are a number of um of benefits that we can still identify in how matters work through.

Often CPC has identified that uh a matter has been with the law department, it's been delivered to this body.

We haven't seen it yet.

So the idea of getting into that process much earlier is something that Marcel Todd and I have had conversation with.

This is a work in progress, sir.

And and it was uh it it's on my board of things to do this year, it's right next to my desk.

Um, and so I'm happy to keep this body apprised of how that process is moving.

I think zoning is one of those areas that we've had a particular challenge in moving from inception to delivery.

But I think a lot of process improvement is going to um is gonna ameliorate the issues that the the sort of the pinch points that we're seeing.

Okay.

I would appreciate that.

And then as part of your to-do list and part of the solution to this to-do, does it include identifying and placing a dedicated attorney for CPC LPD type support when it comes to zoning?

So uh council person, we have that now.

Okay.

Uh, in the person of Dan Arking, uh, we have that right now.

Um my colleague has been extraordinarily diplomatic in responding to the issue raised, I think, in a previous uh budget hearing that somehow or another the law department was responsible for the inundation of this honorable body with zoning amendments coming all at the same time.

Uh I would I I would point out that the team that we have doing that work right now has never indicated that they were not supported and behind, and and so the cadence of service delivery, uh I can tell you uh that Tani and I are going to keep a much much much closer eye on and identify more uh specifically when requests come in so that we can actually uh in in in conversations like this be able to have sign uh uh specific reference points as to dates and times so that there's no confusion as to where a particular backlog uh occurred.

And so the cadence of service delivery, I can tell you that Tani and I are going to keep a much, much, much closer eye on and identify more specifically when requests come in so that we can actually in conversations like this be able to have specific reference points as to dates and times so that there's no confusion as to where a particular backlog uh occurred.

Uh that we take the zoning work that we do very seriously as a high degree uh of expertise associated with that work.

Uh and this is the flexibility that Mrs.

Long is talking about.

Uh we move lawyers around as the priorities present themselves.

So, yes, we we will certainly make sure that there is a designated person uh that CPC and LPD can call upon.

Uh at the end of the day, they can call Tanya, they can call me.

Okay.

And so just thank you.

I'm looking forward to seeing how you all work to make this more efficient.

And Mr.

Arking has been an invaluable resource to the uh zoning and planning process, and he has a high level of expertise and corporate knowledge when it comes to what's going on in that space, and so really do support his work, also support CPC staff's work as well.

Absolutely.

That we see the solution that's being requested resolved between the two different departments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we just got the um flow chart.

Thank you for that.

Can we get an email?

Yes.

That would help tremendously.

All right.

Um appreciate this information.

I'm trying to get this for a while.

Um, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good morning to you all.

Good morning.

Um, so I would like to just start out with um, I'm really surprised that there are only seven attorneys in the Blight Division, uh, especially considering that Blight was a significant focus of the previous administration.

Um when I think of Blight and the law department addressing Blight, I I do see some residential nuisance abatement suits, and I'll I'm sure my colleague is going to talk about that, but I'm really more focused on the commercial nuisance abatement.

Um, as you all know, we've been in communication about the travel in.

And where I'm having difficulties is trying to figure out who coordinates all of this.

Um there you indicated that you know, if if a property Munoz is bringing his residential properties up to code and making sure that he has a certificate of compliance, I did hear Member Santiago Romero kind of push back and and say who's ensuring that the properties are actually up to code, because I've had that very question about the travel in, right?

Um I don't want to say that anything was done improperly, but when I visited the property, I question it all day every day.

They had uh bed bugs and roaches or whatever, but BC says we issued them a violation or a warning, if you will, to give them an opportunity to rectify the issue, and then I hear back that the issue has been rectified, knowing good and well it hasn't been.

When I look at that property in particular, DPD says the number of of calls to 911 have declined, but no one ever talks about, no one ever shares how many bodies have been found, have been discovered on the perimeter of the property.

The property is a green light.

All of this, it's infuriating to me, and I know it's infuriating for the residents in the community because it looks like we're not serious about it.

Who actually coordinates things to ensure all of these things are coming together for us to make a good decision on how we address this property or any other property in the city of Detroit?

What role does the law department play in that?

Well, uh through the chair, uh councilperson, let me just simply say this.

Uh in the last month, uh I have taken the travel in on as my own project.

Uh and I will assure you now that whoever is responsible for coordination of these kinds of issues in general, I will say with no hesitation that it is.

We do rely on a department by department basis.

If public health says that this thing needs to be corrected, then they have inspectors who were supposed to go back in and be sure the correction is done.

BC has inspectors, and they also have persons who are supposed to go back in and make sure that the whatever fix is supposed to be accomplished is in fact carried out.

But in the travel in circumstance, uh the the coordination that is required, and particularly uh as it relates to the enforcement and the trying to get to a resolution uh uh that is going to be both constitutional and at the same time, council person, satisfactory uh to the constituents that you represent in that area.

Uh I will say that in the for the travel in the law department will be the coordinating entity, and that questions regarding travel in should go to the uh respective department and also to the law department so that you are sure that I am aware uh that there's been a request from whatever department uh for assistance, so I can be sure that it is carried out.

I appreciate that.

Um, and I've I've been dealing with this for well over a year.

I know I've connected with you and and all of the other departments that have been involved in who I look to be the experts in addressing the issue in their own respective way.

Yes, ma'am.

Um I think we fallen fallen short as a city.

Um I think we have continued to allow residents to live in these conditions, and I think it's our fault.

I really do.

This is the greatest nuisance that you will find in the city of Detroit, and it's been there for years for years.

And then I found out that the owner of the property owns other buildings throughout this city.

How is it that we don't know that?

How is it that I can hear that the same thing is happening in some of the other buildings that they own, and yet and still we say they have a certificate of compliance, they've addressed this violation, that violation, but no one addressed the issue that I shared with you maybe a couple weeks ago about a situation where a body was dropped in the parking lot.

No one's addressed that.

I know there are other bodies that have been found behind the dumpster.

So it's clearly there is clearly a criminal element in and around this property.

We've done nothing about it.

So I'm glad you are taking this on now because I will make sure that you know everything that I know.

I again have said it time and time again that the community is coming back down here because they came down last year and nothing's changed.

Nothing's been addressed, let me say that.

I don't I'm interested in understanding the reduction in 9-1-1 calls.

The issue hasn't been addressed.

I haven't seen anyone say, Well, let's look at their green light cameras and see if we can ascertain what transpired so that we can address it.

Somebody has to be accountable and responsible to that.

I feel like I'm the person who has had to say, okay, this happened, now what?

That happened, now what?

But it stops with the department.

It has to get elevated.

So now that you're taking it on, I will work closely with you so this can be addressed.

It doesn't matter to me if it's shut down or not, the issues need to be addressed.

I know we talked previously about um how we could address it, and then I stopped hearing anything about it.

So uh councilperson, I the the what I have focused on in the last couple of weeks is is how uh this honorable body might regulate uh the definition of temporary housing, um, whether or not a per that that the right now is 30 days.

Uh there are some uh deeper understandings that I want to come to before I come to you all with what I think might be an ordinance-based fixed, but beyond that uh uh councilperson, as I indicated, uh I'm gonna take this on and be the the center of managing the the travel in issue until we can find a way to get it resolved.

Thank you.

Um and and I know in I believe a previous conversation, it wasn't with you though, it was with BC that we talked about working with the building department to revoke licenses if we need to.

Um, but really, how do we identify properties that have been abandoned?

This is completely separate.

Um, but properties that have been abandoned, which is what we're dealing with now as it relates to Whittier and Cover Girls.

There again seems to be we don't I don't know who's on first.

Who's accountable, who's responsible for doing these things, because what it looks like to me is everybody's doing this.

Everybody's pointing the finger at the next person trying to say, well, this department didn't provide any information to me.

And everybody says that.

Where does the buck stop?

Do I need to take it to the mayor's office?

Uh the mayor is well aware, quite frankly, uh, councilperson of cover girls and is very, very, very concerned about it.

Um, and as I understand it, the um, based on the conversation that I had uh uh with DPD and BC, whether or they they they have in fact, as last year they received from uh BC their certificate of occupancy and are about to get their certificate of compliance and at some point uh will be opened.

Uh and and so the uh I mean I'm not trying to point uh uh uh away from the law department, but we became aware of the issue, I don't know, three weeks ago.

So it just uh I don't know in that particular circumstance.

I mean, do we need to understand and maybe this is where we uh can use uh a more amplified data system that gives us some kind of registry as it relates to buildings that are no longer occupied, so that there's a clock of some sort that starts to run so that we can then reach a legal definition of abandoned so that then we can take uh certain action available to us legally.

Uh that's something, frankly, that we have to uh discuss and explore uh uh uh with the administration.

I'm thinking with the new chief operating officer to see if there's a way to get some of this information collected uh uh uh systematically so that we can behave better uh uh as a city government.

So corporation counsel, it is my understanding that there is within Municode that the property can't sit vacant for more than six months.

Now, as it relates to as it relates to abandonment, that building hasn't been opened since I've been in office.

Who needs to identify to whom that it has been closed?

It is a non-conforming use, no less.

That's right.

So 10 years ago when I was on the board of zoning appeals, we always talked about eliminating non-conforming uses over time.

How do you do that?

How do you do that if you never there's not documentation, there's no proof, no one is watching to say this property is vacant, that use has been abandoned, especially if we're serious about our neighborhood commercial corridors.

Our residents don't want a strip club around the corner from their home.

They don't, but we have not figured out how we address it to get rid of that use to put something there that residents need, a small grocery store, a little retail shop, whatever.

We're just allowing people to continue to do the same things that they've done to our neighbors, to our neighborhoods, and it just never stops.

It never stops.

So I look forward to having that conversation, figuring out how we address it.

I have already um put into the closing resolution to include the city planning commission as we identify how these uses get removed from these buildings.

So I appreciate um your thought, your consideration, but certainly want to add a little bit of pressure to make sure that we're doing this, that we're moving expeditiously and not continuing to allow these things to happen within our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

With the discussion, uh, member Benson.

Yourself to my colleague in the fourth district, we've eliminated the use of numerous SOBs in the third district that have lost their special land use based on abandonment.

I am more than happy to support, and I do not support keeping bad deleterious use in our neighborhoods, which we found to have a very negative effect.

And so we strong we strong toe-to-toe with you, right behind you, wherever you need us to be to help you remove that.

And it does not help, that is around the corner from my mother-in-law's house.

So I hear it all the time.

That is not a use that I want to see continue.

And you're absolutely right, it has not been active for a number of years.

Not sure how that use has been able to continue, but we have been able to get rid of those numerous of them in the third district.

So just looking forward to how we can help.

Whatever you need us to do, we are more than happy to help.

Okay.

Thank you.

Through the chair.

All right, so thank you.

And that was the only on that point that we're going to have.

I was just going to say thank you to my colleague.

And if you can share how you are able to do that, I would appreciate it because as you know, your mother-in-law texts me about the property all the time.

And so we've been working with the community on this effort, doing everything that we can to ensure that it gets shut down.

But thank you.

I I certainly do look forward to that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We will give you an opportunity afterwards.

It sounds like you're going to be working together anyway, which is good.

But I do have to make sure that I honor the rest of the uh hearings that are on their way.

Thank you so much.

So uh Corporation Council, uh, when when uh the B seed hearing uh public uh boat budget hearing, excuse me, took place.

There was uh uh more mentions of we're gonna be working closer with the law department than I've ever heard before.

Um was there a previous prohibition on working together?

Is was there uh uh a firewall that was in place that I'm not aware of, but it a lot of the things that we've been talking about for for years sound like it the the floodgates were about to now open and things were going to be changing because of a new relationship with the law department.

Was there was there any challenge with the relationship in the past and and now there's some new um I don't know uh uh uh um uh edict that was put out to now work closer with the law department?

So, Mr.

President, what what what I can say, and I uh I blinking on the council person who made note of the small size of the Blight Department.

When I got to the law department, is that you, Councilperson Johnson?

There was one person, Stanley D Young, who, as uh this honorable body well knows, soon thereafter passed.

So for clarification, you said when you got to the law department?

When I got to the law department, okay.

When I went downstairs from 13, excuse me, from 11, there was one lawyer, one lawyer uh in the Blight Department, and that was Stanley D.

Young, uh, who was since passed.

Uh so I I I think that that particular objective fact speech for itself.

Uh I think that the relationship between the law department and B seed uh has been a continual work in progress.

It's always been good, Mr.

President.

I'll say that uh uh unequivocally.

Uh David Bell is one of my favorite people in the world, and we have a close personal relationship.

Um the bottom line is is that I do think that all of us, not just BC, all of us uh have received from the administration and this honorable body uh encouragement uh to do better and to do more and to be more efficient uh and to frankly go faster.

Uh I think that that's really uh what B seed was saying they were going to do.

Uh my lawyers in the Blight Department have been uh quite flexible, quite speedy, um uh and and all of the lawyers have been doing very, very good work.

Uh so we will continue to do that, and I think frankly, that really at the end of the day, what Mr.

Bell would have been indicating is I mean, for instance, let's let's let's take the uh well, let me not use that as an example directly.

There is a the the this honorable body is aware that there is a commercial entity on one of our major thoroughfares that is in need of a major piece of equipment, which they claim they are ordering, which hasn't come yet, thus producing noise in the neighborhood that surrounds this commercial entity and is disturbing the peace of the men and women who live, let's say within 200 feet.

The instruction delivered uh by the law department today to the lawyers and the blight department is this commercial entity has said that the piece of equipment that they require is should have come last week.

If it's not here, then we're going to file today.

So I I think, Mr.

President, that that that what BC may have been anticipating is that there will be much more of an emphasis on enforcement as it relates to absolutely involving the courts.

Uh so that and then the other last thing is is that I wanted to say is that we are going to have a conversation with BC as to whether or not the amount that we charge for the tickets that are issued is enough.

I'm not sure.

Uh, and we have to be sure that we do that uh in a constitutional way so it's not confiscatory, but on the other hand, uh maybe these charges have to go up so that the owners of the building uh uh immediately are contacted by their property management entities, uh, and just to say, you know, for instance, we got a thousand dollar ticket today because the elevator didn't work.

I'm just wondering whether or not that would cause the elevator to be fixed faster.

Uh I don't know, but but we're gonna come back to this body with the results of a study uh that will indicate one way or another whether or not that's true.

Yeah, just to say again, don't want to be the dead horse, um, but you kind of expect that already to come from BC, not I mean, with with the advice of the law department, but that is the whole goal, you know, to keep people safe, to keep people um housed properly, um, to to provide dignity, all those things, and to uphold the ordinances that we have in place.

You expect that from the department uh in consultation with the law department, not necessarily the other way around.

At least not me.

Um saying all that to say, we have a number of uh properties, and I've talked about Greenfield uh between uh Grand River and Finkel uh being, in my opinion, a uh huge opportunity for us to um get additional, get individuals who need housing uh housed.

We're talking about hundreds of apartment uh um uh units that uh Realty has two apartment buildings that are in dispute right now in litigation.

There's other private owners who also we had to push hard as a city to just get them boarded up.

I would love for your TED team as well as any other uh entity within the law department to work together with other entities within the City of Detroit, other departments to see how we get those apartments online to understand what that cost would be, understand what the challenge would be to actually, if necessary, uh identify um those who could rehab those properties to get people into housing.

Um that is um it's very rare that you have that chance, that opportunity in a neighborhood to repopulate it in that way and to bring back the luster.

But there are, you know, I I we've counted six or so vacant apartment complexes that are over there.

Again, hundreds uh could be housed or rehoused because it once was completely full.

We'll love to see more coordination with the departments uh as a focus on that area.

So tell me what I need to do again, if it all roads lead to the law department, uh I want to lend any uh assistance that my office can provide, whether that is from a legislative standpoint, influence standpoint, fill in the blank standpoint, here to try or not to try to get that area repopulated and bring back dignity for the folks who live in that neighborhood.

Um, discussion on that point, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, ma'am, um in two seconds, in two seconds.

Um and so what would it take to get us in that in that space?

So I think that the closing resolution that uh uh councilperson Santiago Romero uh indicated where she wanted to uh take a look at what we could do uh uh along the lines with the Detroit Housing Commission.

Uh I'm anticipating to some degree, I think the the Greenfield idea uh is one, and this goes directly to, I know the next set of questions coming from Councilperson Waters about commercial nuisance.

Uh uh and and I know that Councilperson Callaway is focused on Palmer Park.

I wonder if we say in the closing resolution that there are four or five different sections of the city where we know housing opportunities exist on out of code, out in violation of ordinance buildings that the law department, BC, HRD, the Detroit Housing Commission ought to be looking at and to come back to this honorable body with a plan as to what we're going to do to create housing opportunities in these buildings that currently doesn't exist.

So looking forward to that conversation and how we begin.

So we already got it in the closing resolution, but you know, as we uh proceed along the uh budget process, we want to get a little bit more specificity on how we get this one going in particular on Greenfield because again it has a been a major challenge for us over the years.

Took a lot of effort just to get it boarded up, you know, with one of the apartments uh complexes that it caught fire.

Um and there I drove by last weekend and it was just debris everywhere, just all in the neighborhood.

Again, not um what I want my residents to to worry about, residents within the city of Detroit, period.

Last question I have is regarding Mammoth.

Um I know that you know we're very successful.

Thank you for uh moving on that.

You and the law department, it took us a while to get to that point, uh, counter litigation, et cetera, et cetera.

Uh, for the folks in D1 who are watching right now, where do things stand with that particular property?

I know it's clear, free.

I mean it's clear of uh any structure, but in terms of ownership and any um a recuperating of any dollars, recouping of any dollars for that particular uh space.

We have the we it's in the Court of Appeals right now, Mr.

President.

Uh the former owners are suing on a constitutional deprivation of what they're claiming is due process.

Of course, we think it is a specious claim.

Uh for whatever reason the Court of Appeals has rather than simply dismissing their claim, has scheduled it for oral argument.

Uh the receiver has another lawsuit uh that he is handling uh as well.

Uh we the the as you pointed out, Mr.

President, just getting down getting the building down was not enough.

Now we are fighting for title.

Uh and uh hopefully this year we'll be able to report that the title has been cleared, but we're in court right now in two different courts uh fighting about the same issue.

And what what would that mean about recouping any double dollars that were used to uh demolish the structure?

Once we can get it into the hands of the ownership in the city of Detroit.

I mean, we are we do have a collection uh uh lawsuit against uh the current owners and Herb Strather.

Uh what they have uh are asking haven't received yet, but what they're asking for is to stay on that litigation while the ownership of the uh property is determined.

Uh I did not check with uh Monica Hunt from the Floyd Allen group to determine, Mr.

President, where that uh question was.

I'll I'll get you that uh uh later on today.

All right, thank you so much.

Colleagues, I do apologize.

I was out of order when I called on Member Benson uh following Member Johnson's question, but I do want to cycle through all colleagues first and then allow for any additional motions afterwards, and I will go next to uh member McCampbell.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good morning to you all.

Um I want to touch on um for a minute the around your FOIA work, um, knowing that you I see the numbers that you shared here.

Um I know there was a recent outlier media um report on there was multiple outstanding requests on FOIA um one ranging from 31 days to 364 days.

Uh I believe it's around um one for home repair uh consulting contractor for your own net, that was 31 days, solar farm project settlement that was 105 days, and um Detroit police on border patrol, that was 364 days.

So just wonder if you can give insight on a view on um what is the average time of uh FOIA request to be responded to fully, whether that's the approval or denial, and if are there any extraneous uh circumstances on why those requests uh were identified to be that long there.

Uh councilperson, I don't know the answer to that.

Uh what we strive to do uh in the law department, even in the FOIA section is comply with the law as it relates to response time.

Uh I don't want to say that we are dependent on our uh department colleagues for the information that is necessary that's being requested.

I know that we work diligently to get this work done.

But DPD, for instance, has I think one officer and at least two civilians who do nothing uh but respond to FOIA complaints and try to support uh the legal team and the law department to get this work done on a timely manner.

We have asked all the departments uh to identify a uh FOIA coordinator.

Uh that has been done, whether or not that has produced for us the results uh that we're looking for.

Um obviously we can be better, but it is not, council person.

I want to assure you that uh uh the departments and the law department are not working to respond.

I appreciate that, and um absolutely don't want to uh make assumptions that folks aren't working to respond.

I think also one of the the I would say a core foundation of our our government is to ensure that there is that transparency there, and part of that is that uh as speedy response as possible for um the FOIA requests.

Uh so I I have additional questions on that that I can send over, but I would like to put um into the executive session a conversation around for you.

All right, colleagues, there's a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And if you could just go into a little bit more on the eviction prevention and diversion program work, I see it that it is uh listed as a one-time um uh one-time funding again for this year's two consecutive years.

So just one if you could touch on that work, but also has there been any conversation with the law department or administration just to make that a recurring budget item.

Um, just wondering why it's the list as one time.

Uh I can say to you, Councilperson, that that is one of the significant priorities of Mayor Sheffield.

Uh so uh uh I I am I can say with some degree of certainty that RTC is always is is going to be front and center of the law department uh budget as we go forward.

Uh I I I think I can say that without uh much hesitation.

Uh I do know that the uh the team that Diamond Connolly leads, uh we work diligently uh with HRD.

Uh uh Chelsea Nebletz team, the housing relocation division is an extraordinary group of uh public servants.

They do a really, really good job of getting people uh into housing.

Uh Leland House actually is an example of that.

Of the 37 households that were there at this point, 19 of them have permanent housing, and all of them are in temporary temporary housing as we speak.

Um I know that Diamond and her team are in constant touch uh with Chelsea and her team, so there's always more that we could do, but with the resources that those two departments have, or that section and the department has, uh they're doing everything humanly possible.

Thank you.

And I'll again I'll have additional questions.

I may have a motion later on that I'll bring up around that.

I know that uh right to council has been the conversation for folks as as it's been talked about here during the hearing.

I know you also brought up 1932 7 uh West Chicago.

Um if I could just get uh I'll follow up is just if we could just get a full um readout of that because I know is implied that it has been uh settled and is successful.

Oh, it hasn't okay.

I was just I was just wondering since it was listed here.

But if we can just touch base offline on that because um we're getting um some conflicting reports from residents and there's some concern around that property.

And and and I can say, Councilperson, that the law department shares those concerns.

Uh we by no means have given up.

Uh uh this is this is uh an extremely uh uh important matter.

Uh and we and and and between us, the law department, the register of deeds, uh, and and frankly, Detroit Police Department.

Uh, we're looking at this extremely closely.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll follow up on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, and good morning.

Morning.

Was it after?

Yeah, well, still morning.

Okay.

Okay, so um first I just want to point out that I do appreciate the fact that you all are working with us to make sure that we get the tenants' rights commission on solid ground, uh, because that that needs to happen, and I and having them out there uh dealing with the community is gonna be extremely helpful uh once we can get to that point.

But I'll be in contact with you regarding it a little bit more specifically later on.

Um I just um I want to talk about um the whole deed fraud piece uh first.

You know, I'm pretty excited the fact that the Michigan Senate they have a package of bills that they are addressing it.

They're gonna be rolling them out soon.

The the Michigan House um has a package of bills as it relates to LLCs, and I've been working with with both groups, pushing them along, telling them how important it is uh that we get these things done to help us on a local level.

And um, and so they reached out over the weekend and said, hey, uh we're there, we're gonna be rolling them out real soon.

So isn't that wonderful?

It is that gives you some help, Mr.

Corp Counsel.

All right, so you know, I I received this um because who I want to see you prosecute in your office.

I know that the Wayne County prosecutor uh is prosecuting some people as it relates to deed fraud, but you know, I certainly would like to see that as well here within our law department.

I I uh also just received this letter uh from the chair of the board of review, and she said um I am submitting the attached request to support a uh request support for a review of potential fraudulent documentation and deed irregularities associated with the Hope application over the past several years.

So that is something that is gonna be coming before you um as well, and I think is I I've got to tell you, Mr.

Corp, you know, we we have uh this deed fraud that is running rampant in in different ways.

You know, before last time you mentioned LLCs before you said that was one of the issues with it.

So we're gonna see what what the state really comes up with.

Uh I'm I'm anxious to see how they're going to uh to roll that out.

I certainly gave them the entire package that you had put together.

I want you to know that, and then they use that as a guide as well.

Excellent.

So are you currently doing anything?

This is my question with deed fraud in your department.

Yes, ma'am.

I mean, we we literally, council person, uh two Fridays ago, uh we had a meeting uh with DPD.

Uh there are several persons uh that they are investigating in conjunction with the Register of Deeds and the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office.

Uh these are very, very, very active uh investigations.

Uh and Doug Baker, who is the head of our criminal division, is actively involved, and I was in all of the meetings myself.

Uh we are not at a point where we can bring uh uh any charges, and at this point, uh uh council person, it would be in the hands of the prosecutor, but the prosecutor does has have, as you know, a deed fraud division.

Um it's small, but it is it she does actually have uh uh uh two scene but two very very senior people from her staff uh doing this work.

Uh so it's not like it's understaffed or at least they don't have the the the intellectual strength to get this work done.

Uh DPD has three people on it.

I mean uh uh council person waters, this is everybody's taking this very seriously.

Uh so uh uh we're supposed to have a meeting uh coming up this week uh with the with the prosecutor and DPD to see exactly where we are and what comes next.

Uh but everybody's taking this very seriously.

All right, so um member Miller and I will be proposing a a pilot program to address deed fraud, and we want it to be housed in the law department.

So uh Mr.

Chairman, um a motion to place a pilot program for deed fraud under the law department into executive session.

Thank you so much.

There's a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Um just to further state um we uh we took a look at easier ways we think that can help us to identify those that are committed to protect the residents here in the city of Detroit.

But you have an opportunity to review the proposal.

And I certainly would would like to know what what your thoughts are with matter of fact, I'll send that to you today, okay?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, then.

So my next question is centered around um nuisance abatement.

That good old nap.

Um what would how many how many attorneys would you need to bring the nuisance abatement for all private properties here in this city into your department?

The goal is to have it fall under the jurisdiction of BC and the law department and remove it from the Detroit Land Bank Authority.

Okay, uh through the chair.

Councilperson, you're suggesting that the law department would take over all of the work currently being done by uh the land bank.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting.

I see.

Um I don't know.

Uh I don't know.

Because what what what what the land bank does, uh most of their work they do, they do uh 50% of their work in-house, but 50% of their work, uh, councilperson, I think.

I think please don't hold me to it.

Uh, is is in the hands of outside counsel.

They I I don't know that they have the capacity in-house to do all of the NAP lawsuits that they have.

Uh I've never asked them that question, so I don't know.

Uh I guess I could ask that question and respond back to you, but I don't have any idea right now.

Uh they told me they had 60% of their lawyers, however many they have working on on that.

Uh I I'll tell you what what my concern is.

I am not suggesting suggesting at all that we have, but we allow nuisance in our community.

That's not what I'm suggesting.

But what I am saying is that the process, I think, in some instances are not fair to our re residents, you know.

And we we need we need folks that gotta be a little bit more sensitive.

I need to be a little closer to it so that we can better monitor it uh as well.

And so, and I don't have that capability where it's currently housed with the the Detroit Land Bank.

So that is why I suggested that.

And um I'm gonna keep pushing for it.

Um I do want you to take a look at it, if you would, sir, to tell me what it would cost for you, um your department to take on such such an effort uh right here in-house.

That I just want it in-house, yes, ma'am.

Okay, I know that you do some nuisance anyway, you know.

So I just want to know uh if you're able to to do that.

And please, please respond when when you get an opportunity to let us know what how much that could potentially cost you.

Do you need additional lawyers in order to do that?

I don't know what it would be, but if you could if you could, I would appreciate it.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, then thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Pro Tim Young.

All right, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Uh, Mr.

Corporation Council, always good to see you now.

Uh Ms.

Long, always good to work with you guys.

Thank you for your professionalism.

I wanted to ask you something that's close to me.

Uh, I wanted to ask you about uh guaranteed income.

Before you had told me that part of the reason why you felt we could not implement this was because of Article 7, section 26.

I want to provide some pushback, and I want you to tell me if what I'm saying is right or wrong.

So part of the reason why we had this discussion was because it was considered to be a loan of credit.

Now, let me just define that.

So a loan of credit under Article 7 section 26 of the Constitution and Michigan law is for the people who are listening.

Pledges its borrowing capacity uh for on behalf of private party becomes a surety or guaranteer or insurance for a private obligation and assigns its taxing or debt issuance authority to secure private benefit.

Now, the reason why I'm saying it's not that is because a guaranteed income program involves direct appropriation and expenditure of municipal funds, not a pledge of municipal credit.

And there have been case law that would back this up.

Weinberg v City Detroit established that a loan of credit prohibition targets the pledging of governmental borrowing power, not all of governmental financial assistance.

Uh it also Kalamazoo v.

And then also comes the question of is this a violation of the public purpose doctrine.

That comes from Article 9618 of the state constitution, which talks about the fact that governments may only spend public funds for public purposes, not for private benefit of individual.

I'm not saying this to you, I'm saying it's people who are listening, so you're saying what I'm trying to say.

But that governments may only spend funds for public purposes, not for private benefit of individuals.

But the Michigan courts have held a deferential public purpose standard.

The leading case is Gaylord v.

Gaylord City Clerk, which held that the legislature and by extension, municipal councils have broad discretion to determine what constitutes a public purpose, and courts will not substitute their judgment unless the purpose is clearly private.

You have the Michigan Social Welfare Act, which already authorizes direct cash payments to individuals for welfare purposes.

You have indirect precedent, which is the EITC, the Childcare Task Credit, Social Security, and TAMF.

You have Michigan case law, which says advisory opinion, constitutionality of 1975, uh Public Act 227, 396, which says that Michigan's Supreme Court held that programs addressing social economic conditions serve a public purpose when they are primarily beneficial to identifying private individuals.

And so I just want to say, in the light of all of this case law and precedent and legal authority that I sent to you, do you still hold the opinion that guaranteed income would be a violation of Article 7, Section 26 and Article 9, Section 18, and if so, why?

I still hold that opinion absolutely, Mr.

Council President Pro Tim and for we've we've discussed this at this table before.

The bottom line is that 99.9% of the things that any public official can think of that benefits a small group of individuals is going to have a public purpose.

The key for me is the second part of the analysis, and that is it is it authorized specifically by state law.

And so with it being a two-step process, uh I would say that if the state of Michigan said that income guarantees is something that municipalities may spend a certain part of their general fund on, then I my opposition, at least my legal opposition to it, would have to step aside because the two-step uh analysis that the law department currently uses uh would have been satisfied.

Okay.

And I and I just wanted to say even the issue of Article 7 Section 34, which talks about laws that are liberally construed in order for the municipal's favor, and even the public welfare obligation, which says that institutions, programs, and services for the care and investment and education or rehabilitation for those inhabitants who are physically, mentally or otherwise seriously disabled, as the legislature may provide by law.

Now, listen, I understand that most of this addresses disability, but Michigan courts have read that Article 8 broadly encompasses the legislators' power and obligation to provide for the welfare of residents.

Are you saying that the legislature, because of that, the legislature would have to authorize this program for it to pass or for it to meet the two-step analysis?

Is that what you're saying?

So you have to see something permissively, even though we've had that the constitution that says that, and also there's a supreme law of the state, and also the uh advisory opinion from the mission attorney general.

You're saying you still have to see something when it had to be legislatively that you have to see it or to approve to be that two-step burden.

So, Council President Pro Tem two things.

One, I disagree with your reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to how broad the authority is, the way that you read it uh seems to exist.

Uh uh, I I I would write in opposition exhaustively and come to a different conclusion, number one.

Number two, having said all of that, but then coming back to the point where I know that you and I agree that it is up to legislative bodies like this one, basically, to declare a public purpose because you your primary responsibility, while it is defending the general welfare of the people who live in the city of Detroit is also uh to maintain the uh financial stability of the municipal government.

So uh what I would say is is that within the confines of the Constitution, based on this body's ability to declare a public purpose, there would have to be a specific authorization of state law saying that tax dollars uh could be used for the purpose that you described.

Okay, okay.

So so I see we're gonna agree, we're gonna agree to disagree on this.

I I uh respectfully, I understand.

I understand.

Um secondly, I wanted to ask you, this is a little bit different, but I wanted to ask you about um residency.

And there is a section in the Constitution which talks about Article 9, Section 29, which talks about unfunded mandates.

Even though this is not something where we're mandating a new service, I just feel the the loss of revenue that we are receiving, not just in terms of tax dollars, but also economically the impact because of the repeal of reverence residency is been quite a burden.

And I'm not saying that you know judges should legislate from the bench, but I just feel that there is no way that this cannot be a mandate to me that has hurt the city tremendously.

Let me let me give you my um let me give you my economic uh analysis to kind of just be able to further buttress the point that I'm making.

So um when it comes in terms of the income tax that we've lost, we've lost about four to six million dollars because of the repeal.

The property taxes lost about twenty-five million dollars because the repeal, the total fiscal combined has been a 25 to 30 million dollar loss.

The spending leakage that we would have had in the city, there's been a 150 to 170 million dollars that left the city.

The economic multiplier is 225 million to 340 million dollars in lost activity, it's close to 1,000 to 1,500 jobs lost.

Uh the GDP impact is 200 to 300 million dollar drag.

So not only are we losing 25 to 30 million dollars in taxes, we're also losing 10,000, we're also losing a thousand jobs and two hundred to three hundred million dollars in economic activity annually.

And so I just don't understand how this is not a burden that is put upon the city of Detroit by the state of Michigan and how this cannot be actionable.

Do you agree or disagree and why?

Well, I mean, council person that you you ask a very complex question.

Let me just simply say this.

Uh that um we will look at it.

I mean, we will treat it as as as a question coming to us from your office that talks about the unfunded mandate associated with the state law authorizing residency.

And is there a way for us to bring a claim against the state of Michigan for some relief?

And and let's see what what let's see what the argument is.

Let's see if one can be uh fashioned in a way that is respectable enough that we can agree that this would be worth spending time and treasure on in terms of trying to get an answer.

So we'll take a look at it and we'll take a look at it seriously.

Excellent.

No, thank you.

I appreciate that.

And then finally, I would just encourage you to, I'm sure you already talked about um implementing uh artificial intelligence.

I appreciate that.

Thank you for coming here to understand the assignment.

That's something that's dear to my heart.

Um, I will just tell you just some of the things that you look forward to, and then I will wrap up.

So your total uh CapEx, that's your capital expenditures for all the for would be about five million to twenty million dollars.

Your total um operating expenditures would be three to ten million dollars, your total savings potential will be ten million to forty million dollars annually, your return on investment would be three times to ten times your payback period would be six to twenty-four months.

Um your efficiency would go up by twenty-five to sixty percent, your foyer processing time would go down by fifty to eighty percent, so it'd be faster.

Um your contract processing time uh will decrease by thirty to sixty percent.

Your litigation costs, your you will go down by 10 to 25 percent.

Your blight recovery rate would go uh would be 25 to 40 percent increase.

Uh you would say five million to fifteen million dollars, your revenue gain would be two million to ten million dollars in fraud and waste reduction, you would avoid two million to ten million, and your labor efficiency, and I'm talking about this from an augmented standpoint, not from laying people off.

It'd be a two million to eight million dollar um in savings, the velocity of money, so the amount of the dollar spends in this in the community would increase from 1.8 or stays in community, go from 1.8 to 2.5 million, and the economic output would be 50 million to 200 million.

Uh, your poverty pressure could go down by two to five percent, and crime reduction, blight length, will go down to three to eight percent um estimated respectively.

So I just wanted to say that and uh hopefully you uh adopt all of my ideas, but uh artificial intelligence be one of them.

Thank you so much for your time, sir.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

That is all.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I know there may be additional questions for the law department just asking out of respect to time and those who are coming um uh after this particular hearing.

We can withhold those comments.

But if there's any motions that we would like to add, um now is the time to do so.

Are there any additional motions, colleagues?

Okay, well, I'm asking for one.

Um I get a motion to place into a closing resolution.

I talked about it earlier that uh collaborative, and we'll give the language to you, uh Corporation or uh Mr.

Quarley and Corporation Council, uh, to work with the various departments, law departments work with various uh departments within the city to uh uh address the uh blight uh and vacancy at the apartment complexes that are along Grand excuse me, Greenfield between Grand River and um we'll say Puritan.

Mr.

Chair there's a motion with discussion.

Member Callaway.

Thank you so much.

And if we can expand those boundaries, uh Mr.

Chair, um I also have apartments on Greenfield from six mile to Florence that are vacant, half boarded up and half burned out on that whole strip of Greenfield.

We can be more inclusive.

Well, only reason I said it is because we can't do the I don't think we're doing the entire city, so there's like targeted areas.

No, I just said can we extend extend Greenfield because beyond Puritan is my district.

And I have six buildings that are boarded up on Greenfield between Florence and Six Mile, and I was simply requesting to be added to your resolution the whole length of Greenfield.

Um to six mile.

With that uh addendum, um colleagues, any objection?

See none, because I do accept, thank you for that.

Yeah, that whole area has an it's a major opportunity.

Any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

We'll work together on that language.

Thank you.

Any additional motions, colleagues?

Hearing none.

Uh corporation council, any uh closing uh remarks?

Uh Mr.

President, I just want to thank you for the opportunity to thank all the members of this body for uh supporting the law department.

Uh I know the work that we do is deemed by this honorable body to be important.

Uh and we're here to serve and do the best we can, and we will continue to be in touch and the things we committed to do will get done.

Thank you so much.

Thank uh send all the best to your uh attorneys and staff supporting staff with the law department.

Thank you appreciate all the hard work that they do.

All right, with that being said, colleagues, we're gonna now close out the uh law department's uh budget hearing.

We now would like to make space for the 36th district court, bring them forward as well.