Planning and economic development standing committee meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Latisa Johnson present.

Councilmember Gabriel Santiago Romero.

Member Santiago Romero did indicate that she would not be present.

Clerk will say no.

Council President Pro Tem coming on the second.

Yeah.

Madam Chair, there's a quorum.

Thank you.

We are back in session.

And we shall continue with our 1025 public hearing.

And it is now a time for us to ask any questions.

Pro Tim, I'm not sure if you have any questions.

I will get us started.

I appreciate the Universal Design and the Geothermal and the details that were provided relative to the project.

I do have a couple of questions, noting that the focus is on workforce housing.

Scott, correct, on our lot.

It's on our property.

That's correct.

I still and then the parcel that you own, that is basically the overflow parking.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Further in terms of the pro forma and keeping consistent with sort of the goals and objectives be underneath the Mishta Housing Workforce Brownfield Program.

The um seven units that are between 60 and not more than you know 80% AMI.

There are no associated parking costs with those units that are going to be charged to the tenants.

If I mean correctly answering that question.

But the the second, and that that'll, I think, primarily help the commercial tenant um I believe, but it'll also uh have an effect on this.

But also um, you know, we we've got uh other buildings uh in the area.

We did a seven unit, no parking, uh, and it hasn't been a problem uh at all.

Matter of fact, uh quite oddly, it's we have to find the space to put uh everybody's bicycle.

Um that that's that's been similar to the issue storing them in the halls.

Um but but the last uh point there is the city just recently came in and put parking meters there.

It's if if you can Google Earth it right now, you'll see there's nothing down there.

And um, you know, uh I know the rest of uh second here because the city again for whatever reason came and put in a bunch of meters.

These are all apartment buildings here.

I'm looking at them right now.

Um, and these are residents uh that were were gonna get ticketed to death.

I uh again, Sue Mosey.

I I you know raise her every waking moment of the day.

Um, that uh enough noise was made that these meters are not active between Canfield and Warren uh because of the uh apartment uh density here and um the city I understand was working on a residential parking permit plan.

That was going to be uh the trigger to make these things active.

I would similarly move that that meter not be uh you know made active because there's nothing but residents there, there's a handful of uh buildings, and um so that would be something else that that you know parking needs some some looking at in general and mr.

Mr.

Sorry for the rant.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I would actually encourage you.

I'm not sure if you've had that conversation with anyone.

Um I would encourage you to have that conversation with the council person who represents that area um to to discuss parking and what parking looks like.

Um I appreciate you offering parking spaces for the more affordable units.

Um with that, I do want to ask you if I noting that we don't currently have breakdown of the rates, we know the the AMIs, but if someone can provide the breakdown of the rates, uh that would be great.

And I I did just want to ask if the rates that will be provided are inclusive of a utility allowance.

Um certainly I can answer that question.

Yes, all of the units within the building that are between the 60% and 120% are accounting for the required utility allowances.

Um that was um evaluated during um not just the evaluation by um the Debra, Detroit Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, but also working with HRD as we are going through the pilot program.

Um so the um just give me two seconds.

I'm gonna bring up the pro forma to go through the um rent ranges, and I'm presume that's what you're asking for.

Are the rents on this?

That's correct.

Okay.

So adjusting for the utility allowances.

Um we have the um rents that are um starting at um for the 60% um studio at um again, inclusive of utilities at 982.

Um when we jump up to the 80% units inclusive of utilities.

Um we are at 1423.

And at our high end um for the one bedroom, we're at 1802.

Um, these are estimates.

We're going to also be, you know, considering rent ranges as market demands.

So in our portfolio in our Proforma, we were running the apartments between the 982 and up to 16 um 50.

We kind of we have to stay because of how the proformas are set up through the different target incomes.

It doesn't allow you to adjust for that, but um within our pro forma, um, the maximum rents at this point um that we've included um and have submitted for underwriting to the city and DEGC were the at the top end were uh 1600.

Okay.

All right, thank you for that.

And lastly, I just want to be sure that this was mentioned.

I believe I saw it in the information that was provided to us.

There is an elevator that's going to be in the building, correct?

That's correct.

It'll be on the addition.

We can't necessarily fit it in the footprint, but that's that's part of the reason for the addition.

Great.

Perfect.

Um I'm sure Miss Maddox will be uh happy to hear that and again appreciate the universal design uh units.

Um all right, that is all that I have pro Tim.

Thank you, Mayor Chair.

Uh thank you so much, everyone.

Good to see you.

This is a really exciting uh project.

Uh it's a it's a gentleman's uh hotel, but I'm glad that we're gonna open it up for everybody.

Uh even though that is cool history, it's called history for a reason, and we're gonna just let it be his story and trade it to everybody.

Um I'm saying that one because I know it's true, and I don't know, I don't have to assume that that's just the reality.

Um, I wanted to ask you about parking.

I just wanted to ask you.

Um from from there was an announcement the city did earlier.

It said that tenants pay about 1700 more rent each year due to parking mandates.

And from my understanding, I think each spot on average costs about $8,000, and the surface is like 35,000, I think per uh per lot, and then um 3500, I think per lot, and then it's 50,000 K or 50,000 for an underground um lot.

The reason I'm not saying these numbers are exact for you, but what I'm saying is how much, if any, did parking costs factor into you having to ask for this for the amount of money that you're asking for for the brown field.

Do you want to answer that, Scott?

Or do you want me to address it?

Uh go go ahead.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Thank you for your question.

Um, with the parking, um, you know, again, we're not dealing with below ground parking or integrated parking or multi-story parking on this.

Okay.

Um, so that alleviates some of the cost that oftentimes you're seeing when you're doing integrated parking for um, you know, a podium style development, or if you're doing underground parking where you may have to deal with removal of contaminated soil or film material to accommodate that.

Um, our biggest challenge on this one from a price point um standpoint is the interior of this building is pretty pretty bad shape.

It's in very bad shape.

So there's floors that have subsided on the third to fourth floor.

Um, you know, we have the great bones of the exterior of the building, but the interior of the building has to be completely reconfigured, rebuilt, and revering has to go back into it.

So think of it like a nice little exterior box that you know it the interior has to be completely remodeled.

So that that's that was our bigger challenge.

Okay.

Okay, so so do you do you have a number for me, or do you have or do you have an idea of what that cost is?

And it's not fine.

I just want to make sure just just for my understanding what that would add to because we're having discussions about zoning, we're having discussions about parking mandate reforms and things that nature.

And I just want to know for the record, you know, how what would this add?

Did this add to that significantly at all?

Is it negligible?

I just kind of want just just to know just from my understanding, just for future references it is these types of projects.

Scott, if you're wanting to speak on service parking improvements and the cost per square foot, that would be what you're looking for, correct?

How much more added cost?

Is that that's what you're looking for?

Uh yes.

Um, so I I can send that to you.

Um I can pull up what are our construction uh see if I have this here.

Uh I uh it's not gonna be broken down on a square foot basis.

So I I'm happy to send that to you.

It's it's not insignificant, but um, you know, it's it's also the space next to it.

It just um pardon me.

I'm not sure what else we would we would frankly be doing with it.

So uh, but I'm happy to send that to you.

It's not an insignificant cost.

No, I appreciate that.

That that's just something I'm just looking at when we're talking about in terms of cost and we're talking about in terms of incentives and things that nature.

I'm not saying that this is needed.

It definitely is.

And I understand what you're trying to do, and I appreciate what you're doing.

I'm just trying to ask just so I can understand what that is when my constituents ask me.

I kind of answer why that is and just make sure what I'm saying is accurate.

I also wanted to ask you really quickly, and then I'll be done.

I just wanted to ask you about the parking ratio.

Uh, how many parking uh parking spaces per unit or per room do you have?

No, there's something next to us, and I think we counted how uh I'm just yeah, I believe we have a one-to-one for all the three.

One to one.

Yeah.

Okay.

Excellent, excellent, excellent.

Um, that being said, I think that I that's all the questions I have for now.

Uh look forward to the moving forward of this project.

Uh, thank you so much for your time.

Um that's all for me.

Thank you.

All right.

We will now proceed to public comment.

If there is anyone joining us who would like to make a public comment regarding the public hearing that was just discussed, please raise your hand.

Going once.

Going twice.

Going three times.

The collection of public comment has concluded.

Ms.

Jackson, how many hands do we have raised?

Madam Chair, there are four hands raised for public comment.

All right, we'll give everyone one minute, 30 seconds for public comment.

And who do we have first?

Our first caller is Gwendolyn Howard.

Gwendolyn Howard, you have one minute, 30 seconds for public comment regarding the public hearing.

Okay.

Are you there?

All right, let's return to Ms.

Howard.

The next caller is legendary Detroiter.

Caller, you have one minute, 30 seconds for public comment regarding the public hearing.

Yeah, uh Letitia regarding this public hearing.

Just like I say about all these public hearings on the city of Detroit, uh planning economic development committee, which was chaired by uh James Tate.

James E.

Tate Jr.

The City Council now, President of the City Council, and now you done stepped up and took over the planning economic development uh committee.

Y'all cheated in public officials, Mr.

Crowley.

Do you have a comment regarding the public hearing?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

What what part can you understand?

You went we're not involved in the public hearing.

If you have a comment regarding the actual project, you may proceed.

Okay, I think the project is BS.

Now I wanna proceed, and I use a cusp words and a profanity and explain to you.

All of them are and I'm dug deep, deep, deep to find out what it is.

I know no, no, no, no, and I'm not lying about sugar honey iced tea.

Take it how you want to take it.

The next caller.

The next caller is owner papa.

Owner Papa, you have one minute 30 seconds for public comment.

Good morning, and through the chair.

Good morning, yes.

Carolyn Hughes.

I'm I'm concerned about the number of um workforce housing we keep building when the indicators indicate that we are having a decrease and the and the ness necessity for um um workforce housing because the numbers are down for jobs, and can you describe to me what exactly is workforce housing?

I worked and I lived in my house, so I'm not I'm not really sure what that means, workforce housing, and um what are the levels of income for the units?

You gave numbers, but what are the levels of income?

Because it appears to me like a $982 for a studio is is not uh conducive for many people.

Uh that is kind of pricey for a studio.

Um, and can you explain to me what the utility allowance is?

Who is um subject to uh receive it and how much is that allowance?

Uh I I see a lot of projects coming through here, but we're looking for uh family uh housing.

Um I think we spent enough of our NEZ money and pilot money on units for studios, one bedroom.

We need housing that consists of more bedrooms, so this project is not conducive for what we need because what we need right now is housing for families.

I think we've provided enough to work.

Thank you.

The next caller.

The next caller is Marguerite Maddox and Scarlet.

Marguerite Maddox and Scarlet, the floor is yours.

Yes, yes, to the elevator, and how many elevators with this people and they gonna be a bunch of side by side or uh again like bottom and the president be the um should they be 88 and we get because they uh some people who have these abilities may be in the work for that may need um space and do it they're gonna be automatic doing opening they get tired opening uh a key uh a credit card open open do it and then once you get inside the B of the B of you gonna hit me up by

Visibility and the work for May need um is do it they're gonna be automatic go open it like open it a key cast open open do and then get shot the we have gonna hit mad boxes and one more beach and much the issue that is very important and how many how many how many apartments gonna have volume hours the regular and thank you the next caller Madam Chair we're going back to Gwen Ellen Howard is Gwendolyn Howard.

You have one minute 30 seconds for a public comment regarding the public hearing.

Hi, can may I be heard?

Yes.

Good morning.

Um I'm not sure um that I'm understanding exactly the issue with with the buildings.

This is concerning the building, right?

Am I correct?

This is a public hearing for the building for it to be redeveloped.

Right.

So the I'm not sure what that issue is.

My hand was up for the other, I'm sorry, it was up for the other public comment.

So I listened to it, but I I can't comment on it because I'm not sure what's really going on there.

Okay, thank you.

If you'd like to make a general public comment, you can reach out to the clerk's office, and they will put your comment on record.

Thank you so much.

That now concludes our public comment regarding the public hearing and uh to the presenters to the presenters.

Um not sure who'd like to start first, but I noted several questions.

Um yes, thank you.

Um, and Jameson again with the development team.

Um, I'm happy to address um where the definition of workforce housing is coming from.

Okay.

Um, I'll also go over the income ranges as it relates to the target rents.

Um, and I can also address and explain what we mean by utility allowances.

Um little background on Act 381, Act 381, uh, which is the Brownfield Financing Act.

Um, the original adoption of the Act program, it was adopted in 1996.

The intent behind that was to address contaminated properties in Michigan in 2000.

The act was again amended to add in provisions to allow for rehabs and redevelopment of functionally obsolete and blighted properties within our downtowns.

So there were subsequent amendments following the latest amendment added in housing property in 2023 as a qualified eligible uh property uh qualify qualifier, and that was really to address um our housing need um housing needs within Michigan.

So um MISTA, which is our Michigan State Housing Development Authority, most of you may know um that program that authority um that typically focuses on low-income housing tax credit projects um that we are looking at rents and and area meeting incomes targeted between 80% and 60% AMI.

The workforce housing um model is focusing on um between the gap of the 60% AMI and all the way up to 120%.

So it's bridging the rents between low income housing that folks not everybody can qualify for and um the higher market rents that we're seeing throughout the city.

So this MISHTA housing um program essentially is to bridge the gap gap between low income housing and uh market rate.

The income ranges, um I can touch on that.

So um I want to be clear here.

We follow the guidelines that's published by the city of Detroit and MISHTA.

Um we have to make sure that the folks that are renting the units that are targeted for our AMI area medium income ranges are qualified households, and qualified households mean that upon lease up our manage our leasing the leasing management company has to income qualify those folks.

Um and then the so if somebody's running at 60% AMI, they income qualify, and then the rents that they are renting the units for um equally um distributed.

So the rent and the income, um I already touched on the income, I'm sorry, excuse me, the rent, but I will give you a range on a one-person household, because it does vary per household, but for our situation, we have one in one uh mainly one bed units.

So at 60% a one person one person income area medium income in the city of Detroit is 42,420.

And Ms.

Jameson, yeah.

That means that's the max amount that the household can make.

Correct.

That is correct.

So to income qualify for a 60% target rent offered in our building, the um our tenant could not make more than 60%.

And that's why we have the range, right?

We want to go, we want to be equitable.

We want to have a range of units that are between that 60 and 120.

So at 60%, um, again, that is uh 42 420.

Um at 70% AMI, um, we're at 49,490.

At 80, we're at 56,000 uh 560.

Um at 90%, we're at 63,630.

At 100%, we're at 70,000 um, and then upwards of 120 euro at 84,000.

Um, our target average is really in the range of income qualifiers, um, you know, between that 40 and 70 um thousand um income range.

The utility allowances, if I may, jump to that.

Yes, please.

The utility allowances essentially how it works is we have a target rent.

Yes.

If you don't mind just being brief, we have another discussion subsequent to this public hearing.

Okay, I'm so sorry.

I tend to get very detailed.

So essentially what a utility allowance is is it's it's a deduction of utilities that's published by MISHA.

So we reduce the amount of rent uh you know, based on what the utility allowance is and what are being charged for that unit.

I think the question specifically was what is the amount of the utility allowance?

Ms.

Kappler, I'm not sure if you have that.

The amount of the utility allowance, I have that as well.

Briefly.

Ms.

Kappler, if you have it, please.

Yeah, the range for the utility allowance for this project is between $50 for the studio unit and $66 for the one bedroom units.

And actually, yes, correct.

There are there has been a slight increase in adjustment for that utility allowance, but we're in that pocket.

And geothermal is throughout the building.

Correct.

Okay.

So that really helps with our heating and cooling.

Yes.

If if I can have someone respond to Ms.

Maddox's questions.

How many elevators if you've identified whether or not the washer and dryers will be side by side or stacked?

Parking specifically for ADA.

Tenants, open floor, just generally speaking about the units.

I can speak, I can speak to all that.

As far as laundry goes, they'll be stackable, safe for one set.

We'll have one set that'll be side by side, you know, in an effort for accommodation.

There's one elevator.

Yes, emergency exits.

I believe the requirements we're supposed to have one for 25, uh, up to 25.

We will have uh one uh designated handicapped parking spot.

Um there'll be three units that are uh designated with the uh roll-in showers um that'll be built that way, and it will be an open floor plan.

Um not sure what else I missed there.

Automatic door opener.

Uh I hadn't I'd heard that question, and I don't know that I could an automatic door opener.

No, I I don't uh I don't know.

Ms.

Jameson, would you happen to know?

Most most buildings have them nowadays, whether it's a push button or you approach it and the door is automatically open.

And that's for the access on the main floor for the commercial space.

Um and the entry into the correct the entry to the yeah.

So we're we're we're kind of you know, on uh as far as the main entry goes, uh pretty have Annals speak more to that, but we're we're heavily you know beholden to the HDC and and the historic requirements for for the the very front door, but uh I'm sure we could make some form of you know accommodation for for that where we're required otherwise.

So there's the historic piece, right?

The historic um rehab piece, which is configured as such that it's a little bit challenging for inner because there's steps up and steps down, but the addition was meant to allow for um ADA access, not only just for the commercial, but also to the elevators and the floors above.

Um so those are all being considered.

I mean, they are not being considered, they are being implemented.

Okay, all right.

Thank you for that.

I believe those are all of the questions that I wrote down, and I'm going to flag a conversation with the historic designation commission.

The the historic designation advisory board um to have that conversation about such properties.

I know um existing uh infrastructure and historic buildings may we'll we'll have to have a conversation about that.

So thank you for for elevating that.

Um if I could speak to that for just a very briefly.

Very briefly, is uh to Ann's point.

A lot of these buildings, when they were originally built, you walk in and you walk up three stairs.

So having a push button at that door is nonsensical.

Uh uh with respect to a uh uh a wheelchair.

Um and you know, I I speak to this with with uh with an eye towards um, you know, our our construction manager's wheelchair bound, so I'm very attuned to to a lot of this accessibility uh uh concerns.

Um, but as uh and it's not just HDC, that they they uh are supposed to use the same standards, but it's also SHIPO and the Park Service who look to this as well.

Um they have they've quite often come out with different uh uh interpretations.

Yeah, I I think that the closing on that, yeah.

Uh just I I think it requires a further conversation for sure, um, so that we can make sure we're providing accessibility for all of our residents.

I've had conversations with folks just about the infrastructure throughout the entire city of Detroit.

And um, you know, buildings that were built in the 1920s um that just do not provide accommodations for um everyone, which is a challenge, and and we'll be having conversations with the administration about these new houses coming online.

requires a further conversation for sure um so that we can make sure we're providing accessibility for all of our residents I've had conversations with folks just about the infrastructure throughout the entire city of Detroit and um you know buildings that were built in the 1920s um that just do not provide accommodations for um everyone which is a challenge and and we'll be having conversations with the administration about these new houses coming online I'm proposing publicly right now proposing that they are all ranches um with a walk up with no step to get into the property and they can be spread throughout this city that is our first step to providing access um and accessible housing for everyone um and so I appreciate you all uh I am going to move us forward to see if Pro Tim has any additional questions I believe all of the questions that were raised during public comment were addressed thank you I I I I don't know I don't have a question for anybody here I do ask the questions uh but I think that'll probably be for DEGC I don't know if there's anybody that can they can answer that I don't think it's appropriate to ask uh Ms.

Barcliff so I think I'm just gonna move on and I know we'll have this discussion again so we have a discussion again just make sure we have DEGC so I just because it's kind of granular when I'm asking and I think I need them to give me their economic analysis of what I'm asking for.

So other than that thank you I appreciate it.

All right thank you is there a motion on line item six the public hearing uh there is a motion on line item six to move yes a motion what's the motion pro ten really um is there a motion to send line item six to formal with recommendation to approve thank you there is a motion to send line item six to formal with recommendation to approve thank you motion has been made hearing no objections that action shall be taken all right thank you all so much for joining us thank you have a good day you as well that now closes out the 1025 public hearing I'd like to call back to order the 1030 discussion the 1030 discussion is with the historic designation advisory board in regards to secondary street signs I do see Dr.

Janice Chapman and Miss Janice Tillman morning morning good morning madam chair we have a PowerPoint presentation and who is actually Yolanda is I mean Miss Jackson is going to run a PowerPoint okay I can't walk in two gum at the same okay no worries no worries and Mr.

Clerk if you will please note that council president Tate has joined us thank you all right just for um introductions I'm Janice Chapman the director of the historic designation advisory board and I'm Janice Tillman Historic Plan and History Designation Advisory Board and today is a continuation of what we started in February there was a report sent out as an urgent cry to adjust the secondary street sign process um as you know the secondary right now the secondary street sign application open on January 1st and it closes on June 30th and that's about 48 days away so it's approaching soon that's 32 business days.

Currently we have 18 applicants those are all rollovers from last year without new any new application as of this year.

H staff is concerned about the increasing numbers of the secondary street sign application and would like to discuss amending the ordinance for the secondary street sign process each year there are more applications than there are spots according to the ordinance council is restricted to only selecting five secondary street sign honorees each year and we think that this might be part of the issue with the increasing numbers also within with the limited numbers that you can actually approve each year each year we get an increasing numbers of applications so those applicants can spend up to five years in the process the initial year and four consecutive years and that's according to the ordinance and we think that might be may need to be changed so in our research next slide please in our research we um looked at a study that was conducted by the city of New Orleans this study actually highlighted seven cities these seven cities were looked at and examined as to how they run their process after reading that research I contacted those seven cities which are listed on the screen and I also contacted the city of New Orleans to find out the updates on these programs and while we were doing that we also looked at other honorary street sign programs that's similar to the size of Detroit like Atlanta and Portland historical cities such as Savannah and Richmond and nearby cities such as Hantram and Ramirez.

After reading that research, I contacted those seven cities which are listed on the screen.

And I also contacted the city of New Orleans to find out the updates on these programs.

That's similar to the size of Detroit, like Atlanta and Portland, historical cities such as Savannah and Richmond, and nearby cities such as Hantram and Romulus.

In total, next slide.

Yes.

In total, there were 16 honorary street sign programs reviewed.

And go back.

Yes, these are the cities that were reviewed in the process.

Just to give you some context.

Some cities range from two square miles, which is handramic, and other cities range from geographically 300 square miles.

So what were the findings of these 16 cities?

10 out of the 16 cities had no yearly limit.

And I think that's pretty important.

However, there are some differences.

The cities that had no limit are listed here.

However, hand tramic requires, although they don't have a limit, they requires that there is a hundred registered voters sign a petitions to apply.

So this has to be done before they can actually apply.

But they've only had four requests in the last six years.

So these varies.

Next slide, please.

Like Savannah has eight council members, so each council members have one honorary street sign they can nominate each year.

Chicago, now that number is really big, but Chicago has 50 districts.

Chicago can do a max of a hundred second honorary street signs each year, but they have two per Ottoman districts.

New Orleans, 14, Romulus, that's nearby, of course.

Um they have seven, Norfolk seven.

Richmond, I didn't get clarity on they have nine council members, but they have 10 actual honorary street sign program honorees.

And I'm assuming, but I didn't find this in writing, that number 10 is for the mayor.

Next slide.

Another significant finding that we notice is 10 of the 16 cities have signature petition or community process.

Um there the cities are listed.

The city of Chicago and New York, of course, being so huge, their process is really extensive, but they actually give their recommendations from community boards.

The community boards review all applications and they submit it to their aldermen who then take it up and actually vote on if they should receive it.

The city of Milwaukee has a distinct program where they have a citizen's advisory board.

Matter of fact, some cities you can't apply, it takes you a year to apply after you get rejected.

You have to wait out a whole year before you can reply, apply again.

So I thought that was significant.

So we want to make some recommendations.

First, the the recommendations are twofold.

One for this fiscal year, like for 2020-16 cycle, and then other recommendation is moving forward with the process.

Um, the recommendation for this year, there's no need to change any ordinance, but for the future process, there will be need.

So right now we have no new application.

This is not because of lack of interest.

We have 12 people who are potential applicants.

10 of them are not eligible unless they get sponsored by council.

Two of them are eligible, but they don't have the the $675 to pay the fee.

So they want to be sponsored as well.

So all the 12 are pending council's rec um sponsorship.

So we're requesting that maybe council can choose not to sponsor any new applicants this year.

This will greatly reduce the number of applicants for the 2026 cycle.

We right now have 18 applicants right now without any sponsorships.

And the applicants are as follows on this slide.

These are the current 2026 applicants without any new sponsorships.

So that's kind of the recommendation for this year.

As I go into the recommendation for the future, um, thank you, um, councilwoman Johnson, because we actually have your recommendations, and they actually line up with what we found in the research.

The first one was to eliminate the rollover.

The other 16 cities didn't have a rollover, one council per um sponsorship per council person.

That was true for three other cities, um, allowing residents over the age of 80 to be eligible without a sponsorship letter.

That's true for two other cities.

They have age limits of who are allowed to apply and be eligible, and geographically spread out through the city.

This is true for Chicago and New York.

Their Ottomans only recommend people from their districts.

So your um actual recommendation lines up with the research we found.

So I don't know if you wanted to speak on this or you want me to go with the other recommendation.

So the options for that we see for the future.

Option number one.

This was actually submitted in the February of the 2026 report.

Basically, having all the applicants request or do a signature petition.

That's community input, and it reduces the number of people who actually apply.

Most people do not want to do this portion.

Um, number two, reduce rollover years from four years to two years.

The next one is limit how many applications can be received.

And with these recommendations, also have counsel to be allowed to sponsor one applicant per year.

So that's the first option.

There's three.

The second option is to amend the ordinance to allow city council members to sponsor one each year.

Um, and the council can choose not to sponsor if they decide not to.

But this option would allow for the community applicants to submit their application, but it will restrict the ordinance, and these items would have to be changed, the limit of the quantity, um, the procedure and the voting.

You have to do more than five if council sponsoring one each year, and the rollover process would go away.

That's option two.

And I just put this up here because I know some people watch council and they like to actually have the actual facts so they can screenshot this screen to get the details.

Next slide.

And the final option that we see fit is to amend the ordinance to allow council members to sponsor two applicants each cycle, and this would be considered as one community applicant and one applicant from anywhere in the city that you want to sponsor.

Of course, at large it's all the city.

Um, so this would also eliminate this would also mean the amendment to the following ordinances, and this would also eliminate rollover possibilities.

So these are some options, of course.

The last three options are for the future.

The first thing we're requesting for this year that will help this year is to not sponsor any applicants because right now we have no new application.

We still have 18 in the process.

So these are just the options that we came up with, and we are definitely open to hear what council sees fit, and we'll make the changes in what should be recommended.

Excellent.

Okay, thank you for the presentation.

Um, Ms.

Jackson, if I can ask you to go back, maybe four or five slides.

Um, there it's the one that kind of talks about the other cities and how many.

Um I I just want to get clarity, like Chicago had 100 because they have 50 alderments.

Yes.

Um is that the number that gets selected per year or the number of applications?

The max is 100.

Uh, they can select a hundred, um, they can actually select a hundred per year.

Yes.

Wow.

Chicago has a lot of secondary street signs or honorary street sizes is their program title.

So all of these is a max of the number of um selections.

Selections for the actual secondary street sign.

Yes.

Okay.

All right, thank you for that.

And if you'd now like to put up my recommendations.

So I think I've shared this previously that one of my um concerns was the the individuals whose names I've seen get selected for secondary street signs are people that everyone knows.

It's it's they're they're famous in their own right and typically they've had a fair amount of media attention where I think council members know who they are.

And then we have a a number of people that come out and advocate for them.

We had one exception last year I think I'd like to see more people in our neighborhoods be considered and and have some type of equity in the system so that it's not always a famous name a famous person that we're aware of who has been an entertainer and athlete things of that nature there are people that are on the rollover list that I would love to see get a secondary street sign but every year we have larger names if you will that are added to the list and they kind of get overshadowed as a result.

So I would love to see us perhaps choosing one person per year.

The council members choose one person and then we have a smaller pool.

I quite honestly initially I had said if we can reduce the number of rollovers from four years to two years but ultimately eliminating the rollover I think that would be great.

The only challenge the only concern I have about that is if someone is not selected that they actually have to pay the fee again in subsequent years.

So I wonder if you all have any thoughts about that.

Actually when I research other cities because I ask this question if you eliminate people every year they have to repay the thing is their application fee is much less than ours.

Okay.

And I don't know if we want to touch our application fee because it's a part of our budget but their application fee is sometimes $50 or $100.

Okay that's something to think about.

All right.

Thank you for um that colleagues any additional questions comments pro Tim Young I I call pro Tim Young.

Oh okay okay I'm with the deferred president I'm sorry mental chair thank you sir I didn't mean to dictate what you want I'm sorry.

All right um listen I just wanted to say um first and foremost I want to say um I know that part of the reason why we had so many on here is because my office was the one that kind of did these whole things so I'll kind of understand what you're talking about in terms of how you want to keep you how you want to um why you want to have the prize in terms of not having any this year.

I kind of understand that because there's so many they're done because we got so many requests to be able to do that.

That's part of that problem.

I don't see myself having any more requests this year.

All the people that you have on there are people who I'll be trying to work with anyway because at first I didn't see Martha Jean the Queen and so I saw her at the end of the list.

So that was because I'm working with a mere archer kind of be able to get that through.

But I just wanted to ask you um in general are you are you suggesting that that this is something that's just going to be one time for the Secretary street name that we don't make requests this year or is this something that you're requesting is or this is going to be part of a policy for next year's until we reduce this to a number that you think is manageable.

And I just want to know let's say we don't have any this year but we have the same but we have a lot of requests the year after and it gets to the same number that we're at now is this something that you would have to come back and make that request again I just I just want to know what is the number that is like beyond the capacity and what is it so I kind of know what that is.

So what people make a request I can kind of figure that out.

Okay.

So you had to come back every other year and say don't make any more requests.

So it's only for this year I'm we're requesting that council not sponsor only because we have the 18.

Right.

Um the other recommendation is to change the process going forward where there will not be from these recommendations, um, minimum rollover or no rollover at all.

So this would only my request for councilman members not sponsoring anyone, it's only for this year, so we can address the process and deal with the 18 people who are on the rollover list.

Right.

So going forward though, um, I'm here to respectfully request direction to change the process for 2027.

Yeah, see, because I'm uh I'm uh I I kind of like the process as is.

I like the ability to be able to do these things and make this happen.

I know that there's a lot, and so we need to reduce it, you know, this year, but I like that ability and their freedom as a legislator to be able to request these, because we get a lot of requests.

Now, now I'm not saying that all the requests should be honored.

You know what I'm saying?

There's some people who ask me, and I'm like, nah, bro, I ain't doing that.

But you know, there's a lot of people who I do know who I think are worthy.

I think all these names are particularly worthy, and I like that freedom.

That's why I was kind of asking you, is there like if we let's say hypothetically, you know, we don't uh in your wisdom take those requests and we keep it as is.

Um through the chair.

Um actually I'm here for you to tell me.

Okay.

There is no set now.

Right now, the problem is um to compromise my options here.

The problem is we have too few that are selected each year.

We only can select five.

Right.

But the number keeps increasing in popularity.

So if that number five changed to 20, that would have solved some of the problem.

Okay.

Um, or if the rollover years reduce from four to two or one, that will reduce some of the problem.

But I'm here to receive from you all.

Okay, no, no, I see what you're saying.

Okay.

If I'm sorry, yes, if I may, just to kind of piggyback on to what Janice is saying, um, we are looking for the direction of the council.

And we do know that there are several council members who like, you know, there are some who like this um the way the um ordinance reads now and would not like and would probably vote for suggest that there'll be no changes to the ordinance.

What we are saying is that at the rate in which we're going, because we and I don't know if anybody anticipated the number of people who may be interested in secondary street sign, um, and um an honorary tree signs, and that has increased.

And that also has resulted in some of the community folk, and this is speaks to uh um councilwoman's Johnson's concerns and issues, and and and possibly council member state, is that now we're you know, the the the the it's becoming a a thing where um it it's gotten that you know I'm just gonna bypass, you know, used to be it was gonna be a community kind of thing, you needed to get the signatures.

So now many of them are saying why do I have you know they're bypassing, and it's not just uh um just because of the cost, it's also because it's easier.

I'm just gonna say, if I may, um speaking very bluntly, and um so they come to you guys, uh you know, and it's as is as as um and rightly so, and ask that they would you sponsor them.

So we have a situation now that there may be a situation in the community where there's a group of folks who live near the proposed signage that may not be in favor.

Yet they've come, you know.

So those are the kinds of things that we're looking at.

I think that in the suggestion of the of from our office, there is one suggestion that is saying that there is um that that we service leads and have two per, you know, per district, and then the council at large, you know, it's you know, one in the district, and then somebody, you know, the community makes a choice and identify someone.

That way, you know, you get those folks who may uh you know, and you know, through through notoriety or whatever, you know, may be on the list, but there's also that community person who's been in that the struggle who's been making sure that the flowers were planted every year in the neighborhood, or making sure that the clean sweep came through, and that those folks are also recognized.

And so that may be a suggestion that we add to the ordinance that that that we include uh become more inclusive in that regard.

Um, but that's up to you guys.

We're we were trying to think of ways, you know, our staff was trying to think of ways in which we could be more um answer and also answer to the community folks, you know, to to the to the constituents here in the city of Detroit.

And so that, you know, and it's not you know the parade of of the most famous or you know, infamous is is uh however you want to look at it coming through.

So that was another suggestion that that we would and like I said, you know, reaching out to the other cities.

Um New York has, you know, it's huge, and and it's the the ultimate's there too.

So they are doing that two ways.

You know, so those are the kind of suggestions that we're looking at.

And these are all suggested things coming from our office, and then you know, your your honorable body will be making the final decision as to whether and how we move forward.

We are in the middle of a beginning, you know, or the towards the beginning of the secondary street sign process again, and we wanted to get some directions as to um how to move forward because truthfully, we may not have any full petitions right now, but they used to come at the last month or within the last month.

We all know, you know, it's it we you know, there are those who are gonna get it out there, but then there are those who are gonna, and then and you you get the phone calls, and then we get the phone calls, and we don't mind getting the phone calls, but we want to make sure that we are treat that everybody is being heard.

Thank you.

To that, Dr.

Chapman, um to you, Council President Pro Tim.

When we have the public hearing for secondary streets, we have a room full.

Um we have folks joining us virtually to the point where a lot of times in the past, they could only have 30 seconds for public comment because there were so many people that were here to make a comment because there were so many people on the list um being considered as well.

No, I understand where you're coming from, and that makes good points.

I I I don't I I I don't mean to be dismissive.

I think that may as good point.

I mean, again, it it depends on your preference.

Personally, I think because of what we're doing, because we're honoring streets, because we have such a history, because we have such legacy, I think that's the way it should be.

Okay.

Personally, it's just the way I think.

Personally, one, and I think secondly, what you talked about, or what the um, excuse me, what um chairwoman Johnson talked about in terms of people who are not known is a very excellent point.

And I think that's part of the reason why I thought, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we had it, the system that we had it where you have sponsorships from the council people, so those folks could be elevated.

So when we're having debates about who those people are, you could talk about why this person should be there and why that person should get it.

And I and I like that idea, because one, it's educational.

I'll learn about this person and who they are.

And secondly, it allows me to make a decision.

You know what I'm saying?

But really ponder.

Should I put this person on here?

Cause he made, you know, this song, you know, five, ten years ago that I, you know, listen to every occasionally in my car, or should I put up this person here who is been the community for years, who was doing this work, who's continuing to do this work, and it's vital to this area, to this neighborhood, this to the city.

I really like pondering those decisions and having that decision.

Because for me, nine times out of ten, the community person is probably gonna is probably gonna win out.

You know what I'm saying?

Nine times out of ten.

There might be some cases where we have that person get in the street saying, or they might get a street name and signed somewhere else, or they might not get one at all.

But I think even if they don't, we should at least have that discussion.

I think I like the fact that those two people are on the same platform having that same discussion, having that same debate.

So I so I think that's clear.

There probably will probably be a little bit more tightening though, I think around people who live in the city versus people who just had an impact on the city, and what does that mean?

You know, and which one should take priority.

Naturally you would think people who live in the city would take priority.

But there are some people who don't live in the city, but made songs about the city that are very important and pertinent, and we should have those debates.

So I kind of like that.

And I and this is my last question, and I'm gonna be done.

I just wanted to ask about you said something about 20, having approving 20, I think it was street um naming signs per year.

Is that correct?

The ordinance can be changed.

If we did that, could you do that with the staff and the team that you have?

Or job security, I can do that.

Okay, all right.

All right.

That's not a problem.

Last year was 23.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

I I'm gonna just say I know, but but I know we have a limit now, so we're talking about doing that.

With the every year through the chair with enough time, um, you know, notification, we could probably get it done.

And I'm and I'm gonna say that because um, you know, if we know in advance of, you know, a month, then you know, that would be the other thing.

So I I I think that that that that is probably doable.

Um and and duly note it.

And if not, then we will come back and say it's you know, the next budget, this just didn't work.

This just didn't work.

Yes, I I know there's a metric to measure this, but I forgot what it was called.

I'm not gonna take the time to research it now, but I will find out where it is, and I think if we have that will be of us a better understanding in terms of what because I Bill, because I would want you to do 20 a year, but at the same time I'm not trying to overload the office to the point where it can and cannot be done, and everybody is frustrated as a result of it.

It also as if I may through the chair, it also becomes a question of the, you know, and I know that um um council president Tate had brought the set once before, you know, the conf because there has been confusion.

We've gotten calls from folks who said, and then I'm not gonna uh particularly one who said, well, people were sending their mail to the secondary street sign, I mean the address, but with the street name with the secondary streets, and wondered why they were not getting the mail, you know, and I had to explain that street sign is only honorary.

The US postal office does not you know recognize it as a as a legitimate street name.

Right.

Um so that is, you know, i the question is to do you want you know um, you know, the the number of as they increase, then you're gonna have more blue signs.

And people we don't want people being confused, and so that was something that was talked about when we made the um the last change to the ordinance.

I think the agreed upon number of five was to kind of ensure that that it was just a you know that we were getting the criminal and we were just dealing with the five, and that we didn't want that to happen, or that your your honorable body didn't.

I'm gonna say we but your honorable body had questions about that.

So that and that maybe may not be an issue at this point in time, um, based upon you know the studies that we've done with other cities.

Okay, and and and and we would not have to be thinking about if we went to 20, there wouldn't have to be discussion about increasing budgets or spending more money to get that done, correct?

I'm sure we can always like increased budgets.

However, um 23 were applicants were in last year.

15 of them were new.

There were at least 10 that didn't make it based on eligibility.

So we're talking about an additional 10 on top.

So we have a process that we scan through to make sure if they're eligible.

So long as we get in in a timely manner, that wouldn't necessarily be a problem for us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam uh chair.

I'm done.

Thank you.

A point of clarification.

So I thought Pro Tim was talking about selecting 20 people, not having 20 applicants.

So I would imagine you'd have tremendously more applicants if we allowed 20 um secondary streets signs.

Yes, madam chair.

Um, but every applicant goes every applicant goes through the same process.

I I think what I'm referring to though now is bandwidth for the department.

If if we selected 20, let's say you had 60 now in the in the queue for us to select 20, would you be able to manage through the chair?

No.

I'm just gonna, you know, as a as a as as I'm just gonna say no.

If we had 60, we would not be able to.

I think what we meet with each applicant.

No, I I have to be very honest.

We meet with each applicant prior to, so you don't even see the all the applicants who may be applying, because we've already done that first weeding out of or or saying that they are not qualified at the at the front end.

So what you are receiving based upon these names and numbers are those who qualify.

Right.

So that is part and parcel of of what it is.

I think that if we got six, you know, and and and and let me say, you know, right now we have a six months window or eight-month window or something.

Six months window.

Um, if we move the number or increase the number, then we're gonna have to open it for the entire year, which means that then that then we would need to have one staff person solely dedicated to the to the to that right now.

Um they're doing, you know, we have uh they have other um assignments.

But if we move open it up, and and let me just say this very uh, you know, it would be then we that application process would open up for for a year.

It would have to take, you know, so that we can receive applicants and applications, you know, and and and base it upon our yearly schedule as opposed to a six-month schedule.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

On that point, madam chair.

So if 60 is selected, you're saying if 60 were chosen and selected.

I think the question that we probably as far as the bandwidth and doing putting those signs up is we need the Department of Public Works to be involved with that.

That would be a question for their capacity.

Because after we actually do the recommendations and the vote is cast, it goes to Department of Public Works.

Our staff doesn't do that the walk in it through.

That's the Department of Public Works.

But there is still a lengthy process that you all go through for each applicant, whether they are qualified or not, whether we receive their information because you have to vet all of them and make sure they've met the requirements.

60 will be a lot.

I would agree with Dr.

Chapman.

60 will be a lot.

20 is manageable.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Council President Tate.

Thank you, madam.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for having this very important discussion.

And I say that as I sat as the chair of that process that you just mentioned, and it was uh very challenging.

I mean, we had a lot of um very worthy individuals without a shadow of a doubt.

The challenge was that we had so many very worthy uh individuals, and it felt as if the council artificially increased that number um because the the community could not meet the requirement, which was not too honorary.

Um but I I do have a question about the the application fee.

I know you said that it definitely assists with you know the revenue for the department, but I mean when we just calculate the numbers, it's not a huge amount, even if you collect, you know, from everybody who applied.

So even if that number was reduced, um, I don't think it would hurt the budget that badly.

Correct or incorrect.

And maybe I'm seeing things.

I wouldn't necessarily say $50.

Through the chair.

If even if we made it the same amount that the council members, you know, if they're sponsoring, it is $400.

So we I mean that's and that is doable.

Um if you want to bring it lower, then you know it's up to you guys.

But yeah, I I I I we have no problems with that aspect of it.

That way, it's on, and I think that um um Pro Tim addressed, you know, when he said, you know, he wants this level appealing field, it would level everybody at the same level, whether you were sponsored by a council member or not, the fee is $400.

Yeah.

And yeah, so that's that, you know, I don't know if that addresses your your own.

Yeah, the only reason I say because it if that is the the barrier, right?

For people to actually go out, I mean they still gotta get signatures.

That's important.

The petition is is is critical.

Um, but when they get a sponsorship from a council member, you do not have to get the petition, correct?

No, you don't.

And I think that also becomes you know, one of the easier routes.

It was.

Um so now that creates a unfair playing field again, right?

So we're gonna flatten it out.

I think it's important to flatten it out completely 100%.

That's always been the goal because when we came up with the rules, we didn't have any rules at all at one point in time.

There's no guardrails whatsoever.

And uh you had maybe one or two offices that were really, really leaning in on it.

And um at the time, other colleagues felt a certain kind of way because we were approving these items, but not having a lot of discussion like we're doing now about this.

So we the process was changed, and I'm very proud of the process.

But like everything, evolution is important.

Never want to see that many people come down here again and get 15 seconds, 30 seconds to talk about this very important person is very important, important process.

I agree with a number of the recommendations that member Johnson put forward.

Um the question I have though is the the one regarding allowing 80 years or older.

I mean, I got a heart, a soft spot for our seniors 100%.

But then does this now become the new testimonial resolution in advance?

And that's what we always have to look at unintended consequences because I would certainly want to make sure that if I didn't have to well they would still be eligible.

Let me just ask this.

Would they be automatically eligible?

And maybe I should direct this to Madam Chair.

Would they automatically be able to uh be put into the pool, or would they still have to get the signatures and get uh all the other, you know, the the 400 or 65 dollars uh to apply as well.

I think that would help me out in terms of clarity.

So for me, um everything else would still apply, right?

Um it was just they would just not necessarily have to go through the process to get three council members um to approve or sign off on them being eligible.

Gotcha.

Yeah, so I I'm I'm real big on community because I've had some secondary street signs in District One where neighbors were not aware um and were upset at the fact that they did not have an opportunity to chime in on this sign that they see every day in their neighborhood, and they actually complain because the person uh who and this happened twice, the individuals who um had the secondary uh street sign were not very familiar, familiar, or um assistive, if that's a word, to the neighborhood.

Uh and the neighbors were upset about that.

So I I think that also creates a situation where we are now saying this is what's right for your neighborhood is and not and and eliminating the the community component of it.

Through the chair if I may.

Um I and it is something that we um talked about it, you know, uh at H at in the office, and that is that even if they're being sponsored by a council person, that they still need, you know, the they still need to get the petition the petitions or you know, because if you're within 300 feet, that's on your block, literally, you know.

And if you don't know about it, and we've gotten calls in the past, and even in this last um cycle, in which there were a couple of you said we didn't know that that would, you know, that they this person was even being considered, or you know, that they was being considered, and then it was gonna be on my block.

So this would alleviate that and eliminate that, you know, that they will have been contacted um not just right before the public hearing.

And um so with the petition, it also would encourage people to go out and make you know knock on doors and and ask their neighbors, you know, we're considering a secondary street sign, nine street sign for so and so, would you sign my petition?

So it would become, you know, it more of a community-based thing.

We did offer up a you know, the the two solution in which the you know the sponsor and then you know, and that could be someone of a more notoriety, and then the you know, the community person that was nominated through the community.

But either way, I think that there needs to be, you know, and we've talked about this, that the petition needs to be applied, you know, that whole concept of getting out and and and getting the signatures of of folks within within 300 feet.

Got it.

And then last thing, because I know how voluminous this meeting is, so I'm not gonna take up too much more time.

But uh again, uh two, madam chair, uh with the sponsorship, uh, one sponsorship per council member, of course, that would be nine, and including whatever else comes from the community, uh, would that still mean that we would be at that five total that we have, or are you looking to expand that particular number?

I am not.

I I think five is sufficient.

I think five is sufficient as well to keep it special and important.

Um so I agree wholeheartedly with that, but I would also say that any uh council sponsorship would also uh for me, my chiming in on it would be that would have to also have uh signatures as well.

Again, if we're gonna level the playing field, we should level the playing field all across the board for everybody because now we're picking winners and losers, so to speak, uh whether that's financially or sweck at sweat equity.

Through the Madam Chair, if I may.

Um President Um Tate.

So with the keeping the five as the number um as proposed, um, are we keeping the rollovers the same?

Oh and and I would you know right now reduce the four to two?

To two.

And then once we cycle through all those that are four, I would be open to to only one rollover year.

Okay.

Um but you know, that's what I would see because we've got to figure out how to thin the herd and again make this special, not just something that people believe because they've now been nominated, it's almost a foregone conclusion that you're going to be um uh uh uh your your request is going to be honored.

I mean to see all the articles in the newspaper and all of the talk about and the hurt feelings.

That is not that's not a good vibe.

That was not what this was intended for.

That's not what anybody who sits on this side of the table wants.

This should be a celebratory moment, but to heat see, I mean, we had a we had a scuffle out in the hallway, you know, from folks who were upset as well because the the tensions were so high.

They felt that they were competing against each other as opposed to promoting the person who they were putting forward.

And and that's not to me that's not the spirit of of what we're trying to do.

And I I want us to move away from that as much as possible.

But so the more applicants we excuse me, the more applicants that uh meet the threshold and and get the sponsorship, the more we have in the pool, the more it becomes a you know, you versus me, as opposed to let's lift up as many um uh those those five that will will actually go through.

So I would be again open to for me, I would recommend um the 80 years, I like that, uh automatically eligible, um, but still would have to go through the signature process as well.

Uh five, we stick with that five and um and not move from there.

Sponsorship one per council member, but again, still have to go through the signature process, um, and then reducing the amount across the board to 400 dollars.

So the the sponsorship from a council member, uh all that really what what would that then allow for?

What makes that special?

A sponsorship from a council if we're leveling the playing field with signatures as well as the dollar amount for everyone, what would be the significance of a sponsorship from a council member?

Making an applicant madam chair through the chair, making the applicant eligible.

So council members who's not eligible, not traditionally eligible based on the ordinance.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So it's a little bit of assistance, but it's not so overwhelmingly uh lopsided.

So I would I would absolutely be in in favor of these particular changes um with those amendments.

Madam Chair, if I may, just for point of clarity, um, Mr.

President, um, I got 80 years, of course, with the other criteria living, the 80 years if you're living, um, the signature petition, the number five, one per council member, and reducing the total fee to 400.

Yes, is that what I understand?

And and even if sponsored by a council member, there still needs to be uh the signatures.

Everyone has to do the signature.

Everybody, okay.

Again, put it all in the same same line.

Okay, thank you.

Through the chair, um then we will, if if I may, um this will call for um if you if you agree to this, making some minor changes to the ordinance.

So we will be working with our good friend here.

Uh we've already reached out to him earlier uh in the you know when we begin this process of of making these recommendations.

So uh we will um draft something and have that ready for you in through the chair uh Graham Anderson Law Department, uh two to three weeks would be acceptable.

Um I really just want to uh praise the historic designation board for uh the hard work they've put into this.

This is something that I think would have been real easy to just you know push away, not worry about, but they have um put a lot of hard work into this to address the community's concerns, listen to the council members what they want and try to figure out what's best for honoring Detroit citizens.

So really impressed with their hard work here and whatever the solution that this body comes up with, the law department's happy to put in writing.

Thank you.

Uh madam chair, if I may so I I think what's else is on the table is what about this year?

Yeah, because this is now moving forward.

So for this year, I like your recommendation.

No sponsorships this year uh to allow us to thin the herd of 18 that we currently have because to your point, last year we didn't receive many until that last two weeks or so, and then it was an explosion.

And I got a feeling it's gonna be the same way this year as well, as folks realize that the deadline is is is looming.

So with five names, eighteals currently, and that number is definitely going to increase.

We may be looking at the same situation we had last year.

Um, and we still have folks who are have a uh uh we did tell them they would be allowed to be holdovers, and they still have a number of years still left if case they do not get chosen.

So I would certainly be in support of your recommendation of no sponsorships for this year, noting that again, this is an ongoing process year year after year.

Yes.

And through the chair, we have potentially 12 new applications if they are sponsored.

Right, right.

So that would take us to 30.

Yeah.

Worse than that last year.

Because we had what how many all right, that's what I thought.

Yeah.

So even more challenging than last year.

Johnson.

Thank you.

It'll be all yours.

So are we just getting a head nod and agreement from the council members to not sponsor any applications this year, Chair?

I just spoke with uh attorney Graham, and he's gonna look into that for us.

Um so if we could bring all of this back with the the answer to that, because I want to make sure that the ordinance that we are in compliance with the ordinance, um in you said three weeks, Greg or two weeks.

Two weeks, please.

If we can bring this back in two weeks, uh we'll have a report with um the noted changes and an answer to the question as to whether or not um we can just kind of just uh not do um any this you know, any additions this year.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Presumably the two weeks will be three weeks because in two weeks.

That's right.

The chair, I knew I was thinking three weeks for a week.

All right, very good.

Anything further?

All right, is thank you.

Um is there a motion to bring line item seven, the discussion bag as a line item in three weeks?

Motion motion hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you very much.

This now closes out the 1030 discussion.

And it gives us 25 minutes, pro 10 to get through the remainder of the agenda.

Beginning with unfinished business and line item 8.1.

Line item 8.1 is the status of council member Letitia Johnson submitted memorandum relative to a request for policy framework to refine the city's nuisance abatement, property seizure and condemnation processes.

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

Is there a motion?

Motion.

There's a motion to bring line item 8.1 back in one week.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 8.2 property sale by restrictive covenant to 16745 Lamphier.

Is there a motion for a brief discussion?

Motion.

Motion.

Uh do we have anyone here from the planning and development department to speak briefly about the line item?

Just wanting to confirm the actual sale price, noting the request.

This is line 8.2, right?

Line item 8.2.

Okay.

We have John Trong and Mae Edwards.

Thank you.

Mr.

Trump.

Yeah, through the chair.

Uh, could you repeat your question?

We uh we always get that kind of blackout period while we get elevated.

I I just wanted to verify the purchase price or the sale price, um, noting that there was a well, maybe I'm thinking about something else.

Um, what is the purchase price for this property line item 8.2?

The purchase price is uh for $50,000 with the restrictive covenant uh that requires uh with the deed restriction that they continue their operations.

Um, as it currently stands, they do have future plans to expand their operation and make more investments in it.

Uh part of the reason for conversioning or converting from uh a lease to a sale and ownership was that some of their donors as well as uh potential grant funders required ownership.

And so this sale is to help clear that hurdle.

Um I know Mr.

Nae M Edwards should be uh available to if you have any questions as it relates to the current operation.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Trung.

I think I am aware this is the uh Michigan State University.

Yes, that's correct.

This is the Detroit Partnership for uh food learning and innovation.

Sounds good.

Thank you so much.

Pro Tim is there a motion to send line item 8.2 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Motion seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 8.3 is the approval of property transfer between the city of Detroit and the Detroit Land Bank Authority, noting that we did receive an amendment that is specific to the eight properties regarding the Detroit Water and Sewers Department Brightmore project.

Is there a motion to send line item 8.3 to formal with a recommendation to approve?

Motion hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

And I do just want to say for the record that there were five properties that were previously included that were I believe in district five, as well as one property in district three that has been removed from this particular line item.

So we are only moving forward with the eight regarding uh the Brightmore DWSD project.

All right, line item eight point four is the property sale of one zero eight zero zero West Chicago.

There's a request for a three-week bring back.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

There's a motion to bring line item 8.4 back in three weeks.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 8.5 is property sale of 196 Vinewood.

There's a request for a one-week bring back.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

There's a motion to bring line item 8.5 back in one week.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 8.6 is property sale of 3452 Buchanan.

To the We Are Culture Creators Production LLC.

Is there a motion to send line item 8.6 to formal with a recommendation to approve?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 8.7 is property sale of 1310 and 13116 Kirchhoffville.

This is in District 4.

I am requesting a three-week bring back.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

That moves us on to new business beginning with line item 9.1.

Contract number 6005583-8.

This is 70% ARPA funding and 30% CDBG funding.

Amendment number two to update terms and conditions for the incentive portal system.

Contractor Benovate LLC.

The doing business as neighborly software contract period will run through June 30th, 2029.

Contract increase amount zero dollars.

Total contract amount 2,100 180,000 dollars.

This is for the housing and revitalization department.

Is there a motion to send line item 9.1 to formal with a recommendation to approve?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 9.2 submitting report relative to a request for information on quick claim deeds for the city of Detroit's residential properties.

This is a request from Councilmember Mary Waters.

Is there a motion to receive and file line item 9.2?

Discussion.

Discussion.

Pro Tim Young?

Just a clarifying question to the to whom it may concern.

That's Wayne County.

Quick claim deeds, right?

That is correct.

Just want to make sure.

Okay.

Wayne County Deeds, yes.

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to receive and file line.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 9.3 is the proposed development at Butzel Family Recreation Center.

Motion received and file.

Oh my gosh.

Oh right.

We are back.

Thank you all for the pause.

Just wanted to get clarification.

I know we had conversation with member Miller's office.

There is a request for a three-week bring back for line item 9.3.

Is there a motion?

Oh shit.

There's a motion to bring line item 9.3 back in three weeks.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 9.4 is property sale at 1755 14th Street.

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

Is there a motion?

Motion.

There's a motion to bring line item 9.4 back in one week.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Oh sorry.

Discussion.

Pro Tim Young.

9.4.

That's just we bring it back just because more questions, right?

That is correct.

Okay, so we'll make sure.

Okay.

Line item 9.5 is property sale at 8107 Michigan Avenue.

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

Is there a motion?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 9.6.

Submitting author is submitting resolution authorization for city acquisition of property at 8386 Lifert.

Is there a motion to send line item 9.6 to formal with a recommendation to approve?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 9.7 is the transfer of jurisdiction surplus and revised purchase price of 13809.

Joseph Campo.

Is there a motion to discuss?

Motion discussed.

Discussion.

Mr.

Tron.

Can you clarify this?

Uh so the property purchase amount is how much and did that amount change?

Yep, uh, correct.

Uh this this was previously approved uh last year.

Uh the applicant or a purchaser alibi studios and architecture firm.

They've been going through environmental due diligence.

They also received uh a Wayne County uh assessment and uh environmental assessment and cleanup grant.

And during that time, while we are wrapping up on that work, the the building unfortunately was uh broken into and vandalized.

We tried to secure the property multiple times, but um we've been asked they've asked for uh $10,000 discount on that because uh some of the damage unfortunately from the vandalism is actually exceeded that.

Um, and so it's to try to support and moving the project forward.

Uh they've requested that and we we did grant that to them to uh present to this body for approval.

And Mr.

Trunk, can you share the use of the building?

Yep, so it's alibi studios their architecture firm, so it'll be offices and studio space for their firm.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Discussion pro Tim Young.

Yeah, I uh I'm not gonna ask you this, Mr.

Trunk.

I don't know if anybody from DPD is uh here, but I just wonder did we apprehend the vandals?

Because I would like them to be able to contribute financially to something.

No, I'm not I'm not aware of uh any history as to if we you know caught anybody in the action but yeah, so community service or at least have them go out there and clean up what they vandalize, you know what I'm saying?

You know, I don't want to totally play Captain Saving Politico here.

All right, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Um, Mr.

Trung, I will just share that.

Um I appreciate the city acquiescing to the request.

Um there are city owned properties that get vandalized on a regular basis after someone has put in a request.

I'm thinking about land bank properties in particular as people are attempting to go through the process to renovate them and they they get vandalized, and that is the responsibility of the person who has purchased them, noting that this person has not actually purchased this property.

I'm going to be supportive, but I don't I would I would ask that this not be a standard practice, right?

Because we have no idea who vandalized the property.

I understood thank you.

Is there a motion on line item 9.7?

Motion.

There's a motion to send line item 9.7 to formal with recommendation to approve.

Is that the motion pro Tim?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Line item 9.8 is transfer of jurisdiction of 6209 Lawton from the Planning and Development Department to the General Services Department for expansion of a park.

Is there a motion to send line item 9.8 to formal with a recommendation to approve?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

And line item 9.9, Councilmember Mary Waters, submit a memorandum relative to the DLBA development activities.

Concerns that she has.

Is there a motion to refer line item 9.9 to the legislative policy division and bring back in two weeks?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

That brings us to member reports.

Pro Tim Young.

Thank you, madam chairwoman.

Uh, thank you everyone for attending the Detroit City Council evening community meeting on Tuesday at the Northwest Activity Center.

It was absolutely phenomenal.

We had a great time.

Dinner was delicious, and celebrating all the mothers was excellent and fantastic.

On Wednesday, June 3rd, from 4 until 5 p.m., there will be a virtual meeting with Director Crystal Perkins to discuss upcoming summer program for our youth at seniors.

That's June 3rd, 4 to 5 p.m.

You could call 313 224248 for more information.

That's 31324248.

So again, 31324248 for more information.

Also, free produce giveaway at Butzel Family Recreation Center on Kerchival that will begin on June 3rd from 12 noon to 2 p.m.

Again at Buttle Family Recreation Center on Kerchival.

We will have a free produce giveaway June 3rd from 12 noon till 2 p.m.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

And I just want to say thank you so much for the flowers for the roses.

I'm going to ask you offline where you get them from so I can let my husband know.

Um just want to share with District 4.

We are looking forward to Motor City Makeover this weekend on Saturday.

Looking forward to beautifying and improving cleaning up District 4.

Um, I think we have a number of people that have signed up, and so we will be pretty busy on Saturday moving throughout the district and providing support to all of the residents who have are standing up to help improve the district.

So looking forward to Motor City Makeover.

Again, thank you to all those who have signed up.

Um I also want to remind District 4 residents that on Monday, May 18th at 5 30 p.m., we are hosting our uh monthly community meeting at Impact Church.

That is at 12844 Elmdale.

Uh so we look forward to seeing you then.

And that concludes my member reports.

Pro Tim, before we before we conclude, and I'm not sure what happened with Zoom.

Before we conclude, we do have a walk on for the grow.

Oh, not that one.

Uh we have recording in progress.

All right, Zoom users, we are back.

You all missed my member reports.

Now we do have a walk on before we conclude.

The walk on was submitted as a police contract 6004587-86.

But it should have read as a contract for the housing and revitalization department.

Same contract number 6004587-86, 100% ARPA funding.

Amendment number six to provide an extension of time and increase of funds for youth wages and program support for the Grow Detroit Youth Talent Program GDYT.

Is there a motion to walk this item on to the agenda?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Is there a motion to send contract number 6004587-A6 to formal with a recommendation to approve?

Motion.

Hearing no objections, that action shall be taken.

All right.

That concludes our agenda and our member reports.

If there's nothing further to come before this committee, we shall stand adjourned.