Council member Mary Waters.

Present three have a corn.

Thank you so much, Madam Clerk.

So just to give folks an idea of how this will look.

Just an update on things.

We still have not solved the issue on the Zoom or folks being able to hear on Zoom.

So what we're going to do moving forward for those who have joined us.

So just one thing.

Folks can act can watch on channel 10 to hear that audio is working on broadcast.

Also online through the link on the city of the city council's website.

So folks are able to hear us if they're watching through that streaming link.

So we'll move forward for now.

Hopefully, at some point, this will the audio will come back on.

But we I know we have various folks from various departments.

We'll hear from you all.

If it's the will of the committee to bring some of these items back, I would look favorably upon that.

But with that, just so we can make sure we are stand with the order.

Is there a motion to move the virtual public comment to the end of the agenda in case it comes back online?

Motion.

There's been a motion to move public comment to the end of the agenda for our virtual folks.

Uh seeing no objections, the action shall be taken.

That'll move us on to unfinished business.

Um 5.1 is from the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

This is contract number 600 6589-A1.

Um to amend a contract with Manick and Smith Group Incorporated.

This was a contract that was moved back or sent back from formal session with the understanding that uh is the will of the city council to have a closed session around the contaminated dirt um and the overall plan there.

So if is there a motion to bring this back uh TBD for 5.1?

Motion.

There's been a motion to bring back 5.1 TBD for that time period.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Uh that'll move us on to 5.2 and 5.3.

Um, these both are just over check.

These both are uh demolition contracts.

And um 5.2 is a demolition contract, so I'll just take these up one by one.

Um the office of contracting and procurement.

Um we've been asked to bring back 5.2 for one week.

Motion.

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

Seeing no objections, the action shall be taken.

5.3.

Uh it's also from the office of contracting procurement related to uniforms for DPD.

We've been asked to bring this also back in one week.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

There's a motion to bring back 5.3 in one week.

Um 5.4 is from member Whitfield Callaway's office a memo relative to the request for report concerning hydrogen field buses.

We've been asked to bring 5.4 back in three weeks.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

It's been a motion to bring back 5.4 in three weeks, seeing no objections.

That action shall be taken.

For 5.5.

Um this is from Member Santiago Romero's office.

Uh we've been asked to bring back 5.5 in one week.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

Motion to bring back 5.5 in one week.

That'll move us on to 5.6.

Um, this is from the legislative policy division.

Um introduction of the ordinance around pre-sale inspections.

We leave this from um member Johnson's office.

Is there a motion to discuss?

Motion.

There's been a motion to discuss 5.6.

I'll defer to LPD on the status here.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The proposed draft ordinance was provided on April 15th, and I believe the status is that it needs to be reviewed by the law department for form and then brought back by the to the uh council if that's the appropriate result.

Gotcha.

Thank you for that LPD.

I don't believe we've heard back from the law department yet.

So is there a motion to bring us back in one week?

Motion motion to bring back 5.6 in one week has been made.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

That move us on to 5.7 from member John Member Benson's office.

Um member random uh for the media attention to the Stevens Thompson Mason School property.

Um, this has been received.

Is there a motion to receive and file 5.7?

Motion.

There's been a motion to receive a five five point receive file 5.7, seeing no objections, that actually shall be taken.

Um moving on to 5.8.

This is from Member Santeo Gromero um around DPD storage requirements.

We've been asked to bring this back in one week.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

It's been a motion to bring back 5.8 in one week.

See no objections, that actually shall be taken.

For 5.9.

This is from Department of Public Works, City Engineering, a petition of Lee Plaza, uh request for inquiry encroachments.

Um is there a motion to discuss?

Motion.

Uh there's been a motion to discuss.

I just want to double check um to make sure that we that this is now on e-scrib.

I see a note that it was not yet on e-scribe.

Mr.

Washington.

Good morning through the chair.

Um, are we able to bring this back in one week?

Absolutely.

It's been a motion to bring back 5.9 in one week.

Seeing no objections, that actually shall be taken.

And uh that move us on to 5.10 from member Santiago Romero's office, a memo relative to the South Fort Street Road Diet Resolution.

Um is there a motion to discuss?

Discussion.

Thank you, Member Waters.

Uh LPD, uh, is there an update on 5.10?

There is, uh, Mr.

Chair, and it is at 6.29 of the agenda.

We've provided that.

The draft resolution has been provided.

Thank you.

The uh I'm confused by the fact that the original request of the document is are separate items.

I mean, I was confused with that.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to receive and file 5.10?

Motion.

Um for 5.11.

This is from Council President Tate's office.

Uh memo relative to data around police activity at lovely vibes bar and grill.

Um, this has been received.

If there are motion to receive and file 5.11.

There's been a motion to receive and file.

Uh seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

That'll move us on to 5.12.

This is from Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Um, contract number 6004 33-81.

Um, for to provide the extension and time, a time and an increase in funds of subscription-based gun shop detection.

Um, this has been a motion to discuss 5.12.

Discussion.

It's been a motion to discuss 5.12.

I know we have folks from DPD.

Um, if folks want to come forward, good morning.

If you could just introduce her uh state your name for the record, please.

Good morning.

Uh, first assistant chief of police Franklin Hayes.

Good morning.

Good morning, Deputy Chief Mark Bliss.

Good morning.

Um, so just before we have you, I know we have got provided more information.

Um, and I know also Member Waters has uh questions that she has submitted that we receive, and I also know that this is a topic that a lot of folks have uh opinions on.

So I I wanted to make sure since you all are down that we heard from you all.

I would say that um I would be looking for a motion to bring this back just because we haven't uh had the opportunity for folks to give public comment, and I have some further questions, but uh but I do wanted to I want to respect you all's time for coming down because I know we got more information from you all.

So I'll turn it over to you all on that.

Thank you, uh Chair McCampbell and certainly uh committee member waters uh for giving us this audience uh to speak.

Um we have uh brought a team, uh representative of the uh members of Detroit Police Department uh who have utilized this technology, uh, as well as the vendor, uh, who is here as well to answer any question that you may have uh in hopes uh that we could uh move this item forward uh as it is an essential tool in the safety plan uh for the police department that we have used and uh with this we have been able to realize the crime reductions or the gun violence reductions across uh our city.

So um I'm not sure it the specifics of which we can provide you.

Uh we uh had a comprehensive overview that Chief Bedterson uh had went through over two weeks ago, and as you uh mentioned you had a few additional questions.

uh as well as the vendor uh who is here as well to answer any question that you may have uh in hopes uh that we could uh move this item forward uh as it is an essential tool in the safety plan uh for the police department that we have used and uh with this we have been able to realize the crime reductions or the gun violence reductions across uh our city so um I'm not sure it the specifics of which we can provide you uh we uh had a comprehensive overview that Chief Bedterson uh had went through over two weeks ago and as you uh mentioned you had a few additional questions uh if uh if I could possibly indulge uh you that if you can ask them now I believe we should be able to answer them thank you AC Hayes uh appreciate that I do I can start or I should M boys do you I'll go ahead and start okay so um absolutely appreciate the information and the breakdown from the chief a couple weeks ago um and also I know we had discussed the um data around uh the areas that did not have the SHOS butter um and the comparison there so I appreciate getting that today I wanted to bring up um late last week I saw a report from the University of Michigan um uh public health uh for school of public health and they released a paper on the claims that Soundthinking has and as you go through it they really provide a big breakdown on call into question some of those claims um and some of this is what we had discussed before on the one and I think for me it comes down to the aspect of understanding that there is an issue with folks calling police around hearing gunshots or or such that are happening and that this technology actually helps improve that and this was the conversation we had two weeks ago around um that some of that data actually increased that you all shared and also now in this paper um seeing that similar thing so I just I'm just thinking about the question around as we're looking at an additional two million dollars with this um with this extension and I will really say also with the the aspect I also have concerns around as I said before not knowing where the censors are and I understand this around the effectiveness that you may not want everyone to know that they may um impede on it or destroy the sensors but I think for us as an entity that is purchasing this and paying for this um as a city council and as a uh a city government um that brings me some pause here and also thinking about the aspect that um we don't know what actually the company is keeping in terms of the audio recorded and and that's been my biggest concern around third party uh tech companies um having the data of the city of Detroit and our residents so I still have those concerns and that and those are the questions I want to dive deeper in especially around this paper as well um and I think it's just gonna I definitely had this conversation table but I I think it's also gonna need additional conversation but I wanted to bring those up as uh some of my initial concerns if you all want to speak to that um as well absolutely and thank you.

So we talk you mentioned the uh University of Michigan study uh the Detroit police department has just begun conversation uh with the University of Michigan as relates to our use uh what is effective or how technology has been used uh in other cities uh is not reflective of our plan and the successes that we've had so I I would just be mindful or or I would just ask for uh consideration that the analysis has not been done on what we are doing here in the city of Detroit.

We have a plan of success and this is just one one of the many instances that we're leaders uh whether it be in some and as an example some uh cities or municipalities don't believe in civilian community uh oversight of the police department there are things that we do differently here in the city of Detroit that makes us the leader of the pack and it it is our belief with the empirical data that we have that how we use this here is different than the other cities and this is why we tout it uh and why we feel it is incremely uh excuse me incredibly uh important uh in this technology that we needed as a part of our safety plan uh as it relates to the uh the retention of the I'm sorry uh if I can go the second item was the place we know the geographical footprint and we have the boundaries and within those boundaries they're placed but we as Chief Bedison indicated we can absolutely have the specific locations of the sensors uh to provide to this body that is not an issue uh and we can certainly show what what it what is up already uh and uh moving forward and at this point this is not an expansion uh this would just be a continuation and should this technology and quite frankly uh just about any technology that we have and I can't think of one uh applied like this where having the exact locations of the sensors uh throughout the city that we would accurately know the pinpoint accuracy and be able to provide to this body upon request uh the latter uh as it relates to the data I'm gonna turn it over to Deputy Chief Bliss and also as I indicated we have individuals from Soundthinking here uh as well uh to answer that question good morning council chair McCampbell uh two weeks ago you brought up a lot of questions and uh there was a lot of homework that we had to do and um what you had before you is I took every one of your questions I wrote down and you have an answer to

Uh the latter uh as it relates to the data.

I'm gonna turn it over to Deputy Chief Bliss, and also as I indicated, we have individuals from Sound Thinking here uh as well uh to answer that question.

Good morning, Consul Chair McCampbell.

Uh two weeks ago, you brought up a lot of questions, and uh there was a lot of homework that we had to do.

And um what you have before you is I took every one of your questions I wrote down and you have an answer to each one.

Some of them are through sound thinking, some of them are are through us.

Uh I just want to touch on some high points that uh that were that were brought up.

The first one is is about the the contract, uh, because there was questions regarding that.

It is a nine-month contract.

Um it starts July 1st, 2026 through March 31st, 2027.

Um phase one is $57,253 per square mile.

Uh phase two is 70,000 uh per square mile prorated for the extension of that term.

So to clarify any concerns with that, that is the contract.

There is no six month, there is no 12 month.

Um moving on, uh, because you did bring up questions regarding the data.

Where is the data?

How long do we have it, and is it secure?

So, first to clarify the data is actually just what uh when a gunfire uh is collected, uh it's called a dynamic incident.

Okay.

We collect one second of audio before and one second of audio after.

And it's important to note that in order for that to be collected, it has to activate at least three sensors, which could be hundreds or thousands of meters separating in order to triangulate.

But in order to do that, it has to be loud enough to hit those sensors.

What that means is that normal human voice, which could be anywhere between 30 to 45 of uh thirty to forty-five decibels uh won't register on those sensors.

Uh a gunshot, which is anywhere between 110 to 140 decibels, that will.

That will trigger the collection of that dynamic incident.

So you and I talking would not.

So conversations are not recorded.

Now that type of information, say there was ambient noise next to those sensors, after 30 hours, it's overwritten.

So there is no storage.

And I know that you brought back you brought up the uh having an audit uh for us to have an audit, it's this we would be auditing the same pieces of information that we get through Sound Thinking, because that's the only collection is just a dynamic incident that's the gunfire and the one second before and the one second after.

That is it.

And how long is that kept?

It's kept for as long as we have a subscription with Sound Thinking.

But once we cease per our contract, within 60 days, Sound Thinking shuts down and deletes all data, and it turns off all the sensors.

So there are where the data is stored, it's actually stored in Oregon at a server.

Uh so I have uh further answers to your questions, but I wanted to make sure that I kind of touched on the most important ones that that you brought up because uh data collection and privacy is important uh to this body, it's also important to the Detroit Police Department.

Um but I just want to touch on one last one.

And you brought up the calls for service in 2025 for ShotSpotter, uh, because we put on our presentation six minutes and I believe 49 seconds uh versus uh what was uh in the budget hearing of 14 minutes and I think 54 seconds.

So to explain this further, when we when that was submitted, that was all calls, gunshot related calls that came up.

That included New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.

Uh to get to the 649, we eliminated the outliers because we get so many gunfire calls, and the response and everything is is out of the ordinary for our uh patrol response.

So in order to give you an accurate uh assessment for the response time, we took those outliers out.

That's why there is that difference.

So without those two days where you have hundreds of shots fired calls, um, when you take that away, it gets us to the true, which is six minutes in that 49 seconds.

So to give you that clarity, uh I hope that kind of resolves some of these concerns that you have.

And then finally, you also have the uh both of the maps.

With what we did is we took both of the maps that we had on the presentation and we included your concerns in there.

Uh still with the reductions uh, which is just basic crime reduction that's happening city that happening nationally, we still have double digit reductions with this technology included.

Again, I want to go back to what Chief Bettison said.

It's not the or it's the and I firmly believe that shots this type of technology with the rate with the regular crime strategies that we're doing, and that is getting us where we need to be.

Thank you.

Uh thank you both for that.

Um I just have some follow-up on that.

Um, and again, I appreciate the answers and the breakdown here.

Um I'm still looking through them on that.

Um I appreciate the break uh the breakdown on the data retention.

I think the the aspect still that still there that's missing for me is that um one if we are knowing that the census kick in at a certain point with a certain decibel, um is still my concern about these sensors are always on, so they are they are trying to attempt to get some type of to hear if that if a gunshot does happen.

And that was my aspect around the audit on understanding that we only as a department here a second before and second after, but it's the aspect of the data still being stored in some place um that we don't have the access to what is on sound thinking side.

Is that not is that's what I took from your answer, but let me know if I'm wrong there.

Sound thinking does not collect any other data because that data that is uh monitoring in that sensor, it's overridden.

It never gets to sound thinking.

If it's if it doesn't trigger that detection, they they never get it.

Okay.

It and after 30 hours, it just it's like a hard drive, it just overwrites that that information.

So they never get that.

The only thing they get is exactly what we get, and that's one second before and one second after.

So there's no ongoing recording outside of when that sensor is activated.

They don't they sorry, they do not collect that data.

Okay.

And so on the servers and Oregon that you spoke about, that is what you all get as that's the data that's stored there.

Is the the sound and the detection that comes to you all in the department?

That is true.

Now there may be metadata like location data, longitude and latitude, and things like that, but in regards to audio, that's what they keep.

The one second, the dynamic incident and the one second after.

Um I have thank you for that.

Uh now thinking about uh this is understand that this is just a um nine month extension, there's no expansion there.

Where are we in the and I know we have to think about just this contract, but I'm just I know that their department is preparing for another RFP.

Um, where are we in that process?

So the RFP has already went out, we have vendors, uh, we are in the process of setting setting up evaluation on those vendors.

Uh that is to make sure that the technology that they're talking about since there's different vendors, uh, that is that it is accurate.

We may find something that's actually better, but we want to test it.

And I think uh we have to test it before we give a final evaluation, and we have to look at it from a fiscal perspective also.

So all these things are part of that evaluation.

We are confident that within this nine months we will we will put something before you on uh other types of gunshot uh detection technology.

Um but that's why we just we just want this coverage while we do the evaluation and prepare to put something before you.

Thank you.

And the next question on that aspect, thinking about the RFP, um is anything in that on uh us contracting for the actual equipment and not necessarily run in the host like a third party running the system.

Um has there been any thought, or is just this RFP looking for a similar setup as what we have now?

It's a similar setup.

Uh and a very important part of this is having that person evaluate that gunshot.

Uh it's having that software uh do that analysis.

Uh that's critical to it uh because what we would not want is you know fireworks or a bad muffler or something that with those decibel levels can get and be sent to us, it gets you it really what it does, it vets all the trash out of it.

So we only get to see uh the dynamic incident.

But uh I was remiss uh council chair that uh the the P there's other people here today that I just want to point out.

Uh behind me is the ninth precinct shot spotter team.

So when something happens, they're the boots on the ground to go out and investigate.

Also, I do have uh vice president of sound thinking for uh um community trauma and engagement.

He's also here too that can speak on certain issues.

But I just want you to know that uh we wanted to make sure that as you make these decisions that you have the right people in the room.

And and uh two weeks ago in my presentation, I really identified the ninth precinct and said how how what a phenomenal job.

And behind us are the are the are the men and women that actually make it happen.

And I also brought the second precinct who responded to a gunshot.

So these are the people that are actually utilizing the technology.

I can give you all the data in the world, but they're the ones that are doing it, and they're the ones that wanted to make sure they were here to speak about the value of this type of technology.

I appreciate that.

And and and I appreciate all the hard work that folks do um and uh the knife and the second and and across the city of Detroit, absolutely, um, and keeping our neighborhoods safe.

So um I we may have an opportunity here from folks, but I want to turn over to uh member waters first for any additional questions or um anything that you want to bring up around this line item.

No.

Okay.

Um if you what I'll say, um if you have if you have someone from the ninth or the second that you want to speak, we can have them um just give insight to how it is on the ground.

That's fine with me.

If I could have uh one of the ninth precinct shot spotter uh detectives, please chair.

If I if you're initial actions need to be taken basically and then uh good morning, if you can just state your name for the record, please.

Yes, sir.

My name is Detective Wishnski.

Uh for the past three years I've been uh running uh our shot spotter team out of the ninth precinct.

When I started, um we had double the amount of gunshots from uh the only other precinct that was being detected uh that had the technology, which was the eighth precinct.

I was uh mandated to investigate shot spotter techn uh runs which had no victims, no calls, no 911, no other way of detecting that these gunshots occurred.

Uh we began investigating these numbers of shots.

Uh we began enforcement, which was it's a simple city infraction.

It's uh shots fired within this uh uh within the city limits.

Uh just in three years, we've uh reduced the gunshots by 50 percent in our precinct uh just by applying uh enforcement that was not available to us prior to this technology existing.

All right.

And I can answer any of questions on how we go about that if you want.

Thank you for that.

I guess um I do have a few questions on as the folks on the ground are saying this.

Um thing that we have talked about is this the change behavior of folks around surveillance, because I'm still in the aspect that you know we we look at technology as a way to try to make things easier, right?

And the jobs, whether it's around public safety or no matter what we're doing in this aspect around technology, but also the added thing is here around the change behavior um of residents in the city.

Uh and I think that's that's something that you know ShotSpotter can't solve on his own.

I think that's like the community relationships and uh CVI and the work that you all do um in the community.

And this may not be for you, but just for you all, um not just for you, Detective, but for AC and DC.

What is the as we're looking at the use of gunshot uh technology detection technology?

What is the end go as we're thinking about the use of this?

Um, because we're saying one thing of I hear that we see the numbers and it's helping to and the numbers here to go down or the number of gunshots.

But what is the overall end goal as we're thinking about the change behavior here?

Because I I'm still not there on seeing the change behavior in our neighborhoods when it comes to um public safety and that.

Uh great question.

Uh Chair McCampbell.

Um Madam Mayor has uh mentioned the benchmark.

We want to be under a hundred homicides.

Um although we we tout the reductions, there's still too much gun violence here in the city.

Uh and the stigma of Detroit being one of the most dangerous city.

Um it's infuriating to hear that uh because our city is so much greater uh than the stereotype that we hear of this label, but we still have work to do and go uh as it relates to driving these numbers down.

Uh once we see that significant number to where we get and uh reduced this to double digit uh and hopefully single digits, then we take that uh that deep look and see if there's area of opportunity.

But this has been a great start uh helping us uh on that downward trend of less violence, but we're assessing every day to ensure that this technology is beneficial.

We did an assessment when we saw that this contract was coming up.

Is this a tool that will help us get there?

And at this point, we believe that this tool will help us get there, but we hope for a day when we don't need this.

Uh but quite frankly, we're not we're not there yet.

We still have more work to do.

Uh, and to get to that day where we're not using this, um uh this is gonna help again.

This is gonna be a tool to help us get there.

Thank you, AC.

All right, um, anything else?

All right.

Uh so as I and uh this was from the detective side, but I I would just hope that uh we would allow just an account from one of the response units that are here as well, uh, just to come through uh and just speak to what it's like and how this tool is and how they use it as they are the ones that are responding to the calls for service, these shot spotter runs, uh, these gunshot detection runs and what that looks like.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, counsel.

Good morning.

Uh name is uh police officer Matthew Pencil uh here on behalf of the Shot Spotter Technology.

If uh if I may, I actually had a prepared uh remark on this, if I may.

Go ahead.

All right.

So uh, of course, good morning.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.

I stand before you not just as a police officer, but as someone who has personally witnessed the difference between arriving in time to save lives and arriving too late.

We have debates about technology, cost, privacy, budgets, and priorities.

They're all valid conversations.

I want to bring to this discussion back to the streets of Detroit, back to the people who live in the neighborhoods where gunfire is not theoretical.

Because of many for many residents of the city, gunshots aren't a headline.

They're bedtime background noise for children, mother pull mothers pulling their children to the floors, families wondering if the next stray bullet will hit them.

Sometimes nobody even calls 911.

On August 17th, 2025, at approximately 120 in the morning, my partner and I were dispatched on a multi-shot spotter run.

The system detected not one, not two, nor three, but 66 rounds fired into a residential neighborhood.

Not an abandoned building, not an empty field in a neighborhood.

When we arrived, there were still no 911 call.

It took approximately six minutes after our arrival for a 911 call to be initiated.

But that sink in for a second.

Before anyone picked up a phone, before anyone could even process what happened, we were there.

In fact, policing in six minutes that matters.

A victim can bleed out, a suspect can escape.

Evidence can be either preserved or disappeared forever.

On that night, minutes mattered.

When we arrived, we immediately began locating evidence, identifying witnesses, and securing the scene.

We discovered shell casings spread all over the streets, blood trails leading from a scene to another residence to nearby homes.

We recovered digital evidence from ring cameras showing two individuals exchanging gunfire.

We learned two victims had been transported to the hospital.

One man had been shot once, would have been shot six times.

This violence did not stop with the intended target either.

Bullets tore into family homes.

One residence was struck 13 times.

Imagine being the parent inside that house.

Ask yourselves if ShotSpotter had not alerted us immediately, if police only responded after waiting for a terrified resident to call 911.

What if those six minutes were lost?

Would the suspects have escaped before officers even knew a shooting happened?

Would have evidence have simply vanished?

Would another innocent person potentially have been struck?

I can't answer that with certainty for you, unfortunately, counsel.

But what I can tell you without ShotSpotter, our response would have been significantly delayed.

Why do we need this technology?

Because many shootings never get called in.

Sometimes residents are afraid, sometimes they can't tell where they came from, or they assume someone else will call.

Shot spotter doesn't hesitate.

It doesn't panic, it doesn't look away.

It alerts immediately.

And it gives the chance to intervene while seconds matter on the street.

The technology isn't replacing police work.

It's enhancing it.

It is not replacing community relationship.

It helps us assist our communities faster.

Every minute we save increases the likelihood of the preservation of life, recovery of firearms and evidence, locating witnesses, and ultimately solving what hurts us most is violent crime.

They deserve the citizens deserve proactive policing.

They deserve every available tool that can help keep people alive.

I only ask that when you evaluate Shot Spider, do not evaluate it as a line item on a spreadsheet.

Evaluate it through the eyes of the citizens of 14709 Park Grove while bullets tore through their home.

Evaluate it through the eyes of a gunshot victim fighting for their life at a hospital.

Technology alone will never solve violence.

But refusing to use tools that help save time, evidence, and lives would be a costly mistake.

Because in the city of Detroit, six minutes, six minutes matters.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And I appreciate again, I appreciate all the work you've done and you continue to do, and also for giving that insight on on the ground on how this applies uh to folks.

And you're absolutely right.

Uh this is not just the line item.

Um, this is as we especially I would say everything that we do here um impacts Detroiters day in and day out, but especially what we do around public safety, right?

Um, and for too many families, uh, one is too many, but for too many families across the city of Detroit, um, the experience of um shootings, the trauma of shootings, the the trauma of injury and also death is something that uh too many folks experience.

So absolutely, um, and I appreciate that insight.

As I as I brought up before, also, in addition to being able to respond to these aspects, is also how do we prevent them from happening in the first place?

And I think that's also the question that we as a city council have to grapple with.

Um, together, of course, with you all and various other folks who are thinking about crime prevention and harm prevention.

Um, when we are seeing a contract extension, um, when we are seeing more revenue or more dollars needed for that, that is the question that we have to answer.

Should that go to this, or should that go to something else to help the preventative side?

So I think that is the conversation that we're attempting to get to and answer, and of course, with the information and the perspective that you all are providing with us as well.

So just want to make that known.

Um, that we I think we are on the same page and ensuring that there is an increase in public safety here in the city of Detroit.

Um, and also residents have to ask us and our constituents have to ask us to make sure um that is in the best way possible together with all the information we can gather.

So I just want to um make that clear in that um before what I'll say, as I mentioned at the beginning, um, I know there are quite a few folks who called in or just joined us virtually for public comment.

Um and if folks who have watched me in this, is that I want to make sure that we're doing all the work that we can in committee um before getting to formal session because our colleagues would have the uh have questions that probably should have been talked about in committee.

So I want to make sure our residents get um the the chance to chime in.

So I would look um upon favorably a motion to bring this back in one week just so we could um get as many residents as possible in their voices heard around this as well.

Uh so if there I can't make a motion, but if there's a motion to bring back in one week, um I would look upon that.

Motion it's been a motion to bring back 5.12 in one week.

Um, seeing no objections, the action shall be taken.

Um, and I do want you all to know the the chair, she did give a commitment that this would be moved out of committee and informal session before the contracts expire.

So um I attend to keep that commitment.

Um, so just you all so for you all to know that as well.

So all right.

Thank you, kindly.

Thank you.

You too.

And are there any are you all is there uh any other items that you are here for that are just on the other check, Mr.

Washington.

Thank you for your consideration.

Well, I'm sorry, you can that's right, Mr.

Washington.

Through the chair, I do believe we have the fireworks curfew ordinance on the agenda.

Okay.

Um, the AC Hayes can address along with the law department.

Okay, if there is um let me go check.

Let's see.

Just double checking so I get the line item number.

And through the chair, I believe is item 6.19.

Thank you, Mr.

Washington.

Just go to it on my screen.

Oh, 6.18.

Okay.

Um, if if there is a motion to take up 6.18.

19.

18.

19.

Yes, 19.

Sorry about that.

6.19.

Motion.

It's been motion to take a uh 6.19, and I'll read off and then we can uh go into a motion to discuss.

Um this is from the law department.

Uh a submit a report and proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 29 minors, Article 3, regulations of minors and public places and adult responsibility for violations, division two curfew of the night of the 2019 Detroit City Code by Adam Sections 29-3-14 and 29-3-15 to provide for a superseding curfew for our minors beginning at 8 p.m.

on Monday, June 22nd, 2026, being the scheduled date for the Detroit Annual Fireworks display or any other scheduled date, and it's continuing to 6 a.m.

on the following morning, Alcohol only in the areas within bounded by the Detroit River, Third Street, the large freeway, otherwise known as M10, Fisher Freeway, otherwise known as I 75, the extension of the official freeway uh at I 75, um, Easterly to Grasher Avenue, Grasher Avenue, Werner Highway, Shane Street at Water Street, and the Arita Franklin Amplet Theater.

Is there a motion to discuss 6.19?

Discussion.

There's been a discussion, and I see we have folks from DPD and the law department, but I'll turn over to you, attorney Anderson.

Through the Chair Graham Anderson Law Department, yes.

Um as uh you stated, council member, this is an ordinance for putting a curfew during the Detroit fireworks on this upcoming June 22nd, 2026.

It there's been a lot of media attention around this ordinance.

Um I think you know, I think that's due to the teen takeovers and and everything like that regarding um uh the extra heightened attention in downtown Detroit these days.

But but one thing that I want to make clear this is the exact same ordinance that we've done every year since I've been here as an attorney of the city of Detroit, and it's my understanding we've been doing long before that.

The curfew starting at 8 p.m.

hasn't changed.

The locations haven't changed.

This is consistent with what we've been doing, and we've always had enormous success thanks to the hard work by the officers at the Detroit uh police department.

Uh but it's it's very simple, it's very straightforward.

I'm here to answer any additional questions.

I know this isn't the actual public hearing, but obviously something getting this level of attention.

I wanted to give that backdrop to begin with, and look forward to a more in-depth discussion during the public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Anderson.

Uh, folks from DPD, you have anything to add?

Uh thank you.

Uh again, uh honorable chair uh McCampbell and committee member waters.

We are here to present uh make this annual presentation as it relates to the fireworks that we have in June uh here in our city.

Uh as attorney Anderson indicated this is not uh something citywide or something related to the uh uptick in teen activity we've seen in public places.

This is specific uh to the fireworks event, either on the day uh that um June 22nd day or the subsequent rain day uh if the 22nd is impacted by weather outside of what has uh what is stated in uh in the proposed uh emergency ordinance uh is another fact uh regarding this year's fireworks uh from the commitment uh from Madam Mayor, uh starting with her time on council and certainly in the role uh that she has now, as well as from other members of the council, uh we are proud uh to let the community know uh that there will uh be waterfront viewing this year on the waterfront parks.

There are three places on the water that public places that uh will be available for our residents and visitors to come.

Uh from the east, that will be Irma Henderson Park.

Uh from the west, that would be Ralph C.

Wilson, and there will also be uh access on the actual river walk uh for members uh of the community uh to come down, families uh to come down uh and enjoy this year's uh annual fireworks display.

Uh the uh everything uh has been uh has remained the same as it relates to uh the boundaries as well as the times.

Uh, this is essential as we uh are extremely mindful of uh decorum in public places, uh order, uh peaceful order, and again, just making sure that our our young Detroiters or our young viewers uh have that parental responsibility or that oversight uh as minors.

Last year we had a this exact same plan, and we did have to take action uh outside or in violation of this ordinance.

There were 156 juveniles uh that were found to be in violation.

We had 126 uh parental advisory uh ordinances issued as well.

We had uh and uh as it made news, we had an incident uh where two people uh uh were struck by gunfire or shot just uh outside of that area uh as well.

So uh again, this is a tool that will allow us to uh uh address uh the curfews, and again, and we simply want uh uh an orderly, uh responsible, safe, and peaceful event.

Uh and this tool has been incredibly instrumental, uh, this emergency ordinance uh in allowing us to do just that.

Thank you.

Uh member Warren say anything.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I um I've been thinking about this ordinance and you uh basically require that our kids that are under 18 be um accompanied by a parent.

I think you have 16, 17-year-olds who are quite capable of being out without their parents.

Uh anybody under 16, it would be a little bit different.

I um I hesitate to punish all of our children for what a few are doing.

And I think those are the the children and the parents who should be held accountable when they're out there doing things that they should not be doing.

So and because somehow or another, when we do this, we're losing sight of what independence is all about.

That day the fireworks is all about, and our children need to be able to see that.

I've seen how their eyes light up when they experience uh the fireworks.

Uh we should all be teaching them about what freedom is actually all about.

So I am reluctant to support that for anybody that's under 18.

Um under 16 with parental um people there with them.

I can't I kind of get that.

But 16, 17-year-old uh uh children should know better.

They really should be.

They're they're teenagers and they need to be more responsible and held accountable.

Um they are children that come from all over this region.

I don't know how you're gonna police that.

I mean, not just here in the city of Detroit, they come from everywhere.

So I want to know how you're gonna do it, because I I just don't see that.

Um see that happening, you're gonna turn them all away, and and then we're not gonna have as much excitement um during the fireworks, because basically essentially what you're saying, if you're not an adult, you can't participate.

Um parents who have children that are 15 and under, uh should be with them for sure.

But we have some very very responsible uh teenagers too who know how to come downtown and and really behave themselves.

There are a lot of them that do.

Um, so we want to deprive them as well.

It's just not fair, not fair to the other children.

Um this whole those children who misbehave, as I said, uh accountable along uh with their parents.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Thank you, Member Warren.

If I may respond, committee member waters, I would uh certainly uh agree with you that there uh maybe a few bad actors that spoil it uh uh for the masses.

Um however, uh two things can be true at once.

And the fact of uh I guess the other underlying matter is that these 16 and 17-year-olds um they still need to get home, they still need to get uh it to other places or or even uh coming through and being in that footprint and the superseding, or I guess the standing curfew, not the superseding, would still put them in violation at 10 p.m.

So being mindful, this is to make sure that they're not caught in that um and not in this space uh when they shouldn't be, that's why the curfew uh has been moved up, or I guess uh said earlier.

We will still be incredibly mindful, and and it as carved out uh in the ordinance for youth that may uh be traversing to or from school, to or from work, certainly uh with the utmost compassion and with partnership with the other city entities.

If we find a youth that's homeless that's in this area, we would not take uh that action, and instead we would get them the resources that they need.

Uh but this tool has been incredibly beneficial um to help us uh uh again set a tone for peacefulness and order uh orderliness uh down here.

One of the things that we made sure, and we were uh through through vaguity, we just said that it they needed to be with the responsible adult because we know there may be cousins, there may be siblings or others that may take that care and custody and make sure they they may be babysitting uh and take them down there.

So we were uh intentional by leaving out um uh well adding in uh responsible uh adult uh uh in that area as well.

So uh again, we we hope that uh you will support this as uh this is uh again been uh a tool that's for one day.

And I guess for to encounter a Detroit police officer during this time, it would have been some act of uh uh disorderly conduct to even have our attention.

Our members are not walking around, hey, how old are you?

Hey, what do you look it had would have had to been something that had brought uh this to uh the focus or the attention of DPD to take a further look uh into um if they are in violation of the curfew, that's a secondary question because something else uh has happened uh to to start the conversation or initiate that interaction.

Well, Mr.

Chairman, I I've um I mean I've supported um the the whole fireworks piece in the in the past, I have, but I I don't like the fact that you're changing uh the ages um in in this this amended ordinance.

I don't like that.

Um see you when you say to our children, we've gotta make sure that you don't participate uh in order to it is it's just it's not a good thing.

It is it's it's basically saying to them, we expect you you you to have bad behavior.

Uh we're not gonna try and teach you otherwise, uh, so that you can participate in an orderly manner.

If if you expect bad behavior, you get bad behavior.

I don't want us to expect that from our children.

I just don't.

And so this this is this is as if we we're saying you can't participate in your city on this very special night, the night that people from around this region come uh downtown to enjoy the fireworks.

Go after the bad actors, Chief.

That's all I'm at.

I'm saying, you know, but all the there's a lot of good children in this city who should not be deprived.

And they're old enough and they're responsible enough to get down here, behave themselves, and get back home in a timely manner.

I I guess I I'm I'm just I guess I'm not ready to deal with it yet today.

Through the chair.

It's just not it's not happening.

Thank you, Mr.

Wards, Attorney Anderson.

Uh Graham Anderson Law Department again.

Um it's a great point, Councilmember Waters.

One thing I just want to reiterate is this is consistent, where we're not changing any of the language that we've we've had in the past.

Um the age range is the same, the locations are the same, the time is the same.

And one thing that this really does is this gives great discretion to our officers at the Detroit police department.

This is we're we're we're not trying to criminalize youth here.

What we're trying to do is give officers the tools when they do truly find some problematic situation.

And I'm sure um AC Hayes can go far into more detail than than myself, but that this isn't just going around looking to, you know, how old are you or where you're supposed to be, that type of thing.

This is to really assist um our officers um to make sure this is a safe environment for everyone to enjoy uh the Detroit fireworks.

It's something I go to every year.

I see plenty of children um uh at this event, and uh uh I uh I'll uh defer to DPD for uh anything additional.

Thank you.

Well, let me respond.

I I just think that we have some very responsible 16 and 7 year olds in particular.

And why do they have their parents might be working, and so they don't have an opportunity to have an experience.

I you know, parents uh in this city in particular, uh, some of them work evenings, they work nights, they work midnights.

Um but yet these children will not have an opportunity to participate uh in the fireworks.

Uh it's a big deal uh for some of them.

Oh, but you can't come downtown because you just might misbehave.

I don't like that it has to be another answer for this uh in order to penalize all of the other children who are responsible.

It's only a handful of them that might act out.

Thank you, Member Waters.

Any the additional I well what I'll say is that I I think a lot of folks have heard me talk about curfew and the the approach that we have for our young folks in the city, and and I know um the Madam Mayor has rolled out programming and and um attempts to meet our young folks where they are, um, especially around the teen takeovers.

I know attorney honest, as you mentioned, I know the media attention around this is coupled with teen takeovers, you know, the members of media that I've talked spoken with, uh made sure that they to say that this is something separate and something that has happened um annually.

But I also do want to bring up the concerns around overall when it comes to curfews and the message that it is sended to our young folks.

Um, especially as member waters mentioned, when we think about 16 and 17 year olds, many, I mean, we're going through graduation season.

Um many of those uh youth that are graduating are 17 year olds.

So what we're saying is that you can go great, congratulations for graduating high school, but yet you still can't come um to the fireworks if you don't have a responsible adult.

And I just think about uh myself as 16 to 17 year old, uh 17 years old.

Um my parents were like, I'm not you go ahead, right?

Because you are a responsible um kid, you go enjoy the fireworks.

And I and I think that's uh similar to a lot of municipalities around us that have fireworks as well.

You can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I I have a question for you, A.

C.

Hayes, around you mentioned the 156.

Um I think uh correcting me with put the name on the foot, but minors that got advisors or that you all came into contact with last year.

Were those the 156 are you saying that those were folks that were seen doing other things that maybe disorderly conduct and didn't got that curfew violation, or were those um 156 that okay, you look too young to be down here or such.

Can you give a breakdown on what that was?

The uh curfew uh inquiry as to violation is a secondary uh question uh in interviewing uh someone that we've come in contact with.

So it would have had to benefit uh a crowd.

Uh we're trying to disperse after the show is uh is over and we're uh opening spaces and and refusing to leave and and combative uh in that nature, but just to walk up alone uh and to uh interview someone, uh a minor for their youthful appearance is not how any of those derive from.

And okay, thank you for that.

And for the yes.

If I may as well add uh to Councilmember Waters' point, too, about perhaps you know, maybe a parent's not there because you know they're they're working evenings that they're not able to do it.

Um I mean it's a Monday after almost people are working on a Monday.

We're here on a Monday, we're working right now.

Um so that that's a fantastic point.

But one thing I want to point out as well, too, is the ordinance specifically does state here that the minors are must be accompanied by their parent, legal guardian, or responsible adult.

And responsible adult is just anyone who is an adult over the age of 21 who is acting in the parents' stead and has responsibilities for the care and custody of the minor.

That's how it's uh defined in our code.

It can easily be an older cousin.

Um I mean, to to council member uh McCampbell's point, you know, when I I was 17, 18, 16, you know, I think most people had a friend that was 21 years old that was responsible as an older cousin or a trusted family friend or something like that.

So you you can still have that adult supervision here as well, and it does allow for that explicitly uh but without a parent.

Um so that's one thing I just wanted to highlight for this body.

Thank you.

Thank you, attorney answer.

And yeah, you you I uh definitely hear the aspect more on responsible doll.

I will also say that there is a lot of families where the 16 to 17 year olds in their family are the caretakers of the rest of the family, right?

Like because their parents are at work and such, um, and take the younger kids to events as such.

So I I think there's a lot of things um here of getting that understand that this is happening year year over, but I also think at the conversation as we have it annually um to just bring up additional um questions on like is this the best way um to go about this.

Um the what I'll ask, because I know this is uh a line item for and I'll the other thing I'll say is that um the 1672, the current ordinance is 11 p.m.

correct 10 p.m.

I believe.

Okay, I thought it was under 16 was 10 p.m.

Yes.

Okay.

Um what's knowing that this the process in this uh line item, whether for the law or LPD, if you all can go through um this is for us to send it to formal to set a public hearing, is that correct?

The chair, that's correct.

This is very initial conversations, good conversations, but what we haven't really even flushed out the the full conversation we typically have with public comment um when we have that public hearing.

Uh but so I I would say obviously this is time sensitive to some degree because the fireworks are on the 22nd, but we're at the very early stages of this where if there was something that uh made sense to add an amendment to, it's still very ripe if that is the will of this body, and that's something that uh DPD finds would be helpful with them to perform their job that what's still very ripe at this time.

So I I would just simply ask that we would be able to move this to formal for the setting of a public hearing.

Okay, right.

All right, anything further?

No, no, I I knew what we were supposed to do today in terms of setting up a public hearing.

But since they were here, you know, I thought I might absolutely express my opinion.

Um you have a motion.

Yeah, uh, we can go ahead and move it forward to um you want to move it to new business for the setting of a public hearing.

Um just a question is is new business needed, or do we have time on regular order?

New business oh madam parliamentary.

Just formal.

Um if if you wish for the introduction to um start for it to be happening tomorrow, excuse me, then it should be sent to new business.

Otherwise, it has to wait until next Tuesday.

I will put this up through.

Either formal session next Tuesday, new business tomorrow.

Through the chair, I would ask for new business.

Um it would allow us greater flexibility when scheduling the public hearing.

Okay.

Um send 6.19.

Um to new business for the scheduling of a um public hearing.

And could is discussion on that?

And introduction.

All right, so a motion has been made with discussion.

Um I would just say for the public that is listening.

I know we've had technical difficulties today.

Just to be very clear, um, this is this is just an action to set the public hearing.

Um, this is not approval of the proposed ordinance.

So those who called in today to make public comment on this, you have more of a more than an ample uh opportunity, um, not only just tomorrow as well in public comment, because this will be if this motion goes through, it would be on the agenda, but also during the public hearing on this as well.

Um so I just want to make that note.

And with that, there has been a motion made to oh LPD.

Thank you, Mr.

Chi.

The only thing that occurs to me that the committee ordinarily when they do this either say with recommendation for approval or no recommendation, or theoretically, I suppose could recommend non-approval.

They don't usually do that.

So that's a missing piece from what's been said so far is when forwarding it to this new business.

What is the committee's position on the on the issue?

If any schedule public um for an introduction, schedule a public hearing.

That's it.

So with that if you if we if you don't say um with no recommendation or uh uh recommendation to not approve, then it would go through as with recommendation.

Sometimes it's said, sometimes it isn't, but if you want to make it quite clear, then it should be with recommendation, but it's setting the public hearing.

Well, what uh what I'm recommending is that we is that we um schedule uh introduce it and schedule public hearing.

That's my recommendation.

And uh member, if I could just say maybe with that, maybe we would just say with no with no recommendation, like we're taking action with no recommendation.

Okay, yeah, that that's that's fine, Mr.

Chairman.

So just to restate it, uh it is a motion to um it's in the form of uh without recommendations for the scheduling of an introduction and public hearing to new business to new business.

I think I got it right the intent.

All right, um, so a motion has been made.

Uh sin, no objections.

Um6.19 shall be sent to new business for the purpose of introduction and scheduling a hearing um with no recommendation from the committee.

All right, thank you all.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, honorable body, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Okay, that will move us back up to unfinished business.

Let me go find my place here.

That would be five point thirteen.

Um, actually, let's take a five point thirteen through five point fifteen.

Um, these are uh various memos.

Um these have been received.

Is there a motion to receive and file?

Motion been a motion to receive and file 5.13 through 5.15.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Um moving us on to 5.6.

Is there a motion to discuss?

Discussion.

Uh with that, uh LPD just getting a status update on 5.16.

The uh resolution has been put on uh the uh website through uh east east grab it's referred to at 6.31.

It's the same one's on 6.31 later.

Thank you.

All right.

So with that, is there a motion to receive and file 5.16?

Motion.

There's been a motion to receive and file 5.16, seeing no objections that action shall be taken.

And 5.17 um from member Whitfeld Callaway uh related to let there be light.

Is there a motion to discuss?

Discussion.

Discussion LPD for 5.17.

Very similar response, Mr.

Chair.

It's been provided, it's any scrap and it's uh list identified at point 6.30, 6.30.

Is there a motion to receive and file 5.17?

Motion motion to receive and file 5.17 has been made.

Seeing no objections, that action shall be taken.

Thank you for that.

Um that would move us on to uh new business.

Uh this is from the Office of Contract and Procurement.

Um 6.1's contract number 600 5416-A1, 100% city funding.

Uh amendment to provide a two-year renewal for a permitted and licensing software system, including subscription, maintenance, and hosting services.

Uh contractors a seller, um, and out of San Ramon, California.

Contract period is July 26, 2023 through July 25th, 2026.

Amended contract period is July 26, 2023, and to July 1, 2028, contract increase amount is 1,778, 531 and 49 cent.

Total contract amount is 5 million 183, 224 dollars and 22 uh cent.

This is for BC.

Um is there a motion to discuss?

Discussion.

All right, there's been a motion to discuss.

Uh do we have folks from BC?

Yes, through the chair, we have James Foster and I believe Andrew Anwino.

All right.

Good afternoon.

You just state your name for the record, please.

Oh, your mic.

I hit your mic too.

There we go.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

James Foster, General Manager, Building Safety Engineering Environmental Department.

Thank you.

Thank you for having me.

Good afternoon, honorable members.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here.

I just wanted to bring you up uh just to give a a brief uh summary of this contract, um, how it's been going so far and the need for the extension.

So this thank you to the chair.

Um this is a licensing and permitting software that took us from paper to online in approximately 2018.

It's been a game changer for the public, for contractors, architects, engineers that are working with B seed.

Um we would want to extend this at least the two more years in order to be because of the legacy contract that is currently in place.

Um we find that it's extremely important to keep it in operation.

Uh if you need any details regarding the actual permitting software, please feel free to ask any questions.

Thank you.

Um I have just one question I'll turn over to Member Waters.

Um the capabilities of this software.

I know there the administration and the city council um has taken action to you know streamline preventing processes and make sure that um I know it's uh uh priority for the mayor to see about what more we can do.

Um I know there was the uh approve uh pre-approved site plans and such.

So my question is this this software allows for those I would say innovations and uh streamlining to take place.

Does the software is has the ability to do so?

Yes, sir.

Through the chair, if I would say, as you mentioned, we have currently we are constantly improving permitting processes in B seed.

And as you very well know, recently we did through the Madam Mayor required or asked that we put a little bit more, you know, uh for our customers and make it a little bit more friendly in order for them to participate in in permitting immediately.

We we is we we launched this permit in a day, same day permit, and this is the software that does that for us.

We were able to pivot a bit using the existing software and um and reprogram it where it needed to be in order for to accomplish that.

And we are continuing to do that, and as you did mention that uh we are, yes, we're we are looking at um enterprise-wide softwares, and this is one of them that will will probably be a leading candidate.

That's why we're gonna go with the two years in order for us to allow that process to work its way through.

Thank you.

Uh member waters, any questions?

Oh, I don't have any questions.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Um is there a motion to approve 6.1?

Motion to approve and new business.

There's been a motion to uh approve uh 611 center new business.

Uh seeing no objections, that actually shall be taken.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

With that, uh actually we were to pause uh oh actually this we'll stand the committee will stand a recess to the call of the chair.