The Taylor City Council met on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the Taylor Municipal Building, 23555 Goddard Road, Taylor, Michigan. The council considered commission appointments, the Cypress Gardens Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, an alley vacation, multiple purchases and contracts, election supplies, a proposed charter amendment, and public open business. The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
Council debated appointments to the Compensation Commission and the Local Officers Pension and Fringe Benefits Compensation Commission. Mayor Woolley said the appointments were due before October 1 and took responsibility for being one day late. Corporation Counsel reviewed the procedure and the Council Chair ruled the motion could proceed. Councilmembers also discussed quorum requirements and whether failed nominations could be brought back later; Corporation Counsel advised that a renewed motion may be brought at a later meeting.
The council opened and closed a public hearing on the Cypress Gardens Brownfield Redevelopment Plan. Note: the September 17, 2024 minutes record a prior public hearing on this plan, although the October 1 agenda included another open/close hearing; the Brownfield authority's attorney noted a prior hearing had been held. The plan covers 28 parcels and 28 single-family homes by MJC Land Investments LLC, with reimbursement of eligible costs from tax increment revenues. Council was told roughly $360,000 to $368,000 in eligible activity was involved.
A council member requested language requiring sidewalks on any undeveloped lots after five years, and the developer agreed to include it in the signed reimbursement agreement at the next meeting. Developer representative Anthony Leduca said certified funds are held by the city to complete sidewalks and subdivision work, and the company operates under a single LLC. The plan was approved 4-2 (Brandana, Johnson, Winton, Geiss in favor; Rose, Daniels opposed).
The council opened and closed a public hearing to vacate, retaining all utility easements, the 20-foot alley adjacent to Lots 129-141, 272, and 392 in Hitchmans Rouge Hills Sub, between Marvin Avenue and McGuire Avenue. The property owner wants to expand a building near Ecorse Road for walk-in coolers. Assessor Jessica Gracer said all contiguous/adjacent parcel owners had signed. Residents asked about 50/50 ownership of the vacated alley, the brick wall, setbacks, and maintenance. The council approved the vacation, retaining utility easements.
Councilwoman Rose proposed, seconded by Councilwoman Daniels, to refer a charter amendment to Corporation Counsel. The proposed amendment would fill City Council vacancies with the unsuccessful candidate who received the most votes at the last city election and wishes to serve; if none, the council would select a qualified person.
The City Clerk and Corporation Counsel outlined statutory requirements, state review timelines, ballot word limits, and the likely next election. Mayor Woolley opposed, saying the council already has authority to appoint the next-highest vote getter. Some councilmembers questioned cost and consistency with other offices; others supported referral because residents could decide. Public comment included opposition to a possible special election, support for appointing a specific former candidate, and a rec commission member urging the council to decide without delay. The motion failed 3-3 (Brandana, Rose, Daniels in favor; Johnson, Winton, Geiss opposed). No nomination was made under Item 7.20 for the vacant City Council seat.
Timely fashion. Um we could do what the state does and roll back the clock well uh 24 hours. So highlighting what the state does or doesn't do from time to time, they may be a little bit late on their uh legislative procedures. Certainly our council meeting occurred on October 1st and not on September 30th. Um I don't believe that that uh would prevent us from going forward with this motion. So my ruling is that uh this is uh a correct procedure or or motion that has been made, and we can proceed. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say yes, yes all supposed say no. No roll call, please. Mrs. Brandana, no, Mr. Johnson, yes, Miss Rose, no Miss Daniels, no, Miss Winton? Yes, Mr. Geis. Yes, motion fails, three to three, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Chairman, item 6.2 is a motion to approve the appointment of Ben Clayton to the compensation commission and to the local officers pension and fringe benefits commission for a seven-year term to expire on October 1st, 2031 motion to board motion by councilwoman witness supported by councilman Johnson. Is there any discussion? Chairman, Councilwoman, so corporation council. Do you see based on the last motion since this is the same? Is there any? I know the chairman already ruled, but do you see any problem with this? Because then my next question is gonna be what's the solution? We just wait a whole year on and that these individuals that hold these positions have to wait because of a I don't want to say a technicality, but what it what is the solution, and if we got an agenda last week, this could have been something that would have been brought forward that had we needed to have a special meeting, we could have absolutely instead of waiting until like a gotcha moment. Mr. Chairman, you know, this is just another example of obstructionism, if that's even a word, because if I felt that we needed to have a special meeting for this, I would have called for one. It's October 1st. We're not, you know, this is purely a case of you know, let's let's be difficult to be difficult. If you don't want the person, then vote no for the person. But to try to use the date of October 1st to vote no is absolutely embarrassing in my opinion. Chairman, Councilwoman, so these um regulations for the state and our city charter have all been brought forward. So everyone on this council, including the mayor, has been well aware of what the guidelines are since it was brought up at the beginning of the year and discussed multiple times at multiple different meetings. So to say that this is a surprise moment when was those meetings. When we pass the compensation commission um raises for the mayor and the tr and the um city clerk and the council, this was all discussed at the beginning of the year multiple times. So you guys were well aware of the deadline. Any further discussion? Chairman Council. I had a question to corporation council. So do you know if it says honor before? Could it you know how sometimes they use that language or is it before? Well, with all due respect, this is the type of matter that should be brought up before the meeting. We're gonna be looked at in a proper opinion given. Yeah, uh, I'm not gonna give an opinion on the spot. My position is we need to appoint members of the compensation commission. Um, that has to be done, and we can't wait another year to do it, so it needs to be done tonight. Mr. Chairman, also the I can this this has nothing to do with the compensation commission doesn't meet this year. The fringe benefits meets this year, and so at the end of the day, this is basically for them to meet on this next next year would be the compensation commission. So if you're worried about raises and all that stuff, it has nothing to do with this year.