[1:26] Mr. Myers, are you and your team ready
to go? They are ready. Okay, let's do
[1:30] this.
Secretary, please call the roll for
[1:33] 7:35.
Mrs. Hall-Rayford? Here. Mr. Stokes?
[1:38] Here. Mrs. Moody? Here. Ms. Naylor?
Here.
[1:43] This is no public hearing. You have 3
minutes to have no public hearing. You
[1:46] have 3 minutes to speak on whatever you
want to speak on. It is
[1:49] Please write your name on the sheet of
speak on whatever you want to speak on.
[1:52] It is
Please write your name on the sheet of
[1:54] paper up there. Paper up there.
Hopefully it's up there.
[1:58] And you have 3 minutes.
Jennifer Nicholas, East Point resident.
[2:03] Um
I wanted to go back to Jennifer
[2:05] Nicholas, East Point resident. Um
I wanted to go back to a couple of to a
[2:10] couple of planning commission meetings
last year, October 2nd planning planning
[2:16] commission meetings last year, October
2nd planning commission. You were doing
[2:21] zoning ordinance changes regarding
uh
[2:26] garage setbacks. At that time, Mr. Myers
had stated that if a garage were
[2:31] destroyed during a fire, including
language that would in effect including
[2:35] language that would in effect
grandfather existing garages to allow
[2:41] the original setbacks if the garage
needed to be rebuilt needed to be
[2:45] rebuilt. Mr. Myers stated that section
11. Mr. Myers stated that section 11.07
[2:53] part D part 1 already covers this in the
event of a fire natural disasters, so no
[3:00] additional language would need to be
added to this motion.
[3:03] The way I read this Excuse me, the the
The way I read this section 11.7, I
[3:10] don't see that it guarantees that a
homeowner can rebuild
[3:13] um north of Stevens, east of Kelly.
There's nine streets in that
[3:18] neighborhood. Approximately 80 houses on
each street, so say about 700 homes. I
[3:26] would say every single one of those
homes, the garages are 2 ft away from
[3:29] the
fence for the side setbacks.
[3:33] So, all of these structures are now
non-conforming.
[3:37] And if something were to happen, they
would have to be built
[3:41] differently. They would have to be moved
or possibly downsized.
[3:46] Um
Definitely have problems on my block
[3:50] with renters. There is a particular
rental house that there's no certificate
[3:56] of occupancy that has been current. The
last inspection goes back to 2024.
[4:04] It looks like
it's owing maybe about $950.
[4:11] These tenants are beyond horrible. Um
they don't pay the water bill's dead.
[4:18] And you know, the city definitely needs
to do more about these rentals that
[4:24] they're not being inspected. They're not
keeping up on the property. It looks
[4:29] disgusting.
Uh you know, the whole city is just like
[4:33] littered with trash. I invite anyone to
walk from city hall and go
[4:39] from here, go down Semrau all the way
down to Kelly and see all the trash all
[4:46] over. And then go down all the other
side streets, too. Trash all over the
[4:51] place. It's not just limited to 8 and
Gratiot.
[4:54] I mean, this will know whether you can
attend or not. I don't know, but if you
[4:59] can, great. If not, please provide the
Thank you.
[5:03] Mr. Woodson, if you would be so kind to
give her some regions information, maybe
[5:07] contact her tomorrow this home, please.
[5:14] Moving on to
the approval of the minutes for the
[5:18] February 5th, 2026
meeting. Chairman DeHaan. Um the minutes
[5:23] from that meeting need to be amended,
though.
[5:26] It be corrected without within the
minutes.
[5:30] We have a motion. Do we have support?
I'll support that. We have motion and
[5:34] support. Secretary, please call the
roll.
[5:39] Mr. Sassak? Yes. Mrs. Hall-Rayford? Yes.
Mr. Stokes? Yes. Mrs. Moody?
[5:48] Ms. Naylor?
Yes.
[5:51] Ms. Zielinski? Yes. Chairman DeHaan?
Abstain.
[5:57] We have no public hearing, so we'll move
on to new It spans the public alley and
[6:01] also incorporates the applicant's The
applicant owns the triangular parcels to
[6:06] the north.
So, this site sort of incorporates both
[6:10] of their parcels and the public alley.
Um the applicant also
[6:15] just for reference owns this parcel here
as well.
[6:22] Um
>> [clears throat]
[6:23] » this is the site plan you received in
your packets.
[6:26] You might have noticed on the drawings
that there are a few revision clouds.
[6:31] We did the staff did iterate this um
reviewed the the initial submission.
[6:37] The applicant provided a revision in
response to the staff's original
[6:41] comments. Um but as I was mentioning the
um
[6:48] This is a 2,800 ft building to consist
of offices and storage. Um there are
[6:55] electric vehicle chargers chargers
proposed here with four spots dedicated
[7:00] for that purpose. Um
landscaping as required by the
[7:04] ordinance.
And then on that northern parcel, a
[7:08] dumpster enclosure and a
electrical transformer.
[7:12] My understanding is that it's to
facilitate the vehicle charging are
[7:16] proposed on that northern parcel.
[7:20] Um
These are the elevations of the
[7:22] building. Since the land is zoned MU1 uh
and this is a new development that is
[7:30] seeking site plan approval. It is
responsible to the architectural
[7:34] standards and the building material
standards that are in the ordinance. Um
[7:38] There are a couple
There are a couple
[7:42] It It meets most of them. There are a
couple items in which this proposal does
[7:46] not meet the standards. Um
I will talk about those in a minute.
[7:50] The items in which it doesn't meet, the
applicant is requesting a waiver from
[7:54] you and the planning commission can
decide
[7:56] whether to grant that waiver. Um the
building is composed of composite wood
[8:01] siding. This lower left elevation is the
proposed 8 Mile elevation.
[8:08] The entrance is proposed to be off the
parking lot on the east.
[8:12] Um all of the elevations are essentially
treated the same and at the same quality
[8:17] of design. Um
Which is I think appropriate and
[8:21] required by the ordinance.
The uh
[8:26] So, as I said, there This has been
through
[8:29] um two submissions already.
Um there are a couple of things a few
[8:34] things that remain unresolved. Um
One of them is that the
[8:40] uh for the
for the project to proceed exactly as it
[8:44] was presented to you,
um
[8:46] the public alley must be vacated because
the applicant is proposing to pave the
[8:50] public alley. Um
It is rezoned. The zoning map is
[8:54] amended. It is rezoned. The zoning map
is amended to a
[8:57] MU1.
Um there were some engineering comments
[9:00] that are still outstanding. I think
those are appropriate to be addressed at
[9:03] the engine
page.
[9:06] I think the most significant one that
um
[9:09] is not a matter of more information or
might require redesign is the item of
[9:15] impervious surface. Facade glazing must
be 40%. Um it's currently at 37.2%.
[9:24] I think the uh
just
[9:28] Our opinion about those waivers, the if
They're sort of dependent on each other,
[9:33] I guess. The um
I I would grant that as it currently
[9:37] stands, 8 Mile. It's unlikely that
someone's going to walk to this building
[9:40] from 8 Mile. Um but the ordinance is
trying to move development in the city
[9:46] in a direction where it that is more
pedestrian friendly than it has been in
[9:50] the past. Um
but I I think there's an argument to be
[9:53] made about the side entrance. Um
The
[9:57] uh glazing
if there if there should be a door there
[10:02] by ordinance standards and to accept
pedestrians
[10:06] from the M I L frontage
if there is not a door there then I
[10:10] think the windows it's attractively
composed it's
[10:14] the waiver request is only about 2 and
1/2% and that might be reasonable but I
[10:17] think that's sort of dependent on what
you think about the
[10:22] the entrance.
[10:25] With that I'm happy to answer any
questions.
[10:32] But as it's drawn it doesn't meet it.
All of this land is um
[10:38] outside of where the frontage
landscaping is in this strip along the
[10:42] property line and then
around this triangular piece.
[10:47] The rest of it is pavement and
the um
[10:51] from an ordinance perspective this
building is over parked. It would only
[10:55] need three three parking spaces for its
employees. Um my understanding is that
[11:00] the applicant because the EV spaces are
um intended to be
[11:07] retail charging.
>> Walkable communities.
[11:10] If you keep making variance we're going
to never get there. That's one thing.
[11:15] Like I said I've seen places there seem
to be plenty space on the front of that
[11:17] building to accommodate the lighting and
the door and they still could have a
[11:21] side interest. Which is at some point in
time have to just move in the direction
[11:27] of where we say we're want to go.
Or either we don't want to go there one
[11:30] of the two but I think that should be um
a consideration that we should be you
[11:36] know asking for a compliance because
it's it's a new construction it can uh
[11:40] combine the parcels
together if they're not contiguous.
[11:45] Okay. Um
the
[11:49] I did talk to the assessor about um
and and we've had some conversation with
[11:56] the applicant as well about um whether
or not the dumpster enclosure is
[11:59] necessary. I believe I think the
applicant can clarify but I believe that
[12:03] they would like to use that parcel at
least for the electrical transformer. Um
[12:07] there might be a scenario if if it's not
necessary for vehicular access
[12:12] um
that the plan could be revised to not
[12:17] use the parcel for dumpster access.
There are there are also overhead wires
[12:21] underneath the location of the dumpster
as it's currently drawn.
[12:24] Um
and then in that case I think the the
[12:29] city's position would be that um there
would need to be access agreements.
[12:34] Perhaps the vacation wouldn't be
necessary but there have to be um
[12:38] easements recorded easements so that um
the parcels are functional together even
[12:43] if with a transfer of ownership.
[12:47] Utilizing nine spots but four of those
spots
[12:50] were
for the EV and that's not
[12:55] in compliance with the ordinance either
correct?
[13:00] The um
the number of parking spots
[13:04] the
the um it's a small business the
[13:08] occupancy is less than 50 people so the
zoning ordinance only requires that it
[13:12] parks their employees.
So um as it's drawn it is compliant.
[13:19] Um I I [snorts] was suggesting that um
from an ordinance perspective
[13:25] » [snorts]
>> there's more parking than there needs to
[13:27] be and that seems like a low hanging
fruit for achieving the
[13:32] impervious surface coverage maximum.
[13:37] But the the
revised So why are we rezoning the rear
[13:42] of the building? I'm asking is it just
to put a dumpster back there we're going
[13:45] to pave the alley just for a dumpster or
there's no space on the side that the
[13:50] rezoning isn't necessary? I'm asking the
question.
[13:53] » Um
well I I think there are alternatives.
[13:56] Um I think that the the
I guess the comment about combining is
[14:03] for this um
if that and that
[14:08] triangular parcel would have to be
rezoned so it's not um split zoned
[14:12] because
if it's just sitting there and not being
[14:17] used then it can still be zoned
residential and it's like nothing
[14:20] happens but um
[14:24] Some stuff I don't understand still. So
we're taking the parcel yes it's
[14:28] residential it's a small triangle
and I'm asking the use of that triangle
[14:32] would be for rezoning it for a dumpster.
And we talked and we talked about you
[14:39] know zoning areas that we've already
have designated.
[14:42] And we're we're combining parcels and
we're going to rezone it combining
[14:47] parcels and we're going to rezone it.
You know how many other spaces are going
[14:51] to say well it's you know how many other
spaces are going to say well it's next
[14:53] door is adjacent is across the alley can
I just rezone next door is adjacent is
[14:57] across the alley can I just rezone that?
We can get into this spot rezoning zone
[15:01] that we can get into this spot rezoning
endlessly and we keep setting you know
[15:06] patterns
endlessly and we keep setting you know
[15:09] patterns for that. I'm just trying to
understand it with the amount of land
[15:12] that it seems that's held
do we really need
[15:17] do we really need to go down that
pathway? And if we do need to go down
[15:22] that pathway and if we do keep doing
this I think we'll keep doing this I
[15:27] think we'll just keep doing this.
Miss closing it off and vacating that
[15:33] and then what we do with it. So those
are the two issues I have. The property
[15:37] has the ability to put another dumpster
or small supply unit of
[15:42] waste management on it. But we're we're
willing to listen to what the the owner
[15:48] of the property wants to do.
Sir if you wouldn't mind just put your
[15:53] name on the piece of paper please.
[16:00] Put my name on the Should be a piece of
paper up there.
[16:04] Yeah if there's a pen just put your name
on it please. Residential zoning is my
[16:08] understanding. Um and it was put back
there on purpose.
[16:12] The
in a perfect world we would vacate the
[16:15] alley but if you look
and um Paul maybe you can point out
[16:21] there's a a residential corner
um
[16:25] on the upper left there.
When you vacate the alley um
[16:29] each side of the alley is entitled to
the to half of the alley vacation.
[16:36] So
we kind of drew this up so the alley
[16:39] would not need to be vacated because we
would risk
[16:43] not being able to use a corner of the
alley.
[16:46] Um it could technically be fenced off.
Now um
[16:51] uh
city the city planner and I have talked
[16:55] electrical lines running along this
alley which we've met with DTE about
[17:01] where to put this transformer and they
said they said well this is the bottom
[17:06] of the pole this is like the most ideal
place. Um and most economical and it's
[17:10] kind of for us it's out of the way in
the back. Um
[17:15] to get away with not having to
rezone that back parcel and vacate the
[17:20] alley
you know
[17:23] that transformer could move across the
alley to be behind the building if
[17:27] absolutely needed but from
our use perspective it makes sense to
[17:32] have it in the back.
Um
[17:35] so that's kind of what our thinking was
with this.
[17:39] Real real estate company with three
employees. There'd be a couple offices
[17:43] in the front. The door would not be
used. We don't have people
[17:47] we're not retail we don't have people
walking in off the street.
[17:50] The only real access to this the
is from the parking lot. People park and
[17:55] they walk in whether we have clients or
guests or it's just us coming in and
[17:58] out. So we
we request to move the door to the side
[18:03] because of that. We don't have anybody
just walking in and you know
[18:08] to buy something or to to do anything
like that.
[18:11] So that was the reason behind it. We
could still put a door there. It's it's
[18:14] a much more expensive concrete it's it's
a much more expensive concrete. We were
[18:17] hoping to
prefer not to have to do that and spend
[18:20] the extra money but if if we want we
have to meet the city's requirements. Um
[18:25] additionally
um in the back of the building so the
[18:29] top of the drawing
I mean if if we weren't able to pave the
[18:33] alley or that back parcel all that would
stay grass.
[18:38] And so there would be more um
perviousness on the on the parcel
[18:44] on the
on the plan. It could comply with what
[18:48] those requirements are that we're asking
that we should probably try and keep
[18:53] moving forward in the way that we want
to bring the city.
[18:57] And so if a door can be installed on the
front
[19:01] I would my question be why why wouldn't
it be?
[19:05] And that would put you without having to
do you know the waivers etc.
[19:09] So
I I would at first I was in agreement
[19:14] there and have a picnic. Um
I but I I have no problem at first I had
[19:21] a problem with no door in the front but
I really don't have a problem with that
[19:24] now and I think about all of those
commercial businesses fronting Vernier.
[19:30] I I I don't have an issue with that.
[19:36] We also have other established
businesses throughout the city
[19:40] that have doorways off of their parking
lots but not necessarily
[19:44] » ments and then we're removing ments and
then we're removing them. I understand
[19:49] if it was a need or use um but this is
just a you know,
[19:54] but this is just a building that's being
erected for office and storage.
[20:00] And so therefore we said it doesn't need
to comply. That's how it translates to
[20:03] me. Then what are we going to do with
the rest of the zones?
[20:07] But that's just my point. I'll get off
my soapbox.
[20:10] Mr. Myers, your thoughts?
[20:22] But that's what we have to think
through, but if he's willing to move
[20:25] that triangle situation over and leave
it green, that saves his previous issue,
[20:30] keeps his parking space, and then the
only last piece you have to address is
[20:35] whether you want a front door
or not. And then I think he's got a
[20:39] compliance for us.
[20:44] So what what you're saying, John, that
will alleviate the rezoning? Yes. Abs-
[20:50] Okay. And the and the freezing of the
the vacating of the alley.
[20:54] Okay.
>> Which he has 40.
[20:56] So, the intention is
as I had mentioned is have offices in
[21:00] the front. It'll likely be a drop
ceiling, which would have
[21:03] glass above.
I'm sorry. So there'd be nothing
[21:08] in that above section. Mhm. Um,
so
[21:13] you this is the other thing we were
asking for, Lenny. I don't mean to like
[21:16] flip-flop with because I know we were
moving on these other things, but this
[21:19] is the other thing that we were asking
for a waiver on. Um,
[21:22] it was on the glass requirement.
Um,
[21:27] so yeah. So Mr. Chair, if I can clarify
and form in the math for everybody at
[21:32] the table, you're asking for a waiver
from 37 and 1/2 to 40, which is about 2
[21:38] and 1/2 per- I gave you two options
because I was not
[21:44] I I don't think you can approve it
conditionally if there's a redesign that
[21:49] still needs to happen. So how about we
table this discussion and we tackle it
[21:54] next month? Is that
[21:58] Is that would that be better to give you
a month and come back with a revised
[22:02] site plan with all the changes? If
that's what you wish, then yes, it would
[22:05] be much cleaner.
>> Commission, how do you feel?
[22:08] Let's table it. All right, there we go.
Can I get a motion to table this
[22:12] discussion until the
What is April? Losing track of time.
[22:17] Plan review approval can begin for the
building of the of the of the structure
[22:21] while we're waiting for special land use
approval of the variables that we've
[22:27] just discussed for him to create in
drawings.
[22:30] That could be the conditional approval.
Is that would that work better for you?
[22:35] » it.
Yeah.
[22:44] Mhm.
And they you you all can still work on
[22:48] what you just mentioned, too, even but
is is irrelevant. I I'm
[22:52] going to have it. If it had been 2.9,
you were out of luck.
[22:56] Um, but 2.8, I'm fine. I well I you
know, I I concede uh, Commissioner
[23:02] Naylor's point on the front door.
Uh, she is right, but I'm also looking
[23:08] at the front doors that are going along
Vernier right now and other businesses,
[23:13] and it is an office. It's not a retail
establishment, and the family owns ch-
[23:18] changing of the zoning, and number
three, it would give him more room for
[23:22] previous property.
[23:26] So those three those are the So the door
and that back triangular piece are the
[23:30] big pieces that you have to
wait for him to draw and and give
[23:35] recommendations of what your the the
council is thinking.
[23:40] The commission is thinking.
[23:46] Brings it up to 40%. Um,
I guess my own personal feeling
[23:53] is that the the window like the facade
is designed, [snorts]
[23:58] there's not a lot of more window to be
had there. Since it's an office
[24:01] building, I think the percentage of
glass is a reasonable waiver.
[24:04] Um,
but I I also think there should be a
[24:07] door there. So, um,
I I think it would improve it, but I I
[24:11] don't know. Um, it's we would be okay
with the 2.8%.
[24:16] And you would not touch the square. I
mean the the triangle, which would not
[24:21] require any rezoning, right?
So that would put us all on the same
[24:25] page.
So
[24:29] need to see that next month.
Call
[24:33] Call the roll.
Dang.
[24:37] Secretary, please be secretary. I second
that.
[24:42] We have motion, we have support.
Please call the roll.
[24:46] » [laughter]
[25:11] » Mr. Sassick.
No, Miss Chairman, we have a nom- we
[25:15] have a nomination.
I make a nomination that Mr. Sassick
[25:20] remain in his position as co-chair.
Vice chair.
[25:25] Support. I make a nomination for
nomination for Mr. Stokes.
[25:32] For Mr. Stokes.
[25:40] All right. I We've never had that
before. We've never had that before.
[25:46] What do we think? You. Mrs. Moody. You.
Mrs. Moody. Yes. Mrs. Hall-Rayford.
[25:52] Yes.
Miss Naylor, you were thinking about
[25:55] taking that back, weren't you?
>> [laughter]
[25:59] » Um, Mr. Stokes. Yes. Mr. Zelinski. Yes.
Um, Chairman DeHunt.
[26:06] Yes. And Mr. Sassick, do you accept?
>> Yeah.
[26:09] The new news is as of last month we have
a live active construction appeals board
[26:15] ready to be addressing the technology
and the issues coming into our five-year
[26:19] master plan and a lot of our
construction issues that we've been
[26:23] struggling with. They've been appealing
based on codes, based on violence, and
[26:27] they don't agree that I'm there, but now
we have an account- with the
[26:31] understanding
that
[26:34] existing buildings would be
grandfathered, protected under this
[26:39] section 11.07,
and then I was very surprised to hear at
[26:45] the City Council meeting February 17th,
very clearly our city manager, Mr. Ryan
[26:50] Madden, instructor
to be aware, to give you a heads-up that
[26:54] if something happens, you cannot build
it in the same spot that it is now.
[26:59] Um, I you know, again as a homeowner, I
would be very upset if
[27:04] for any reason, whether it's a tornado,
a fire, or if I simply want to rebuild
[27:10] my 70-year-old garage,
and we all had 2 ft between the garage
[27:17] and and the fences, and somehow
they managed to take care of their
[27:22] property. Um, so to say we're
changing an ordinance to try and change
[27:30] irresponsibly property in my
neighborhood that I can leave it where
[27:35] it is. So just something to consider in
the future. I understand for new builds
[27:39] we want new builds to be this way, and I
agree with that, but I don't think we
[27:44] should penalize thousands of residents
um that now have non-conforming
[27:48] structures sitting in their backyards.
Thank you very much, and again I
[27:52] appreciate all of you.
to address the five-year mas- to address
[27:56] the five-year master plan. And I'm
excited what I heard from all of you
[28:00] tonight. master plan. And I'm excited
what I heard from all of you tonight. It
[28:05] was about
It was about addressing the future of
[28:08] this city, and I realize addressing the
future of this city, and I realize there
[28:15] always will be somebody that won't like
what happens, but we can't only take
[28:20] care of only take care of
and we must take care of the elder
[28:24] relations to and we must take care of
the elder relations to
[28:30] garage
garage roofs that are in in deplorable
[28:34] conditions, all the ways to roofs that
are in in deplorable conditions, all the
[28:39] ways that we know exactly what the
details are so that we can calculate
[28:44] what kind of clean up we're really going
to take they're going to take in the
[28:47] next five-year master plan. Thank you
for your hard work that you're going to
[28:51] have to in the next five-year master
plan. Thank you for your hard work that
[28:54] you're going to have to
do
[28:57] We're now working to restructure and
rebuild the neighborhood block block
[29:02] watch program with the fire and police
department, so they will become in the
[29:06] internal sections of each of our
districts
[29:09] a part of our team, not to be
whistleblowers, but paying attention to
[29:14] things that happen and give our staff
uh, the ability and 1,200 more to be
[29:20] registered above that list. So every
time we go into a rental property, we
[29:25] have the property rights to walk through
that backyard and do blight on the
[29:29] exterior based on the new IPMC 2021.
Soon as I'm in that backyard,
[29:36] I get to see down the backyards,
and I can I can take a photograph from
[29:40] that. So if we give them more time to be
clerks and answering conversations about
[29:45] every address, then we won't have time
for them to be on the field. We've gone
[29:49] to a digital ticketing system so they
don't have to be in the office writing
[29:53] them by hand. So, as they are in the
field, if you need a specific cut up the
[29:57] concrete and put a smaller garage on.
That seems very common sense for someone
[30:02] who's had already a disaster, but
that's my thoughts. Other than that,
[30:06] let's just get ready for a great year.
Keep focusing on our master plan. I know
[30:10] it's tough questions and people come
before us.
[30:13] Um but that's the point of us having our
administrative part so we can guide the
[30:18] build out.
And the commission was quick not to
[30:23] and the commission was quick not to
allow him to do that, which was fine.
[30:28] And I mean, I understand. But then
tonight we was almost at the point of
[30:32] allowing
this person to to make some changes to
[30:36] that would affect the rezoning.
So, I think we just have to have clarity
[30:40] there and be more consistent in the
things that we're going to do. And
[30:45] also have say, have a wonderful evening.
[31:03] God bless you.
[31:07] God bless you.
[31:11] Uh
I have nothing to say other than
[31:15] uh
I have nothing to say other than don't
[31:18] forget to lose don't forget to lose your
hour of sleep this weekend.
[31:25] I want to thank everybody. I enjoy
working with all of you.
[31:30] I think we have really good discussions
and some of the decisions we wind up
[31:35] making maybe aren't always right, but
we're doing the best we can. And I also
[31:41] want to congratulate Commissioner Stokes
on his uh
[31:45] um
that family has been spectacular
[31:48] supporters of the city of East Point.
When so many businesses closed and moved
[31:53] away,
they stayed
[31:57] and continued to put out a quality
product that people will come from miles
[32:01] around because that's what they did with
their grandma 50 years
[32:06] I got the gavel.
I got the gavel.
[32:11] With that said, can I get a motion to
close the meeting?
[32:13] So, motion. Support. With motion.
Support. We have a motion by
[32:18] » [laughter]
>> Ms. Moody and support by Ms. A motion by
[32:22] Ms. Moody and support by Ms. Ulinski.
Secretary, please call the roll. Ms.
[32:27] Moody. Yes. Ms. Ulinski. Yes. Ms.
Rayford Hall Rayford.
[32:31] » Yes.
Mr. Stokes.
[32:33] » Yes. Ms. Naylor. Yes. Mr. Sassek. Yes.
Chairman DeHaan. Yes.