[0:16] Good afternoon. It's called the public service meeting together. Please stand for pledge of allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, and you know, liberty and justice for God.

[0:45] Item number three, adoption of the agenda, please. I don't adopt the agenda. Support center.

[0:49] Chair, adoption by Romano, seconded by Zinner, please vote.

[1:02] Commissioner Perna, the system didn't receive your vote.

[1:06] The system didn't receive your vote, would you like me to put it in for you?

[1:10] Motion passes 12 to zero.

[1:14] Item four, approve of a minutes of August the 12th.

[1:18] So motion, go up, move.

[1:20] Motion by Grant, seconded by.

[1:22] Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead,

[1:35] go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead.

[1:40] Item five, this is a public participation.

[1:45] Anyone from the public wishes to speak on anything that's on the agenda?

[1:50] Anyone from the public?

[1:52] Anyone from the public?

[1:55] We have a closed public participation.

[1:57] Thank you.

[2:00] Item six, public department recommendation.

[2:04] We have a budget amendment here, planning, economic development, Southeast, Michigan,

[2:08] Dean Council of Governments, Macogh.

[2:10] Planning Assistant Grant Program,

[2:13] Macomb Orchard Master Plan, is Vicki here?

[2:19] We need a motion to motion by Goi-Ki and Mr. Sergeant.

[2:23] Right.

[2:24] Okay.

[2:25] Right.

[2:26] Vicki.

[2:27] Yep, good afternoon commissioners.

[2:28] So what you have in front of you is a budget amendment

[2:31] for a some kind grant that we received

[2:33] for a rewrite of Master Plan for the Macomb Orchard Trail.

[2:37] the amendments for $45,000.

[2:47] In the discussion, Mr. Sabatini.

[2:51] Thank you, Chair.

[2:52] Hi, Vicki.

[2:54] So just quickly on this one, this is a grand match

[2:56] for a little over $8,000.

[2:58] It looks like for general fund dollars.

[3:00] Can we use road funding out of this rather than general fund?

[3:05] Is it required that we get general fund dollars?

[3:07] So we in our budget and in the planning and economic development budget

[3:10] to have a line item for match for various grant projects.

[3:15] And so with this one, with the 8,000 plus change

[3:17] that we are gonna be bringing to the table,

[3:20] we're able to draw down the same cash dollars.

[3:22] Okay.

[3:23] So what we've submitted, I mean wherever the money comes from

[3:25] that, you know, right now we've got RIN that will come

[3:28] from our budget.

[3:29] Okay, so the 8,000 is already in your budget allocated

[3:33] specifically for matches.

[3:35] Okay, what I'm just curious, what's that budget amount

[3:38] on approximately that you've got budgeted for grant match.

[3:42] For community planning grant match, it's about 120,000.

[3:46] 120, okay, great, thank you.

[3:52] Commissioner Romano, my question has been answered.

[3:56] Thank you, Chairperson.

[3:58] I'm done.

[3:59] Mr. Chair, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[4:03] So is it specifically coming out of the Federal Government's earmarks 10% for

[4:09] our sidewalks and those kind of stuff on the money that comes back to us.

[4:13] So does that money coming specifically out of that deep, you know, funding so it's not coming out of the roads?

[4:19] No, so it is coming out of through Semcog through their tap grant program.

[4:23] So 36,000 of that is through the federal government that gets directed to Semcog and

[4:30] then Semcog directs it to anyone that submits a response to the proposal.

[4:35] in this case we were one of the awardees for that particular grant.

[4:41] And our money coming back, so it's not we don't get that unless we go through for the transportation money.

[4:47] Right, so we submitted a response to the TAP grant application that Semcog is the primary fiduciary of those dollars that come in through the federal government.

[4:58] Okay, because I was just trying, you know, specifically to see if we're utilizing our money that comes up for trails and bicycle stuff because I know that 10% is earmarked, you know, for that program, and I wasn't sure if it's coming to the county, we have to specifically use that money for it.

[5:18] No, that's something that's separate and distinct, I think believe you're talking about like the public act 51 funds that come through the county

[5:24] No, that would be something different than why would it be different because it's still for the trade of you know bicycle paths and stuff and that's what that's for

[5:32] Well, those dollars don't come directly through some cog where this particular grant is coming directly through some cog

[5:38] Yeah, I get it. I understand that it's coming through some cog, but I don't understand why we can't be using our match money from PA 51

[5:47] That's specifically for bike paths and stuff because that seems like there's money in that correct.

[5:52] I mean, that could be another option what these dollars are going to be used to pursue is the master plan.

[5:58] Typically with a master plan, there will be some recommendations.

[6:02] Maybe perhaps some projects or priorities that we could look at some funding options to help fund those recommendations.

[6:09] Okay. Thank you.

[6:16] I just noted in the request here, the money is actually coming from general funds, so I know you said it's coming out of your budget, but that's now with the motion and so I'll support this today, but if we can just figure that out by full board and get that situated, that'd be great.

[6:31] Correct, I think maybe perhaps that was an administrative error, but yes, it would come out of our funds.

[6:35] Okay, thank you.

[6:36] Thank you, chair.

[6:38] Thank you, you know the speakers please vote.

[6:41] Thank you, Vicki.

[6:47] Motion passes 12-0.

[6:49] Thank you.

[6:55] We go on to a six, I'm going to combine six B, C, D, E, F, and G.

[7:03] Motion to approve the full board.

[7:05] The board.

[7:08] Chair, would you prefer that I present each of them all first before asking questions or one at a time for questions?

[7:15] No, one at a time.

[7:16] Okay.

[7:17] Go ahead Greg.

[7:17] So starting with the first one, requesting the approval of the agreement with HNTP Michigan to provide engineering services for a three-year asset management program from September 1st of this year to June 30th of 2029, the amount of $354,393 for the Department of Roads.

[7:42] Any questions?

[7:43] None.

[7:45] Item C?

[7:47] Okay, requesting the approval of the contract for traffic operations engineering services with AECOM Great Lakes for engineering services for the traffic operations center at a total cost of $3,759,954 in 38 cents.

[8:03] Federal funding covering 80% and Department of Roads covering the 20% remainder.

[8:07] No

[8:12] questions, please continue.

[8:17] Requesting the approval of the MDOT contract, outlining the terms and costs for

[8:21] the replacement of the bridge on 21 mile road over Salt Sling, Glowty Drain, at an estimated

[8:25] total cost of $6,125,000.

[8:29] Federal bridge funds covering $4,667,090 in Department of Roads covering just over 1.4 million.

[8:41] Thank you, Chair.

[8:43] Welcome.

[8:44] How long do you think that's going to take to get that bridge repaired?

[8:48] We are anticipating starting construction on that.

[8:52] I believe in November and it will go throughout the winter.

[8:56] This is one of the, it's a little bit of a different, we normally do this work over the summer,

[9:01] but we are going to try and do this over the winter to try and avoid some of the other projects

[9:05] that will be forthcoming in 2027 in that same area.

[9:08] We anticipate being done with this probably by June.

[9:14] Wow, thank you.

[9:16] It's all here.

[9:18] Any other speakers?

[9:20] Item E, please.

[9:22] Requesting approval of the cost share agreement,

[9:24] outlining the participation between Huron Academy and Macon County Department of Roads.

[9:29] For the installation and annual maintenance of traffic signal devices,

[9:33] located at steeple chase drive and Utica Road, with an installation cost of $200,000.

[9:38] and you'll maintenance of 3,000 to be paid for by here on Academy at no cost to the department.

[9:47] Question on that, are you going to be putting a stop light or just a signal there?

[9:53] You're in Academy.

[9:58] It looks like it's going to be a full signal from what I can tell.

[10:03] Because you have metro parkway, you're in Academy, Utica Road.

[10:10] So it's only half, we're not doing a half a mile,

[10:12] you have another stoplight there.

[10:14] Yeah, and it might be, you know,

[10:16] sort of like how it operates at Freedom Hill,

[10:18] where it gives the caution for the through traffic

[10:21] until such time as, you know, it's required.

[10:25] I don't know the details on that particular signal,

[10:27] I could check on that for you and get back to you if you'd like.

[10:29] And the steeple chase residents across the street,

[10:32] they've signed off on that,

[10:33] where's there any discussion with them?

[10:35] That I do not know, I would have to check

[10:37] with our traffic operations.

[10:39] All right.

[10:40] Thank you.

[10:42] Those are questions.

[10:43] Item F, please.

[10:45] Requesting approval of the grant agreement with the United

[10:48] States Department of Transportation, FHWA, to provide the safe

[10:52] streets for all grant program from January 1st of 2027 to project

[10:57] completion in the amount of $1,250,000, $100,000 of county

[11:03] cost and funding available in the 2026 traffic budget.

[11:12] No discussion?

[11:13] What's your commission, Greg?

[11:15] I mean, quirky.

[11:16] Working, okay, it's a G.

[11:19] What does this safe streets for all?

[11:22] I'm not familiar with that.

[11:24] So I say grant initiative that the federal government puts forth.

[11:27] It's sort of an annual program where people can apply for grant funding to improve safety measures on different public roads.

[11:37] whether it's signal enhancements or installations of bypass lanes, certain measures that are typical for enhancing public safety in that regard.

[11:48] So would they go to your department to ask for that grant or go to the federal government?

[11:55] We would apply through the federal government grant program that they would offer.

[11:59] And is there a waiting list kind of on things that you already have in file already to go to or is it pretty open right now for new projects?

[12:10] I think there's sort of always a rolling list. Some projects carry over depending on the complexity of them.

[12:17] Others are a little bit more straightforward and are implemented a little bit quicker.

[12:21] For example, a mid-black crossing is something that could be done quicker.

[12:25] other times we try and leverage these dollars to be included with a larger road

[12:31] project so that it can help offset some of the costs of what would be sought

[12:35] after for a typical road project. Yeah, on a lot of big projects that's really

[12:39] not a lot of money. You got to put big crosswalks and stuff in a little major road.

[12:44] Thank you very much, sir. Yep. Chair.

[12:49] I can't complain about a grant. This size

[12:52] Yes, you know, that's great.

[12:54] That really, correctly, is a study of five intersections

[12:56] throughout the county?

[12:58] Or is it, or is it just the general county-wide?

[13:02] I believe it was for a couple of specific intersections.

[13:06] And it's generally, if our traffic department

[13:11] sees that there's a commonality between those

[13:16] as far as crash types or safety issues there,

[13:20] They can let us an economy of scale in deploying those solutions for that.

[13:26] And this is for like studying the traffic and stuff, not actual road work.

[13:31] Correct, it would go towards safety specific measures.

[13:33] Thank you.

[13:33] Yes.

[13:34] Thanks, sir.

[13:35] That's great.

[13:37] You know, the speaker, one more last question, Greg.

[13:41] You're an academy.

[13:41] When does that light going to be installed?

[13:43] I believe that this is for a, it'll probably be sometime next year, next year, next year.

[13:54] It sounds like that the grant is for the 2027 year.

[14:01] No other discussion, please vote.

[14:04] I'm going to abstain on item E, and I'm involved with that school.

[14:08] Please vote.

[14:10] We'll have to separate,

[14:15] we'll separate, we'll go A, B, C, D, and F, and G.

[14:23] Please vote.

[14:24] Do you need separate motion?

[14:26] I'm separating.

[14:38] Motion passes 12 to zero.

[14:41] And now we'll vote on E, E. I'm going to abstain.

[14:47] Make a motion to move either forward please vote

[15:02] Motion passes, 11 to 1, with Commissioner Perna abstaining.

[15:10] Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Thank you.

[15:19] Do we get that there was another one for safe streets? I think there were two of them. G. Yeah, we covered it. We covered it. We covered it. We covered it in the first mission. Thank you very much.

[15:29] And now with great pleasure, thank you, turns me over to Commissioner Romano.

[15:36] Thank you, Chair.

[15:39] All open records in Public Safety Committee,

[15:43] item 8, A.

[15:48] Thank you.

[15:50] It's a contract with Wal-Path, LLC, inmate health care services.

[15:55] This is a three year agreement for $1,559,309.

[16:02] We have Sarah Gillis, Director of Juvenile Justice Center, who's going to make a presentation.

[16:07] I need a motion to recommend this a full board.

[16:10] Motion by Wallace, support by Mr.

[16:15] Howard.

[16:17] Gillis, please.

[16:18] Good afternoon, commissioners.

[16:20] I'm actually Robin Lentz, Deputy Director of the Juvenile Justice Center.

[16:24] I'm here on behalf of Sarah Gillis.

[16:26] She is at the Michigan Juvenile Detention Association conference.

[16:30] We have a staff who's being honored with an award,

[16:33] so she is there with that staff to present that award to her.

[16:37] So she apologizes, but that's very important.

[16:40] So I am here to present the healthcare services contract.

[16:45] The contract would take effect October 1st,

[16:47] be valid for three years.

[16:50] We are asking for well-path to be the identified healthcare

[16:54] their vendor. They have been the provider since 2011. We have a great working collaborative

[17:02] relationship with them. It was also the lowest bid of the three we received. So we would

[17:08] like permission to move forward with that contract.

[17:15] Thank you. I see no questions. We have

[17:19] a motion in support. Please vote.

[17:23] Thank you.

[17:26] Motion passes 12-0.

[17:28] thank you. Let's go to item B which is a budget amendment. It's Circuit Court

[17:34] fiscal grant fund for $45,615. So we have Susan Zabel from the Court

[17:41] Finance Director. I also need a motion recommended full board.

[17:45] The board. Motion by Commissioner Haas,

[17:48] Supported by commissioners.

[17:51] Lucido.

[17:52] Lucido.

[17:55] Miss Abel, we got three of you.

[17:57] Good afternoon.

[17:58] Okay, any mining?

[17:59] Yes.

[18:00] We're here today to bring forward several,

[18:03] actually several grant amendments,

[18:04] but they're all in one fund.

[18:05] So I've put them together, but in the motion,

[18:08] they're all spread out.

[18:10] You can see the different grants.

[18:12] Some went up, some went down a little bit,

[18:14] and we're just here to give those amendments through.

[18:22] That's it, three of you are going to speak, huh?

[18:24] Unless there's questions.

[18:31] You sure you don't want to say anything else?

[18:33] In terms of the money, it's money that's already been committed through grant funding.

[18:38] But we have to move the money around because quarterly, we have to account to the state government.

[18:45] And then we get bills in and then we have to remove the money around.

[18:48] So it's just moving money that's already been committed.

[18:52] Thank you.

[18:53] I see no speakers have a motion in support.

[18:56] Please vote.

[19:04] Motion passes 12 to zero.

[19:06] Thank you, ladies and

[19:12] welcome on to item C, which is also a budget amendment emergency management fiscal year 2025

[19:20] operations stone garden program

[19:22] It's 268,125 dollars. We have mr. Lewis here director of emergency management. I need a motion recommend this the full board

[19:31] Who made the motion?

[19:38] Okay, we both can make a motion who's going to give?

[19:42] I'll make the motion, Ms. Lucido, use the report of that motion.

[19:52] Mr. Lewis.

[19:53] Good afternoon, commissioners.

[19:55] The operation stone garden is an annual grant that we get from the Department of Homeland

[20:00] Security to support law enforcement operations along the U.S. border.

[20:05] So it is distributed amongst the Sheriff's Office, New Baltimore Police Department, Chesterfield

[20:11] Police Department, St. Clair Shores Police Department, for border security operations that

[20:16] those departments incur. Our annual award for 2025 is $268,125 and I'm seeking a amendment

[20:25] to the emergency management grant fund to accommodate the revenue and expenditures from that

[20:30] grant. It's nice to share, isn't it? It's always nice to share.

[20:38] I see no speakers.

[20:40] I have a motion in support. Chair, if I choose to see something. Sorry, I didn't see a

[20:43] look. There you are. I'm fine with the item but I just wanted to say thank you. I know

[20:48] you recently had the emergency management meeting.

[20:50] Not too long ago for this building, thumbs up.

[20:53] I just wanted to give you kudos for that.

[20:54] Thank you.

[20:54] Thank you, Chair.

[20:56] Thank you.

[20:58] Okay, seeing what the speakers have,

[20:59] a motion at support, please vote.

[21:06] Motion passes 12 to zero.

[21:08] Thanks, Brandon.

[21:12] Moving on to item number D, which is a contract

[21:15] with Tyler Technologies, computer,

[21:19] AIDF dispatch CAD, records management system,

[21:22] RMS Cloud Migration and Software Service Agreement.

[21:26] I don't even know what this stuff is.

[21:28] It's a mouthful.

[21:29] Six million, $793,580.

[21:33] I need emotion and support.

[21:37] Moved by Commissioner Graff,

[21:41] support by Commissioner Wapolis, Miss LC, please.

[21:46] Good afternoon.

[21:47] The item before you today to help explain it

[21:50] is a five-year agreement with Tyler Technologies,

[21:53] a vendor, very familiar to the county, you've heard me speak of them many times.

[21:58] They're a current vendor for a computer-aided dispatch or CAD.

[22:02] It's the software system we use to enter the information from the 911 colors and share it with the responders.

[22:07] And the records management system, or RMS, is what you'll hear referred to.

[22:13] Not a new vendor, Sheriff's Office, and all of our affiliated public safety agencies have used Tyler CAD and RMS for many years.

[22:21] actually since 2013 when we originally signed the contract and we've been live

[22:27] with them since 2015. But this renewal is for our current agreement that

[22:32] expires at the end of this year December 31st, but it also represents a

[22:38] significant modernization of the system itself. So today our Tyler environment is

[22:44] primarily located or hosted locally on county infrastructure and under this

[22:49] agreement. We will be migrating to Tyler's cloud hosted platform. So that means Tyler will assume

[22:55] responsibility for hosting the infrastructure, the system administration, maintenance software

[23:01] updates, data storage, and any type of technical support in reference to the servers.

[23:08] There are also two significant consortium changes included in this project. First,

[23:14] First sterling heights has been a part of our dispatch consortium for 11 years now, but they've continued to maintain their own records management server.

[23:23] And as a part of this migration, sterling heights will decommission those servers and move on to the county shared RMS environment.

[23:30] That's a records management system meaning we'll be able to share records and data sharing, especially when we share borders and provide the same nine or one service to those communities is really exciting.

[23:44] Also, Warren Police and Fire Dispatch will be joining our CAD environment.

[23:50] So beyond renewing the Tyler Agreement, this project also consolidates public safety

[23:54] technologies across the county.

[23:57] It reduces duplicate infrastructure, improves resiliency, and gives our participating agencies

[24:02] a more unified platform for record sharing.

[24:06] And I do want to spend a minute explaining the financial piece because the contract value

[24:11] you can be a bit misleading on its face.

[24:14] The total estimated five-year value of the agreement

[24:17] is $6,793, $607, $6,793, $580.

[24:26] I should have rounded.

[24:28] However, the county is the master contract holder

[24:31] or the consortium.

[24:32] So Tyler invoices us for the entirety

[24:35] of the agreement annually.

[24:37] And then we invoice all the affiliated agencies

[24:40] for their respective shares just as we do today under our existing interlocal agreements.

[24:46] So of that $6.79 million, the sheriff's office actual five-year share including the one-time

[24:53] implementation fee is approximately $2.1 million over the five years.

[24:59] The remaining approximate $4.7 million will be reimbursed to the county by our affiliated

[25:05] agencies of that amount of that 4.7 approximately 2.1 of that is Warren's

[25:12] chair with their cat consortium and within our own 2.1 million dollar share

[25:17] those costs are divided between the sheriff's office specifically and the E911

[25:23] budget. So funding for this is available in the E911 fund. We are including this

[25:31] in our fiscal year 2027 budget proposal because the contract does not expire until December 31st of this year and we are not invoiced for any services until those services are delivered, which won't be until mid-2027.

[25:47] And with that, I am happy to take any questions.

[25:50] And we have some.

[25:51] Okay.

[25:52] Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you for being here, so my understanding is by doing this well, let's open up any

[26:00] storage space for our data collection fact because it's going to all going to go there and out to their data center

[26:07] Like it in Tom tech so that we can utilize the space that we're already having for that. Yeah, I would imagine that there would be rest space available

[26:14] from decommissioning those physical servers, but I can check with my

[26:20] IT colleagues who are here for a specific answer.

[26:24] That would make sense, right?

[26:25] But no.

[26:26] OK, Jen's telling me no.

[26:27] So I'm glad that they're here, because I'm wrong.

[26:30] But no.

[26:32] Well, just for me, common sense is like it kind of could

[26:35] be a savings for us if, you know, in what aspect is we're

[26:38] not going to be as using as much electricity, you know,

[26:41] for operations of it and stuff like that.

[26:44] So I think my wrong, she's coming up.

[26:48] There we go. Thank you. Hi, I'm Jonathan Phrylliam and I'm the infrastructure manager. And Angela is partially right.

[26:57] The servers that we host Tyler on will not be needed anymore. So those servers will go away. There's far storage.

[27:04] The storage is on those services not on our overall network storage. So there's no storage that way.

[27:09] Okay. So but we're not going to have to pay the cost for our servers anymore.

[27:13] So there's been a lot of service and that's as small as it may be, but it is, to the bigger cloud.

[27:20] So, thank you very much.

[27:21] You're welcome.

[27:22] Bigger data.

[27:23] Thanks, Commissioner.

[27:25] Chair Stephanie.

[27:26] Thank you, Chair.

[27:27] Angela, hi.

[27:27] How are you?

[27:28] So just a couple of questions, so just to follow up on that.

[27:31] So, we're going to the cloud, so all the backups will be handled on their side going forward.

[27:37] Correct.

[27:38] Okay.

[27:38] Okay, and then I kind of understand the breakdown of the numbers, which I see city of warrants paying a portion, we're paying a portion.

[27:48] And then there's some one time set up fees to get this all done.

[27:52] So, are we paying on the county side all the initial set up fees or is our partners, are they also contributing to that total?

[28:01] Our partners are also contributing to that as well.

[28:03] So the one time setup fees are they vary for every agency because not everyone uses the same thing.

[28:14] So the one time cost allocations are based on the agencies receiving the associated service.

[28:22] Everything with a software as a service contract now is almost like a site license.

[28:29] So it's not as granular as what we're used to, which is if you want this thing and you

[28:36] want 17 of this, you pay for quantity of 17, now it's one lump sum and it's unlimited

[28:43] and we had to find a way to really build a good cost allocation system.

[28:51] So we really first broke it down and looked at who uses let and then what percentage of

[28:56] answers from each agency use that and that's how the cost was determined.

[29:00] Okay, and then for our partners, I assume that they were housing this on their

[29:04] servers as well locally, will they no longer need to do that?

[29:08] Sterling Heights was the only one.

[29:10] Correct.

[29:11] Yes, okay.

[29:12] Sterling Heights was the only one housing anything on local servers.

[29:15] They had their own mobile and records management server.

[29:18] And for years, we've said this is silly, right?

[29:20] We're both paying for these costs and we have this weird data sharing agreement and it's not,

[29:25] that doesn't work super well all the time, just join this.

[29:31] So other than that, all of our affiliated agencies

[29:34] are hosted on our servers.

[29:36] And we have complete visibility and data sharing

[29:38] amongst all 12 agencies that are out there.

[29:42] Okay, great, thank you.

[29:43] Thank you, Chair.

[29:44] Thank you, Chair.

[29:49] I see no other speakers.

[29:50] I have a motion and support.

[29:52] Please vote.

[30:00] Motion passes 12-0. Thanks, thanks, Ms. LC. Thanks for coming.

[30:06] All right, we're moving on to items E, F, and G. I'm going to take those together, if I may. So more.

[30:14] I have a motion by Commissioner Haas supported by Commissioner Sinner.

[30:23] And the

[30:29] item is a budget amendment for Lance Cruz School's school resource officer for $50,837.

[30:36] Item F is a contract with Lance Cruz School for school resource officer for $207,756.

[30:43] And item G is a position schedule amendment to sheriff's department.

[30:48] increased position count by one full-time deputy, and we have Commander Elbrough who's going to go through all three of these and explain it to us.

[30:56] Commander Elbrough.

[30:57] Thanks for having me, board chair and commissioners.

[31:00] What we're asking for the Sheriff's Office is to prove the contract amendment with one deputy position for

[31:05] Lance Cruz schools to provide one SRO for their middle school from September 1st of 26th, all the way through the contract expiration of December 31st of 27th.

[31:15] In the amount of $207,756, I'm asking for a movement in our budget amendment as well as a new contract, a new position, and also a schedule change to add it to our complement.

[31:31] This is at no cost of the county. This is a grant position provided by Orange Peacefuls.

[31:36] Thank you, Commander.

[31:42] I see no questions.

[31:43] questions? Oh,

[31:47] is that H-O-U-G-H?

[31:50] Could be. Comments are on.

[31:52] Thank you, Chair. Hi, again, Commander.

[31:55] Hi.

[31:55] From an Arctic standpoint, and budget item E,

[31:59] it says school resource officer 50,837, and then

[32:05] the item F is school resource officer 207.

[32:11] What?

[32:11] Correct. So as you can see, as a schedule,

[32:14] I believe that should have been scanned into you, is that $50,837 will cover us through the rest of this year from September to the end of the year.

[32:22] And then you have a full contract for 12 months of a 156,919.

[32:28] That will give us that whole movement of $207,756.

[32:32] Thank you, and be safe.

[32:35] Thank you.

[32:36] Thank you, Commissioner.

[32:37] Thank you, come here, does anybody else want to speak?

[32:48] I was going to speak, but Commissioner Hall took my wind away again.

[33:00] I

[33:04] see no other speakers have a motion in support. Please vote.

[33:14] Motion passes 12-0.

[33:15] Thank you.

[33:16] Thanks, Commander.

[33:21] Item H.

[33:22] Position Schedule Amendment.

[33:24] Chair's Department, increased position count by one full-time deputy, and we have Jeffrey McPherson

[33:31] Captain who's going to speak on it, and they didn't motion recommend this a full board.

[33:34] So moved.

[33:35] The forward?

[33:36] I have a motion by Commissioner Howard, supported by Commissioner LeCeto, Captain McPherson,

[33:45] please.

[33:46] Afternoon, commissioners.

[33:47] I am very excited to bring forward the proposed crisis response unit.

[33:52] It is another fantastic partnership between the Sheriff's Office, Community Mental Health

[33:56] and Community Corrections.

[33:58] We're going to be bringing a deputy sheriff, partnering them with a trained mental health

[34:02] professional to respond to the behavioral health crisis calls and also do follow-up on those

[34:08] calls.

[34:10] It's a great effort and goals in line with our future project, Suffolane Take and Assessment

[34:15] Center, but the ultimate goal of reducing incarceration of these individuals and getting

[34:20] they know the proper treatment and help that they need instead of incarceration and also

[34:25] hopefully reducing use of force and cars and things of that nature.

[34:30] Thank you, Kevin.

[34:32] If I may, Commissioner Grafft, CMH is coming up with some of those orgies for this, isn't

[34:38] you?

[34:38] You want to speak to that?

[34:43] CMH is always willing to help Commissioner Romano.

[34:47] Do we know that?

[34:47] No, this is a fantastic program.

[34:49] We've been working on this for a while now,

[34:51] and it's great to see it finally come to fruition.

[34:53] And as you know, as CMH, we're great partners

[34:57] with Community Corrections in the Sheriff's Office.

[34:59] And hopefully if this goes well,

[35:00] we can continue this program and add even more so.

[35:03] But yes, we are funding portion of that project.

[35:07] But we are mean to CMH.

[35:08] Thank you.

[35:09] Thank you, Kim.

[35:10] Any speakers?

[35:12] Christopher Howard?

[35:13] Just a quick question.

[35:15] And sometimes when units like this are established like the officer might be dedicated for this and then they get pooled for other things like what's the likelihood of that happening or is this like full dedication for justice unit.

[35:26] They're going to have more than enough work, they're going to be completely dedicated to this unit.

[35:31] Sounds great. Thank you. This is such a great program. Thank you for doing this.

[35:35] Yes.

[35:36] Any other commissioners?

[35:39] Seeing no other commissioners, I have a motion in support. Please vote.

[35:50] Motion passes 12-0.

[35:51] Thank you.

[35:53] Thank you.

[35:56] Item I is a contract with Clemens Authority's participation agreement for $3,000.

[36:01] I need a motion to recommend this to full board.

[36:03] Hello.

[36:04] Is it boarded?

[36:05] Moved by Commissioner Lucido, supported by Commissioner Wallace.

[36:11] And we have Mr. Beando, Chief of Special Prosecutions.

[36:15] Mr. Beando.

[36:17] Good afternoon commissioners on behalf of Prosecutor Bacito who is present today in the boardroom along with several members of his administration I just want to begin by thanking the board for the opportunity to be heard on critical agenda items we like the board to review and ultimately approved for the full board next week.

[36:34] I thoroughly briefed each agenda item that's up today.

[36:39] And so I'm just going to briefly comment on each agenda item

[36:42] to the extent that maybe the VOC recommendation sheet

[36:46] or the attachments just maybe missed something

[36:48] because of the context.

[36:50] And so for this, as we indicated in the paper work,

[36:52] this is an intergovernmental agreement.

[36:54] This is why it's before the board.

[36:56] The funding is available.

[36:57] Maybe what was missed in terms of the paper work

[37:00] is the business case specifically for our office.

[37:02] This is another investigatory tool for investigators to trap down defendants, crime victims, and witnesses when the information we have, as far as their address is stale or out of date, in the context of defendants, it would be four purposes of a proper reimbursement unit to basically pursue child support on behalf of parents who are old child support.

[37:25] and then the second piece is on occasions are regularly defendants who fulfill what the court

[37:32] orders them to do in terms of the sentence sometimes they come back and file motions for

[37:36] expungement so we want to be able to have this tool available to track down victims to get their

[37:42] input on whether or not you know what they feel about those motions for expungement and so with

[37:47] that it'd be happy to answer any questions the board might have agenda item I.

[37:55] This is all coming

[37:56] Any other prosecutor's project?

[37:57] Yes, sir.

[38:02] Any commissioners have any say?

[38:06] I have a motion in support.

[38:07] Please vote.

[38:20] Commissioner Guaigui, the system didn't receive your vote.

[38:22] Yes.

[38:24] Motion passes 12 to 0.

[38:26] Thank you, Mr. Biano.

[38:27] Thank you, commissioner.

[38:28] All right, we're going to move on to items J-K-L-N-M.

[38:33] First one is the contract that the U.S. Department of Justice,

[38:37] special attorney's program grant award acceptance.

[38:40] It's a total grant award for $693.

[38:42] dollars in $693,441, so no cost to the county. Item K is a resolution 2026-159-18. This

[38:53] is a resolution deeming prosecuting attorney's positions necessary in fixing salaries for

[38:58] the additional of one grant fund principal trial or under public act 329 as amended. Item

[39:07] L was a contract with U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan Memorandum

[39:11] I'm a understanding and item M is a budget amended prosecuting attorneys grant fund DOG special attorneys program grant budget $50,200.

[39:22] I need a motion to move these full board.

[39:29] We are going to do it one at a time.

[39:30] Just wouldn't be the full board.

[39:38] I have a motion on the floor.

[39:39] Did I get a support?

[39:41] Support.

[39:42] Support by Mr. Perna.

[39:44] Let's start with item number.

[39:45] I'm sorry.

[39:46] Commissioner Wallace made the motion.

[39:47] and Commissioner, let's go to item J, which is a contract with the U.S. Department of

[40:00] Justice Special Attorney Program Grant Award, Mr. Bando.

[40:04] Thank you, commissioners.

[40:05] So of course, these are four related items, but with regards to the item J, the normal

[40:10] process once a department receives a grant award is to submit it through contract routing.

[40:15] now this grant award is dated July 31st and on August 5th we submitted that to contract

[40:22] routing to go to the executive. There was no action in contract routing with respect to approving

[40:28] the grant award and so on August 19th we submitted this as an agenda item to come before the board

[40:34] under the board's contracting authority and it was moved forward after we submitted it on August 19th

[40:42] on August 21st to come before the board and so we're just asking the board to approve

[40:47] this so that ultimately it gets signed off by the county and that we can in turn communicate

[40:54] the acceptance to the DOJ and times of the essence because we have only so much time to accept

[41:01] the grant award.

[41:03] Thank you. I have to answer any questions on that one. Any questions from any

[41:08] Make commissioners on item J.

[41:15] We'll move to item K. The resolution, Mr. Boundo.

[41:19] Yes, so this is pretty straightforward. Per the statute referenced, we of course need the board to amend the necessary and proper resolution to add the one principle trial lawyer that this grant provides for any

[41:39] commissioners were to speak on item J.

[41:43] Okay, okay, I'm sorry, item K.

[41:49] Seeing none, we'll move on to item L.

[41:53] Yes, one of the conditions commissioners regarding the grant award is to also have a memorandum of understanding with the office for the Eastern District of Michigan.

[42:04] Technically, this is an intergovernmental agreement and so on that ground it's before the board for approval.

[42:11] And this basically specifies the responsibilities and duties of McCombe County and the U.S. Attorney's Office with respect to this grant.

[42:25] Any commissioners, we should speak on it.

[42:31] Let's move on to item. Is it L? Use the attorney's office?

[42:35] I believe M, sir. We did it.

[42:39] We just did. Let's move to the M, please. Budget and amendment prosecutor and attorney grants one.

[42:44] Yes, thank you. Regarding this, we work with finance to determine, okay, how much do we have to amend the 2026 grants budget?

[42:52] The grants budget excuse me to have the funding in there to pay for the principal trial lawyer starting October 5th through the end of the year.

[43:00] That's the dollar amount and we're asking the board to approve this budget amendment to the prosecutor's grant budget to essentially add the new grant money to the grants budget for the prosecutor's office.

[43:11] Again,

[43:17] any commissioners have any questions on it?

[43:19] Item M, which is the budget amendment,

[43:24] C9.

[43:27] An engine to vote on I, I'm sorry, on J, K, L, and M, please vote.

[43:42] Motion passes 12-0.

[43:44] Thank you.

[43:45] Thank you, commissioners.

[43:46] Okay, we're going to item letter number N and O together.

[43:55] N is the budget amendment.

[43:56] Prosecuting and Attorney's Grant Fund, DOJ, Hate Crimes Program, Grant Budget for

[44:01] for $89,800.

[44:05] Almost a contract with premier communications group,

[44:09] professional services agreement for hate crimes grant,

[44:11] totaling $108,600, which is no cost to the county.

[44:16] I need a motion to move.

[44:19] And an O together, please.

[44:21] So moved by Goyke.

[44:22] So part, Wallace?

[44:24] We've moved by Commissioner Goyke,

[44:25] supported by Commissioner Wallace.

[44:32] Mr. Beando.

[44:33] Thank you, commissioners.

[44:34] This is similar to what we did with the conviction integrity

[44:37] I believe two months ago, we worked with the Department of Justice to submit a

[44:42] GAM to shift funding that was in the prior year of the grant budget that we

[44:48] had not utilized for basically in the sense of having savings there because it

[44:53] didn't make sense to spend that money and so with this GAM or budget amendment

[44:56] with the DOJ they reviewed the contract with

[45:02] Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

[45:03] is to be able to communicate with the public about what a hate crime is,

[45:07] how to properly report it with the police.

[45:10] We also are in communication under this grant,

[45:13] through our grant funded attorney running it,

[45:15] with providing trainings to police as far as how to handle these type of cases.

[45:21] And so we're asking the board to obviously amend the county budget

[45:24] to reflect what the DOJ did,

[45:27] and I'd be happy to answer any questions on either one of those items.

[45:35] Just to be honest, I'm looking at a figure here, this is $89.08 and the next figure shows me

[45:42] a $108,600, $20,000, $1,000 difference, where does that difference go?

[45:49] Yes, so the difference is because we currently have in the county budget and the DOJ grant,

[45:54] we have the difference in there.

[45:57] What we're doing is we're increasing that amount by the $89,800 so that we have the full

[46:02] amount to pay for the contract for $108,000, $600 that was reviewed by the DOJ as a part

[46:08] of this process and approved by the DOJ. And so in other words, we already had a line

[46:12] on it with, I believe it was $18,000 in change, and we need to add another $89,800 in order

[46:19] to have the full amount needed to pay the contract, sir.

[46:23] Thank you.

[46:26] Commissioners, anybody want to speak on it?

[46:30] Seeing none, I have a motion in support.

[46:32] Please vote.

[46:32] Motion

[46:39] passes 12 to 0.

[46:41] Thank you.

[46:44] Next item is item P, which is a budget amendment prosecuting attorney general fund in grant funds for 33,000.

[46:52] Number one is an auto theft prevention authority grant increase in match increases 33,000.

[46:57] Item two is a crime victim rights grant supplies and services.

[47:02] Postage and delivery transfer $3,000.

[47:05] Item three is a general fund contract services axon,

[47:09] one digital evidence system contract, a transfer of $30,000.

[47:13] I need a motion to recommend this to Full Board.

[47:15] The Chair, I'd like to make a motion and recommend only item P1 to Full Board.

[47:22] Support.

[47:23] There's a motion on the floor to approve item P1 and item P1 only.

[47:29] You can speak on that, Mr. Beando.

[47:31] Yeah, so back in August, we were able to work with the State Police,

[47:37] specifically the out of theft prevention authority, and they provided us a amendment to

[47:43] the grant award for the current grant that ends at the end of this month.

[47:47] This grant award amendment revised the match from $37.63 to $50.50 in our favor.

[47:55] We're going to be able to receive in between a $33,000 to $44,000 in additional grant revenue

[48:02] into the out of theft grant.

[48:04] Now, this happened at the same time as we had a need for parts two and three, which is why we were proposing this budget amendment as indicated here, but fundamentally what we're doing is saying the board every year says to all the departments, you have to work with the budgets provided to you by the board, you know, from the previous budget process, if you need to shift money around, you can come before the board to do that.

[48:27] So by receiving the extra grant revenue, we thought we would come before the board and ask can we shift the money you entrusted us from the general fund that was going into the out of theft and move some of that money over to the cram victims rights grant and also the general fund contract services line.

[48:44] And I can wait to talk about those two items or I could talk about them now because it's kind of

[48:49] They're intimately connected here, but I'll stick on one. So like I said we looked at the three quarters of the grant year

[48:55] We're going to get at least 33,000 but we might get as much as $44,000 in additional grant revenue instead of asking for the full

[49:03] 4,000 and grantment revenue to

[49:06] basically be moved over

[49:08] By reducing the general fund contribution to the auto theft and that reduction being moved to the other departments

[49:14] We were just looking to move the $33 that we need in those two other budget centers.

[49:21] Thank you.

[49:27] Chair Sevatini.

[49:28] Thank you, Chair Ijo.

[49:30] So, you know, when these grants change, you know, our mentality has always been, once

[49:37] the grant goes away, everything goes away with the grant.

[49:40] So I understand these are general fund matched dollars for the $33.

[49:45] I understand what you're trying to do, shift the money and use it for something else.

[49:48] In my opinion of this is that, you know, money comes back to the general fund.

[49:55] Come January in your next budget cycle, you know, the Exxon Digital evidence contract

[50:00] that you're looking to use the $30,000 for.

[50:02] I have no problem supporting that next year.

[50:05] And the $3,000, if this is necessary within there, I'm sure you can find $3,000 in your budget

[50:12] for postage and delivery.

[50:13] So in my opinion, you know, I think the money should come back to the general fund in

[50:17] In regards to the two other items, I think either A, it's on the prosecutor trying to find out within his own budget or wait till next year.

[50:25] So, thank you, Chair.

[50:27] Any other commissioners want to comment on this?

[50:30] Okay, commissioners, you're voting on item P1 and P1 only.

[50:34] We have a motion and support, please vote.

[50:46] Motion passes 12-0.

[50:49] Thank you.

[50:50] We're going to go to item 9,

[50:56] we're going to take A and B. These are items postponed from the August full board meeting.

[51:04] Item 8 was a request for outside counsel for Zartin Associates, representation of prosecuting attorney, not to exceed $50,000.

[51:13] Item B was a request for outside counsel for Zaret and associates, representation of prosecuting attorney, not to exceed $10,000.

[51:26] I need a motion to recommend this to full board.

[51:29] Motion to recommend a full board.

[51:31] It can be support.

[51:34] I have a motion by Commissioner Goyke, supported by Commissioner Kraft.

[51:38] You may speak to these, or if you would like Mr. Boundo, go ahead.

[51:43] Well, I just want to say with the committee chair's permission, I'd like to invite Prosecutor Lucido,

[51:49] Chief of Trials, Sean Hangenfeld, and our grant writer David Fisher to discuss items 9A and B.

[51:55] That's fine.

[51:56] Thank you, sir.

[51:58] Mr. Prosecutor, nice to have you up.

[52:02] I want to thank the board for taking this up.

[52:06] I know that we've adjourned it at least two times,

[52:08] as possibly three times on this matter.

[52:11] Sean, Dave, before I get to it, first of all,

[52:16] I want to say happy Constitution Day.

[52:20] And with that, the Constitution has a balance of powers.

[52:24] This would be the legislative branch.

[52:26] The executive branch is sitting behind me.

[52:29] And we are independent bodies of this county.

[52:35] Each separate entity that we have stands alone because we are all countywide Alexa.

[52:42] So I want to make sure that that balance of power stays the way it should be.

[52:47] In this case here, we have asked for a host of grants.

[52:52] I'd like Mr. Fisher just to recap the grants that he has written and has tried to submit.

[52:58] Because I think it's necessary as to why we're here asking for money for starting a lawsuit.

[53:03] And it's farthest from me right now, to start lawsuits when things should have been done the right way from the beginning.

[53:15] Prosecutor Lassito is just asking to give you a bit of a history.

[53:18] I'm sorry, you are.

[53:19] I'm David Fisher.

[53:21] Mr. Fisher.

[53:22] Yes, so the prosecutor Lassito is asking to give a little history of the grants and the certifications.

[53:28] Back in February 19th, there was a public safety and mental health initiative, $3 million grant with a million dollar match.

[53:36] Typically, when I see these, I get a synopsis, I take it to a chief of circuit court, chief

[53:42] of district court, and other people in the office and say, does this grant look like

[53:48] something that would be interesting?

[53:50] In that case, I think the chief of district court said, you know, community corrections

[53:55] was talking about needing money, maybe there's something there for them.

[54:01] In the end, community actions really didn't feel like they had the information together.

[54:06] So we never wrote a grant, but what it did bring to light is these certifications from the

[54:11] executive.

[54:12] In the past, the DOJ would ask for various certifications, but they were typically lower level.

[54:19] Now they're asking for the executive signature, and we became aware of them.

[54:26] March 25th, the grant comprehensive opioid stimulant in substance use was a $1.6 million

[54:32] no match grant three years.

[54:35] Judge Linda Davis actually brought this to us.

[54:37] It was very similar to a grant that we had been awarded in the past with a face addiction

[54:42] now and Judge Linda Davis's organization.

[54:46] This time it came with a certification that was required by the executive.

[54:53] I had asked for some support, you know, can we get the sign?

[54:57] Nothing was really happening.

[54:59] So I asked Judge Linda Davis to talk to the executive directly and say,

[55:03] with the support her with this grant partnering with the prosecutor

[55:08] and she was told he would not.

[55:12] So soon after that, there was another grant that came out May 8th,

[55:16] Justice Reinvestment Initiative Strength and State and local operations

[55:19] operations to reduce crime and recidivism.

[55:23] This was a $4 million three year no match grant,

[55:26] but it looked like it could fit with the FAN program.

[55:29] So we were basically going to look to resubmit

[55:32] a larger grant with the same basic program.

[55:37] Having known that we were rejected in the past

[55:40] and certifications, this is when I asked the BoC chair

[55:44] to help us, there were a lot of discussions

[55:46] about how to try and resolve this.

[55:50] At one point there was a suggestion that perhaps Prosecutor Lissito actually had the authority to sign these.

[55:56] We didn't think so, but we were expecting an opinion from the Corporate Council that may have explained why this was the case.

[56:07] Never saw anything, nothing came of that as far as they know.

[56:10] So, again, we were trying to get the grant approved with the certifications, talking with

[56:21] Mr. McKinnon in Leonetti, the suggestion was a meeting with the executive, I think it

[56:27] was on the 8th of June, the grant deadline was the 10th of June, hoping to get a resolution

[56:33] and get the certification signed, but rather than having a discussion, we basically got the position of the executive who said he was not going to sign any certifications for Peter Lassito that he can go straight to the board for anything he wants, and he basically said when the board won their lawsuits, they won Peter Lassito.

[56:55] But in that conversation, though, there was a suggestion or an offer to delegate the authority to the chair.

[57:05] Chair Savititi was in the meeting, but I think for a variety of reasons was declined.

[57:12] And as a result, the deadline passed, that grant was not submitted.

[57:19] it. Then another grant on an early June came up, improved justice response to domestic

[57:26] violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This was one that the chief

[57:33] of circuit courts felt very strongly about domestic violence is a significant issue in the

[57:38] county. Sexual assault is a terrible crime that occurs in this county. And we looked at

[57:45] a program where we would give a little over $400,000 each to Carehouse intering point, and then use

[57:53] the remaining funds to fund a full-time attorney to work with them on combating these crimes.

[58:00] Knowing that in the past, we were told, go directly to the board. If you need anything, we submitted

[58:05] the certifications to the board for approval, and you did vote to approve those certifications.

[58:10] and thank you very much.

[58:12] However, we did not get any signatures on those certifications.

[58:18] And so again, we were unable to submit certifications

[58:22] with our proposal on the deadline.

[58:24] So, that's kind of a history of the grants and the certifications.

[58:29] And they'll leave it to the prosecutors.

[58:31] You know.

[58:32] Thank you, Dave.

[58:34] Briefly, I'd like to bring Sean to that hand-felt up.

[58:37] Chief of Travel Circuit Court regarding this grant specifically,

[58:40] because I will be speaking about the issue at hand regarding the dollars for the litigation.

[58:47] I'm curious to see how I appreciate, please, come forward, I want you to speak.

[58:52] But I want to summarize, most of the board is pretty much aware of what is going on with this.

[58:57] If she could summarize, I gave you the little leeway for the other gentleman, the other guy.

[59:02] But if you could summarize where we're at instead of going through the details as he had done,

[59:05] we would certainly appreciate it, please.

[59:07] Please.

[59:07] So, thank you.

[59:09] Thank you.

[59:10] Good afternoon, commissioners.

[59:11] My name is Sean Hengebel.

[59:12] I'm the chief of trials at Circuit Court in the McComb County Prosecutor's Office.

[59:15] I believe most of you, if not all of you, were present July 23rd when I spoke on this grant

[59:20] before.

[59:21] I provided you a packet of information so that you were fully aware of all of the efforts

[59:27] that have been made to try to give as much information to yourselves as well as to Mr.

[59:35] and Mr. McKinnon in an effort to gain the signatures needed for the certifications.

[59:41] I don't know that I need to go through all of that information and use my time that way.

[59:46] A lot of what Mr. Fisher has indicated is accurate.

[59:49] There was a great deal of efforts specifically as to this grant.

[59:53] I've been a prosecutor almost 23 years.

[59:55] I've worked in pretty much every position in the office.

[59:59] I've done a lot of work.

[1:00:00] Quick domestic violence victims, and a lot of work with sexual assault victims, and I took this one to heart. And so I approached all of the chiefs of police throughout the county to get letters of support. We got letters from obviously turning point in carehouse, our hopeful partners in the MOU. I also contacted the interim city attorney for Warren because there is a program that the Warren Police Department has spearheaded has been piloted in May of 2025 called Operation Cycle Break.

[1:00:29] And just briefly, it's an attempt to address and respond to domestic violence cases sooner,

[1:00:36] so that there is a faster response in resources for our victims, and also for the offenders,

[1:00:43] as far as getting them resources as well.

[1:00:45] This was potentially a $1.5 million grant had we been awarded it, because we did not have

[1:00:51] certifications.

[1:00:52] We were not even in a position to be able to submit the grant.

[1:00:55] And it's a tragedy and both domestic violence and sexual assault in this county as I said on July 23rd when I spoke to you before I believe is an epidemic and it's only continuing to increase and only continuing to be a problem.

[1:01:11] Thank you.

[1:01:13] Okay, so now you've got a backdrop of what's been going on.

[1:01:17] That's approximately almost $8 million worth of money.

[1:01:23] I can assure you that Wayne County operates in their prosecutor's office by a tremendous amount of money through grants.

[1:01:30] I have talked to their grant writer over there as well as their office and that's the same with Oakland County.

[1:01:36] I don't know in the past except for what I came into which was there was grants for auto theft

[1:01:42] that have been with the county for many, many years as well as cooperative reimbursement

[1:01:47] which is the child support grant that we've had to collect the money for the state.

[1:01:55] But furthermore, there's been grants along the line with drug unit that has gone by-by

[1:02:00] because, you know, it just has gone away.

[1:02:04] When you have these opportunities, I thought it was best and I think you said it best, Chair

[1:02:09] Romano.

[1:02:09] You know, when you said Mr. Fisher has been working for three years without any pay to do these grants.

[1:02:15] He just asked for some gas money.

[1:02:18] What is accomplishes Mint has been tremendous for this office and this county.

[1:02:26] And I repeat, I appreciate his good works and his diligence.

[1:02:32] The fact that a certification is there, the fact that that's not the contract,

[1:02:36] It certifies that the person that has the authority and that would be the executive branch whose charge with that duty has to perform.

[1:02:46] And if you recall the first lawsuit that happened here was it was individuals that the board had granted in the budgeting process and what happened we went back to the court as a result of failure to veto and or do anything other than perform.

[1:03:03] and we had to get a court order to have it performed.

[1:03:06] This is the same thing.

[1:03:08] There has been no veto after this board took its action

[1:03:12] and it was brought to the executive, the time ran

[1:03:16] and the charter, as well as the power that is vested in,

[1:03:23] you who votes, said to perform.

[1:03:27] And it was failed at that point.

[1:03:29] If you do your job and he fails to act, I'm the third party beneficiary of those non-actions.

[1:03:39] It's something that needs to be done and corrected.

[1:03:43] Even if the veto is there, he has to give his reasons why he doesn't believe this is necessary.

[1:03:51] He did no veto in the last one on the grant, and as a result, it was supposed to be

[1:03:58] performed, signed and delivered. In regards to his veto that he did on another

[1:04:05] case, you overrode the veto and he failed to perform, so we went ahead and sued.

[1:04:13] I don't know what other options or alternatives are given to any of you when he fails

[1:04:18] to do his job, but he fails to work. As a result, I gave you a four-page document

[1:04:27] that you should have all in front of you.

[1:04:32] Actually, it's two pages.

[1:04:33] It's September 15th, 2026.

[1:04:36] It completely outlines it.

[1:04:38] I'm not going to be a legal point.

[1:04:41] It outlines the claims that I'm making

[1:04:43] for purposes of litigation.

[1:04:47] Has everyone received that,

[1:04:49] so that I don't have to go through that?

[1:04:52] After you review that, it's pretty obvious that

[1:04:56] if I do nothing, they suffer,

[1:04:59] the victims of this county's suffer.

[1:05:03] That resource was good enough to take care house as well as turning point so that they

[1:05:11] don't have to worry about where they're getting their next bucket from.

[1:05:15] And I hope it's not out of general fun.

[1:05:17] Can you summarize for us, Mr. Lestino, please?

[1:05:21] Would you summarize for us?

[1:05:22] I'm trying.

[1:05:24] As a result, what I'm asking for is, in bulk of agenda items, 9A and B, but the board

[1:05:32] providing the resources necessary for me to get a court order for performance here.

[1:05:40] And this is not just past performance, but the future, we can't have this continue.

[1:05:46] Lastly, I took up another, I

[1:05:52] need some relief at this point.

[1:05:54] Otherwise, what good is a grant writer and what good is trying to save the taxpayers' money.

[1:05:59] Thank you.

[1:06:02] Thank you, Mr. LeCito.

[1:06:04] Prosecutor.

[1:06:05] So, my motion on the floor?

[1:06:09] Yes.

[1:06:10] That's all it is as a motion to refer it to full board.

[1:06:13] Thank you.

[1:06:15] I see no speakers.

[1:06:16] Please vote.

[1:06:21] Chair Flemme.

[1:06:23] Yes.

[1:06:24] Chair.

[1:06:25] I know the executive is here.

[1:06:28] I think it's in our best interest for him to give a statement as well in regards to the item.

[1:06:33] I had a public participation, but he may speak now if he wishes.

[1:06:37] You're the chair of the committee, so I'm just asking.

[1:06:39] No, no, absolutely.

[1:06:41] Mr. Ackel, if you would like to respond.

[1:06:45] That's interesting.

[1:06:46] The challenge is I think that we face Mark Jackson, McComb County executive 17932,

[1:06:52] You know, it's interesting, I mean, there is no question about it, there's a conflict, there's a challenge, but the reality is, this is that conflict or challenge with any other countywide elected official.

[1:07:01] It just happens to be the conflict between myself and the prosecutor and many of you suffer the consequences of having listened to this dialogue and the conversations on a daily basis.

[1:07:11] I don't come to you with the problems or concerns or issues. I attempt to try to figure out how do we resolve this by having some type of open communications.

[1:07:17] grants. Many of those that were just approved here today have never seen my desk. I've never

[1:07:22] had to deal with a grant if somebody applied for it. They've come through and they've come to you

[1:07:27] and we've passed them along for a year approval. I don't get involved in that process. For some

[1:07:32] reason, there are now grants that have come across my desk whether requiring me to sign off on some

[1:07:36] obscure commitment on behalf of whatever's happening at the federal government level. I'm very curious

[1:07:41] about that. And as a county executive, or my responsibility, my signature is not

[1:07:46] perfunctory, it's not something that's ministerial, I take that very seriously.

[1:07:50] Because there are sometimes potential for a perjury, there are opportunities for

[1:07:54] litigation or even criminal action with that signature. So I don't take that lightly,

[1:08:00] but what I do ask and requires an opportunity, like many of you here today,

[1:08:04] you want information. Before you make a decision, before you decide whether you're going to vote,

[1:08:07] So yes or no, you need information, and you request that information, and you want to

[1:08:12] hear both sides of an issue, and you may want to dig into an issue.

[1:08:16] Sometimes it's not pleasant, the conversation or questions you might want to ask.

[1:08:20] And that is what I've asked this prosecutor many a time.

[1:08:23] I reached out to have conversation.

[1:08:25] You didn't see the letter that followed the meeting that we had, because I didn't want

[1:08:29] to involve you in that conversation.

[1:08:31] It didn't need to go your in your direction.

[1:08:33] It should have been a conversation I had with the prosecutor, along with maybe the chair

[1:08:37] of the Public Safety Commission, maybe the Chair of the Board, the Vice Chair, whoever

[1:08:42] the board would choose to have at that meeting, I offered an opportunity to have those conversations.

[1:08:47] There's no question these grants have validity.

[1:08:49] There's opportunities there for funding for Carehouse, Turning Point, Fan, I don't disagree.

[1:08:54] But I'm not going to sign something blindly without asking questions and understanding exactly

[1:08:58] what it is that the federal government is looking for me to sign off on when that wasn't something

[1:09:02] that's ever happened before.

[1:09:04] And if that's something this board would rather handle themselves, I'll step out of the way.

[1:09:09] I've got absolutely no problem doing that.

[1:09:11] If you don't want me asking these questions of the prosecutor, before I sign off on something

[1:09:16] to hand to you, or for before he can apply for the particular grant, if you don't want me to

[1:09:21] do that, you want me to just sign off blindly, well then I'll hand that over to the board and

[1:09:26] I've offered that up.

[1:09:27] I've offered that up a several times in the board chair I've given him the opportunity.

[1:09:30] And 317 of the charter gives me the ability to do that.

[1:09:33] It's to the executive or a designee and I can do that and I will do that. I have no problem

[1:09:38] in ways so we don't need litigation. What we need is either to have an opportunity to have an

[1:09:42] open dialogue and open conversation about these particular grants that we're applying for with

[1:09:47] those that are going to be participants, whether it's Carehouse, whether it's Turning Point,

[1:09:51] or if it's going to be a fan, where their members are actually sitting in, we're talking about

[1:09:55] the grant, what are the details of this grant, what is everybody going to get out of it,

[1:09:58] and what are the specifics behind this signature that I have to have

[1:10:01] That require me to sign this, but I would also like the board to be there during those dialogues and I would offer it up

[1:10:07] To even have the public or the media there so they can hear exactly what's happening instead of finger pointing and somebody going and calling and saying

[1:10:14] This is what he's saying. This is what she's saying. I would much rather have an open dialogue and an opportunity much like we're having here today

[1:10:22] About me signing off on a grant, which I've never had to worry about or deal with in the past

[1:10:26] So again, I offer this to you, rather than getting into litigation, I think maybe we should

[1:10:33] offer an opportunity to have that conversation.

[1:10:35] To open up the discussions in the future, if there's going to be a required signature

[1:10:39] on behalf of the executive, where members of the board can attend, the media can attend.

[1:10:44] I mean, let's be transparent about this.

[1:10:46] If those that are going to be participants or recipients of that grant award, be present

[1:10:51] as well.

[1:10:52] Otherwise if you would rather that I just hand it off to the board to go ahead and do the signature of that without my involvement, I can do that too.

[1:11:01] So it's a very simple answer. I'm not here to make it a complex issue. I'm trying to figure out how do we resolve this in a way that doesn't require more taxpayer money going after litigation when it really isn't necessary.

[1:11:12] So I appreciate the opportunity to have this conversation and at least allow you the opportunity to think about that as you vet this concern as to whether or not we need to allow the prosecutor to sue the executive for his signature on something he's a whole heck of a lot more information on.

[1:11:27] So thank you once again.

[1:11:30] Thank you Mr. Hackle.

[1:11:32] You want to comment on that Mr. 17?

[1:11:35] You don't have to.

[1:11:42] I was going to acknowledge that we did not talk about B, but I just wanted to also address that as a private resident or anyone that applies for a foyer, if that gets denied, that's on us to sue.

[1:11:58] I just don't think that the county should be doing or that we should be paying for that in just my opinion

[1:12:03] That's the process that every

[1:12:05] Resident has to abide by and so I would prefer if we voted on these separately, but moving on the full board

[1:12:11] We can move in both full board. It doesn't matter to me. I just when we get to full board

[1:12:14] I believe we need to vote on these separately

[1:12:16] My position on the grants. I think are abundantly clear after our prior meetings and all of those things

[1:12:23] But I think there's greater discussion for a for a later date, but

[1:12:28] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:12:29] You know, it definitely warrants more dialogue.

[1:12:33] There's no question about it on both parties end.

[1:12:36] But I want to say I want to appreciate our executive coming to the commissioners here.

[1:12:41] I appreciate our prosecutor coming to the commissioner here.

[1:12:44] Right now, I see no other speakers and we have a motion to move this the full board.

[1:12:49] Is it your going to speak?

[1:12:50] You're mumbling.

[1:12:51] Is it your going to speak?

[1:12:53] No, it's not.

[1:12:54] You'll answer Mr. Sabatini.

[1:12:56] I'll just say a few things.

[1:12:58] I just concur with Commissioner Romano.

[1:13:02] Thank you to the executive, thank you to the prosecutor.

[1:13:04] You know, this is an issue that we're trying to resolve.

[1:13:07] I think you both said it very, very well.

[1:13:09] I think we can work it out, right?

[1:13:11] But that takes time.

[1:13:13] I'm willing to be part of those meetings.

[1:13:16] If there are some other commissioners there would like to be part of those meetings.

[1:13:19] Yeah.

[1:13:20] You're welcome.

[1:13:21] All right.

[1:13:23] Let's do it.

[1:13:25] But that being said, you know, for these items, you know, this is going to require a little bit of our council to get involved and I think it's fair for us today, in my opinion, I'm going to move these to full board just so that I can ask some questions based on what's happened today.

[1:13:43] That's not decided with one or the other, it's just I think a fair path for this board to have some conversation with this council.

[1:13:51] You know, the full board is next Thursday, we've got some time, you know, we'll reach out to both the prosecutor and the executive, try and get something here on our schedule.

[1:14:01] I'll talk to some commissioners if we can get some commissioners to participate.

[1:14:06] It will take you from there, but that being said, I think this was a good meeting.

[1:14:12] I thought we heard both sides, and I appreciate both party for being here today.

[1:14:17] Okay, so that's it here.

[1:14:20] Again, thanks both parties, we do appreciate it.

[1:14:22] Commissioner, please vote.

[1:14:31] Motion passes 12-0.

[1:14:33] Thank you, thank you again for coming.

[1:14:35] We appreciate it.

[1:14:37] Well, we are going to go to a public participation.

[1:14:40] This is three minutes maximum first speaker.

[1:14:43] This opportunity for public participation

[1:14:46] is for those who wish to speak

[1:14:47] for a maximum of three minutes and any issue.

[1:14:50] Anybody in the public would like to speak.

[1:14:55] No, if those are just coming up to the podium.

[1:14:57] I see nobody coming up to public purchase

[1:15:00] I will close that. I will go to commissioner's comments. Anybody commissioner?

[1:15:06] Commissioner Wallace. Thank you. I just wanted to thank staff for helping me prepare for a presentation. I did yesterday in Clinton Township, or nope, it was in Mount Clemens, for a Clinton Township organization that came to Mount Clemens to get a better understanding of the veterans' village that's going to be on the ballot.

[1:15:28] But they did have someone there to speak on the transportation.

[1:15:33] Millie just well, but it was funny that he said, well, you have a commissioner here.

[1:15:37] So maybe she can speak and luckily staff did prepare me for both.

[1:15:42] So I just wanted to thank the staff.

[1:15:43] They're always extremely helpful.

[1:15:46] Thanks, Chair.

[1:15:47] Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:15:48] Any other commissioners?

[1:15:49] Yes, I'd like to say so.

[1:15:51] Commissioner's in there.

[1:15:51] Can't get in.

[1:15:52] Thank you.

[1:15:54] Mr. Chair, my name is Tom Mitchell.

[1:15:58] very nice man. They give me some information about flock cameras and everybody here

[1:16:05] may be looking at those. There's a lot of information about it but I told him I

[1:16:10] would bring something up because he was he had a man named John.

[1:16:26] I've got the

[1:16:31] No, it's not John Smith.

[1:16:33] That's good.

[1:16:34] I'm sorry.

[1:16:35] John Panfield has written a patent for flag cameras and we know our police agencies work

[1:16:44] hard to keep us safe and I appreciate everything with that.

[1:16:49] But according to a lot of information from Florida and other Texas and this area here from

[1:16:58] this patent. It's in the patent. There's nothing in the patent about safety in this

[1:17:06] fly camera patent. And there are all kinds of things in there about recognizing our

[1:17:15] bodies and very particular things and everything's connecting with everything else.

[1:17:22] So it's really not safe at all in my estimation. So I told him I would bring this

[1:17:28] that's up and thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chair.

[1:17:31] Any other commissioners?

[1:17:33] Commissioner, all.

[1:17:34] But I appreciate bringing you up, but there's any written

[1:17:38] material you'd like to have distributed. I've got to

[1:17:42] appreciate that as well, but black cameras is a whole,

[1:17:45] is a local municipal issue, it's not a county issue whatsoever.

[1:17:51] So I, that's incorrect.

[1:17:55] How is it a county issue?

[1:17:56] Sure. One fact, let's don't get lost here.

[1:18:00] Yeah. Commissioner, uh, I'll go by saying a presentation coming here on

[1:18:08] black cameras or anything like that. I would be opposed to Mr. Kraft can explain to

[1:18:15] me how it's a county. Okay. Any other commissioners? Can I respond to that?

[1:18:21] Nope. Any other commissioners? Maybe a hug later.

[1:18:26] I do have a free on the speech, though, right?

[1:18:30] Please vote.

[1:18:31] Thank you very much.

[1:18:38] Motion passes 12-0.

Board of Commissioners - Joint Public Services and Records and Public Safety Committees

Transcript