[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] Call the meeting to order at 6.30 p.m., according to Apple's time. It brings us to item 2, which is the invocation. Please come forward.
[0:22] Most gracious father, we thank you today. We pray for all of the city council's business today that we'll be taking care on the behalf of our citizen. We pray for the mayor. We pray for the chairman.
[0:37] the chairman, pro-team, all the council members, and all other governing officials.
[0:44] We pray that your wisdom will provide in every business decision that is made on the behalf
[0:50] of the city.
[0:52] We pray for God's protection, for the board, for the city of Taylor, for every government,
[0:59] for facility and schools as they begin to open in session today.
[1:03] We pray for a covering of the Almighty under the shadow of His wing, and we thank you, and we ask all of these blessings and your son, Jesus' name, amen.
[1:14] Amen. Thank you.
[1:17] That brings us to the pledge of allegiance and, like, to ask Councilwoman Daniels to say the pledge.
[1:47] All right. Next is roll call, roll call please.
[1:49] Mr. Daniels, here, Ms. Rose, here, Mr. Johnson, here.
[1:54] Mrs. Brandana, here, Ms. Wynton, here.
[1:57] Mr. Guys, here, Mayor Woolie, here.
[2:01] Mrs. Bauer is excused.
[2:03] Mrs. Toco, here.
[2:06] All right, we have six members present.
[2:08] We have a quorum.
[2:10] I just shared a little bit of news with the mayor.
[2:13] We'll get some greater clarity and probably a resolution, but
[2:17] But my dad informed me that former mayor Dick Marshall passed away overnight, so we'll have an appropriate time when we get the details of that.
[2:29] Sad news.
[2:30] So with that, that'll bring us to the agenda.
[2:34] Item 5.1 is a motion to approve the agenda.
[2:37] Councilwoman.
[2:38] Will approve the agenda?
[2:41] Support.
[2:42] Motion by Councilwoman Brandana.
[2:43] supported by Councilwoman Witten? Is there any discussion?
[2:49] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes.
[2:51] Yes.
[2:52] All is opposed to no.
[2:53] The yeses have it motion carried. Item 5.2 is the motion to approve the acceptance of the minutes of the meeting held August 19th, 2025, and dispense with oral reading.
[3:04] Motion?
[3:05] Support.
[3:06] Motion by Councilwoman Witten, supported by Councilman Johnson.
[3:09] Is there any discussion?
[3:13] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes.
[3:14] Yes.
[3:15] All is opposed to no.
[3:16] So, yes, this had a motion carried, and that brings us to Mayor's communication, Mr. Mayor.
[3:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also, I'd like to send out my condolences to the Marshall family.
[3:26] Item 6.1 is a motion to approve the new appointment of Dalton Lee to the Historical Commission for a four-year term to expire on September 2nd, 2029.
[3:37] Make a motion.
[3:38] The board.
[3:39] Motion by Councilman Johnson, supported by Councilman Brandana.
[3:43] Is there any discussion?
[3:47] Here in none, all is in favor say yes.
[3:49] Yes.
[3:50] All is opposed say no.
[3:51] Yes, this have it, motion carried, is Mr. Lee here this evening?
[3:57] Not here, and we wouldn't have anyone to price wear them, so certainly you can get with the clerk and be sworn in.
[4:06] This may or any other open business.
[4:07] No, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
[4:08] I'm ready to keep it short and sweet.
[4:11] All right, that brings us to the regular agenda item 7.1 is the motion approved blanket purchase
[4:16] Just agreements for the 2026 Taylor Summer Festival.
[4:19] Her the attached schedule for an amount not to exceed $293,500.
[4:25] Funded through summer festival operating.
[4:28] Motion.
[4:29] So poor.
[4:31] Motion by Councilwoman Witt and supported by Councilman Johnson.
[4:34] Is there any discussion?
[4:35] Here, ma'am.
[4:36] Councilwoman.
[4:37] Is this kind of early that we're doing this year in, you know,
[4:41] is that to cost the man?
[4:43] So I believe, I'm sorry, go ahead.
[4:45] Yes, it is because we're going to try to start booking bans earlier so that we can try to secure we we have more
[4:52] The earlier we do it we have more access to more talent at this time, so that's one of the reasons we're doing this
[4:59] That's the main reason
[5:01] So by the time like usually by
[5:05] November, December's when we normally started it sometimes even into January a lot of times things are already booked and stuff
[5:13] So even talking to the promoter at our summer festival and talking to the bands they're already booking, they were already booking shows for next year.
[5:24] So this is something we had talked about already that we're going to try to get moving a little earlier this year to see what bands we can possibly get.
[5:32] I think you also mentioned that they have a non-compete within a certain geographical distance.
[5:37] So competing with the casinos and what's the place in Lein-Dot that actually,
[5:44] the person that used to book.
[5:46] Yeah, one, three, two, one, yeah.
[5:49] So, well maybe this is something for the next council.
[5:54] I think when we look at the budget performance, definitely this year,
[5:59] or normally we try to break even, so these acts are not cheap and maybe I don't want to say not book the national bands, but I think it's something that we've got to look at, because the revenues, it's $20 or $30 is cheap, but if you're not getting the people coming out to it for them.
[6:26] So I think we were all given the budget performance for this last year, so certainly the sponsorships, I think we're down as well.
[6:38] And so it's not any reflection on the partial rec staff, it's just, I think you've mentioned before if they've got one hit, they're asking for $30,000.
[6:49] And through the chair, you can see like, if you look at Friday night, we see more money on acts as opposed to Saturday, but Saturday, financially, we did a little better as far as beer sales with just the local, so it's definitely something we're looking at like, is it worth bringing in some of the bigger acts at the price that they're charging so we're dialing in, but at least at this point by getting in the game earlier, we can see what talent is out there.
[7:18] at the time that we are doing so. All right. Any further discussion?
[7:23] Chairman.
[7:24] House will.
[7:25] So, do we have any sponsorships yet for this?
[7:28] Through the Chair, not at this point, but we normally, well, I can say is that we usually have our staples,
[7:34] but to this point, we do not have any current on the books, but once this past will start
[7:40] going, hitting them, the usual, and then we'll get in the game because we did take
[7:45] a loss on our sponsorships this year.
[7:48] All right.
[7:49] Chairman.
[7:49] Councilwoman.
[7:50] So if we, when we vote on this tonight, if we vote, yes, are we obligated to pay this amount no matter
[7:58] what?
[7:58] I mean, it's a long time away, you know, I know I understand we want to secure acts and that
[8:04] is the bulk of it, like the acts are like 135 and the fireworks are 40.
[8:11] So the bulk of all of this is the fireworks and the local acts, but and then, of course,
[8:19] if we don't have to spend that, then it will be less because we've allocated for this.
[8:24] So I'm just worried that we're doing it so early, I understand why.
[8:29] But, to make ourselves be obligated to pay this amount is for a lot.
[8:34] Through the chair, this would be the budget anyway that we would bring forward, you know, months away.
[8:39] And so we're just trying to get in the game earlier to see what talent is out there, you know.
[8:43] So, through the chair, these are all not to exceed amounts.
[8:48] The goal is to always try to get better value and not exceed that amount, but spend less than that amount.
[8:53] That's always the goal that we try to achieve with getting what we would hope to achieve.
[8:57] And by talent measures, but not spend the full amount.
[9:01] I don't, obviously, these are not to exceed thresholds.
[9:05] Councilwoman?
[9:06] This is too, Mr. Wheeler.
[9:07] So I think last year, do we have two, like, rock bands on the different nights?
[9:12] Or, I mean, I think people liked it better when there was a country and I don't,
[9:17] I'm not a country person, but I think that it, people really liked the country one night and
[9:23] the rock the next night.
[9:24] Through the chair, that was the goal.
[9:26] That's why we brought this earlier.
[9:27] We were so locked out on country, starting in January last year.
[9:30] It became an impossibility in the bans of that what they were asking and us studying their ticket sales and local markets
[9:36] It would have just not been nowhere worth putting our efforts and
[9:40] financials towards that and what the return would have been so that's why we're trying to get in a little earlier to secure a country
[9:45] Act that could yield some fruit and people would want to see and listen to it here
[9:49] The chair we were even trying to get even though we had some of the rock bands on
[9:54] Saturday we were trying to like even family tradition ban who's been there before and they got a good following
[9:58] We try to get them, but they just couldn't make it work.
[10:01] They really wanted to play here, but we just couldn't get them here because they had already pre-booked.
[10:06] So that's why getting in the game helps us out tremendously.
[10:09] And we don't mind because some of these country acts, our borderline, you know, on the edge of rock and some rock,
[10:16] you know, so mixing it up on the same night is not unheard of.
[10:21] Thank you.
[10:22] All right, any further discussion?
[10:26] Hearing none, all in favor, say yes.
[10:28] Yes.
[10:28] Yes.
[10:28] I was a post-sino.
[10:30] Yes, the Senate motion carried item 7.2 as a motion to approve KAB enterprises, low bid, to install Pickleball courts at Heritage Park for an amount of $354,301.
[10:43] Let's say 3% contingency for a total amount not to exceed $364,931 funded through TBA capital outlay and Wayne County Park's Millage Funding.
[10:55] Thank you.
[10:55] Motion.
[10:56] Support.
[10:57] Motion by Councilman Johnson, supported by Councilwoman Daniels.
[11:01] Certainly.
[11:01] Councilman.
[11:03] Okay.
[11:04] So, how much is coming from the Millage Funding?
[11:07] Do we know that breakdown or?
[11:10] 150,000?
[11:11] A little under that.
[11:12] Well, one, it's all totaled up.
[11:13] We do have to submit one more legal description, which I'll be bringing forward to you guys.
[11:17] Once it goes through Miss Weems at the county and her office.
[11:20] And if I need to, I'll reach out to our representative over there also.
[11:25] Mr. Garza, but I think that this will go through with no problem.
[11:29] We already have X amounts secured.
[11:30] We're going to try to put this year's allotment on it also, and it'll take us to about a hundred and forty-sixish.
[11:36] Okay, thank you, I just need some suspense of this.
[11:41] Mr. You and how many pickleball courts?
[11:43] This is three courts.
[11:45] We're going to have venting and all that stuff.
[11:48] This has absolutely has all the fencing, this is all to USA Pickleball standards.
[11:53] The goal is they're going to get the concrete in the drainage and all those items.
[11:57] Not sure if we're going to be able to strike it and paint it, due to weather conditions, because it has to have
[12:01] a X amount of time for curing and the weather has to cooperate.
[12:05] So if everything lines up, it would be done this fall, if not, everything will be done fencing-wise,
[12:11] cement-wise, but it will not be striked to the spring when weather permits.
[12:13] Okay, thank you.
[12:15] All right, and a related question, I'm going to give myself a leeway but question came up about the status of Lane Park and the dog park.
[12:27] So why I'm thinking of that, where this is something for a different recreational, what we're talking about,
[12:33] pick a ball for a different demographic, recreational, and certainly within the community those that are animal lovers are waiting patiently.
[12:43] So is that still in track for next spring?
[12:45] To the chair, count me as one of those animal lovers.
[12:47] Yeah, it's definitely, we met with the county team out there.
[12:50] Last week, Friday, I believe, where they came out and did a visit.
[12:54] They did a real nice media piece on it.
[12:56] It is plugging along, I encourage you guys to take a ride over there.
[12:59] Your eyes will be surprised that it is definitely starting to move at a very rapid pace,
[13:03] which is phenomenal to see.
[13:06] And the development is going to be second to none in this area.
[13:09] Great partnership with the county when two entities can get together and
[13:12] make things like this happen. All right. Any other questions on pick-a-ball?
[13:17] Chairman? Council?
[13:19] So since you brought up another event at the same park, the basketball court, the
[13:26] glass was broken and the balls, someone said they were still going out into the road.
[13:31] Did we fix that at all with the fencing? Can we move those?
[13:34] Through the chair, we currently do not have fencing. I'm at that park often very,
[13:39] I mean a lot, there is quite an easement there.
[13:42] I will look into some fencing options.
[13:44] I'm fearful to create more of a hazard than anything.
[13:47] The cars, I guess I've not seen the issue.
[13:50] I can look at the cameras.
[13:51] Also we have cameras to see, is it one ball every 300 shots?
[13:55] I mean, not, we won't get that deep into it,
[13:56] but I will look into that.
[13:58] The broken backboards have been ordered.
[14:00] They are in transit.
[14:01] They were shipping last week.
[14:04] So I should see them this week or early next week.
[14:06] You know, a couple unfortunate incidents.
[14:09] They were broken, and we have to replace them.
[14:11] So those are ordered and they're on their way, but there's no hazard all the glass
[14:14] and everything's been cleaned up.
[14:16] Yes, so I know the Fencing might be an eyesore as well, you know, and we don't want
[14:22] to block people's vision.
[14:24] Can you speak into the motion?
[14:25] Sure, we don't want black people's view when they're driving, but you know, I've, that's
[14:30] come up a few times already for me and just read something.
[14:33] So I was just curious if you had any suggestions.
[14:37] I'm going to have to figure out a plan.
[14:38] My fear is people, we took the curb out because of a trip hazard.
[14:42] I don't want people to, I don't want to create a hazard with the fence.
[14:44] And now we solve one smaller issue and possibly create a issue of people running into a fence.
[14:49] I will definitely look at options to see if there's like a screen or a mesh or something we can do to soften that a little bit.
[14:55] Thank you, thank you, Chair.
[14:56] Is that me?
[14:57] Yes?
[14:57] Welcome, any further discussion?
[15:00] Hearing none, all is in favor, say yes. All is opposed, say no. Yes, the Senate motion carried item 7.3 is a motion to approve,
[15:08] temperature services, incorporated, low bid to install two new RTU, HVAC units at Heritage Hall, located at Heritage Park for an amount of $58,888,
[15:21] Plus, a 4% contingency amount for a total amount, not to exceed $61,244 funded through TBA capital outlet.
[15:30] Make a motion.
[15:32] Supported.
[15:32] Motion by Councilman Johnson, supported by Councilman Witten.
[15:35] Is there any discussion?
[15:39] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes, yes, all is opposed, say no.
[15:43] That's the Senate motion carried, thank you, thank you, Mr. Yewlin.
[15:46] All right, that brings us to 7.4, which is a motion approved, the second reading to amend chapter 22,
[15:52] to fire protection and prevention, article two, fire code of the code of ordinances,
[15:58] city of Taylor to remove and replace the sections that adopt and reference the NFPA1
[16:05] fire code 2021 and replace them with and adopt the NFPA1 fire code 2024 addition.
[16:14] Motion to approve.
[16:15] Support.
[16:16] Motion by Councilman Brandon, supported by Councilman Johnson.
[16:19] Is there any discussion?
[16:20] Yes.
[16:23] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes.
[16:25] Yes.
[16:26] All is opposed to say no.
[16:28] Yes, the Savit Motion carried item 7.5 is a motion to approve setting the community development block grant program year 2024 consolidated annual performance and evaluation report.
[16:39] Capere public hearing for September 16th, 2025.
[16:44] Make the motion.
[16:44] Support.
[16:45] Motion by Councilman Johnson, supported by Councilman Brandan.
[16:48] Is there any discussion?
[16:49] I could ask if there are any conversations if you could take them out in the hallway, please.
[16:58] All right, any further discussion on item 7.5?
[17:03] Hearing none, all in favor say yes?
[17:06] Yes.
[17:06] All in favor say no.
[17:08] The yeses have it motion carried.
[17:10] Item 7.6 is a motion to approve, appendix A, city of Taylor, Michigan code of ordinances regulating the development and use of land to rezone 2-1.
[17:20] 1-1-1, Van Boren, parcel number 60-002-99-0002-002, and the Westerly 600 feet of parcel number
[17:33] 6-0-002-99-0001-701 of the Northwest Quarter Section 3, Township 3, South Route 10 East,
[17:47] East, City of Taylor, Wayne County, Michigan from I-1, Z-C, to I-1, light industrial.
[17:55] The property is located on the south side of Amborn between Monroe and Merrick.
[18:03] There are a motion to either approve or deny.
[18:08] Motion to deny.
[18:10] So for motion by Councilwoman Brandana, supported by Councilman Johnson, to deny.
[18:18] Is there any discussion?
[18:21] Please come forward.
[18:30] Good evening, I was here a couple weeks ago.
[18:32] My name is John Redschewy.
[18:34] I represent the owner of that property, which is the entity is Court, BKG, Van Boren, LLC.
[18:42] As mentioned previously, we have concerns that the underlying zoning, which is either B2 or
[18:51] for the gateway overlay district, depending upon what you're looking at, is not a viable use for
[18:57] that property moving forward, if and when for vacates, which we believe they will at some point in mid-2027.
[19:04] It's conditionally zoned I-1.
[19:08] It currently meets all of the setback standards for industrial.
[19:14] So the I-1 district, which we're requesting, is right in the ordinance states.
[19:19] It is a transitional district between residential and heavier industrial uses, which is precisely what we're asking for.
[19:28] It's got residential next door, we're in a transitional zone.
[19:32] There's already the required green belt buffer, which is 45 foot wide along Merrick Avenue, as well as Vamborne.
[19:41] And it actually exceeds the 75 foot setback.
[19:44] So the request is simply to continue that use on a piece of property that's already conditionally re-zoned there to I-1.
[19:54] I know that the previous vote was two to four with four being against.
[20:02] As a property owner, we don't want to vacant building here.
[20:05] We don't see any viability to be two.
[20:07] It was viable.
[20:08] K-Mark wouldn't have moved out and somebody else would be in there now doing retail.
[20:13] Further on the gateway overlay district, we strongly don't believe that's got any economic viability to build retail with lofts above it eight feet from the property line along Van Boren Road.
[20:28] It's extremely expensive, there's no market for that type of product almost anywhere other than a few downtown Birmingham or downtown Ann Arbor, something like that but certainly it's not a viable use for that property.
[20:43] In the, if in fact the Taylor, what is the Taylor Dearborn Heights gateway district is an effect that says right in it that when there's a reoccupancy of the Kmart building, we have to meet all the requirements of that district.
[20:59] So we effectively have no use for our property.
[21:02] So, that's why I'm here respectfully requesting just to continue the use as I-1 with the existing structure, we did submit a site plan that meets all the ordinance, which again, the ordinance, which is in place right now, says these are the requirements for separation between light industrial I-1 and residential.
[21:24] It meets all those requirements right now.
[21:27] If those are not adequate, setbacks and buffers change the ordinance.
[21:32] But it meets all those requirements today.
[21:35] So objectively we meet that, the letter, again, as I pointed out last time.
[21:43] This letter from your planner who wrote the overlay district makes no mention whatsoever of the overlay district in their letter.
[21:52] So it leaves us as a property owner, really confused as to what's going on, which is why we just requested the straight rezone to I-1.
[22:01] The findings of fact, which are the objective things that the planner supposed to mention has four things.
[22:08] In consistency with the master plan, which is done in 2014, again, I'll argue a lot changed in the last 11 years and we don't think that it's really a relevant master plan.
[22:20] Again, two incompatibility of large scale industrial operations permitted by the I-1 zoning with existing adjacent land uses.
[22:29] Again, the ordinance calls I-1 transitional, and we meet all the separation between industrial and residential today.
[22:38] And there's other instances of industrial up against residential throughout, particularly along Northline and
[22:43] Eureka, so this is not a unique circumstance, and we have an entire street between us.
[22:47] So we've got in it, you know, about double the setback of any other similarly zone residential to industrial site, particularly the line north line in Eureka.
[22:57] So that's two.
[22:58] Demand for industrial uses can be met by other sites currently zone die one.
[23:03] Again, the city rezoned property from, what was it, R1C, I believe it's called for the Ashley capital project.
[23:13] So that strongly argues that there's not adequate land in the township.
[23:17] the sites that are available, again, mostly along Northline and Eureka, are very isolated.
[23:21] There's a lot of wetlands and drainages and other things down in that part of town.
[23:26] And we're very close to the freeway here, obviously we got great access from both sides.
[23:31] So there's a lot of strong argument that this is a good industrial site.
[23:35] Again, it's being used for that now.
[23:37] The other thing, in the letter, the planner says they'll defer to the city's engineer
[23:43] here as to whether there's adequate capacity of utilities.
[23:49] But then they go on to state, capacity of infrastructure and services is not currently capable of accommodating large scale I1 manufacturing uses in this location.
[24:00] So why are they opining on that if the engineer's a person makes that determination and
[24:05] I can tell you that water and sewer services to that building are plenty big right now to accommodate what we have there.
[24:13] now and what we would in the future.
[24:15] So, objectively, these four findings of facts, other than the master plan, which is subjective, 11 years old.
[24:24] I would have-
[24:24] I could ask you to please grant officer, I've given you twice as much time as the last time.
[24:29] I guess I got a question on that.
[24:32] I've never been limited to argue my case in any municipality, so I guess the question is,
[24:38] is it the city's position that- and I'm not a member of the public.
[24:42] I've just allowed you, I've just allowed you to go twice as long as what the rules of the council were voted on.
[24:48] Which is, which is, which is for three minutes, and I think you've made, you've made your point actually in a number of cases,
[24:55] re-stated and re-stated and re-stated the same thing.
[24:59] So I believe I've given you, I've given you the opportunity, the public, sir, is there a discussion between those two or no?
[25:08] What I will say is you've been afforded your time on this.
[25:12] We've seen other former camards that have been redeveloped in Woodhaven, the exact same building, and it is the recommendation you had full time before the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is your right, not before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Commission.
[25:30] I mean, so you have gone through the process, I understand you don't like the outcome, but just because there are past either inconsistencies with zoning, and I'm certainly aware of the neighbors that have issues with concrete company within the city and other uses, so that's not allowable use in the I-1.
[25:54] Well, with that, is there any further person that would like to be recognized?
[25:59] Chairman.
[26:00] Council.
[26:01] I believe in the planning consultant letter, and I know we talked about it last time.
[26:06] It sounds like you still can request conditional rezoning if you have a project.
[26:12] I know in the planning consultant's letter, it says, a standard I1 rezoning allows for
[26:18] potential uses that are not envisioned in the location.
[26:20] However, conditional rezoning for use that is envisioned by the master plan could be one potential way to develop the site.
[26:26] So, I feel reading that that you still have an opportunity with the right project to bring that forward versus a blanket rezoning.
[26:36] By the way, I'm reading that and I'm talking with Ms. Fell.
[26:39] So, Ms. Fell, the planner said that that is not the case.
[26:42] If the overlay district is in place, then we cannot conditionally rezone the site.
[26:48] So effectively we have no use if came our moves out.
[26:52] Let's fill.
[26:55] It could be brought forth for a conditional rezoning, depending on the development,
[27:00] the same way that the former development brought it through because it was a B2 and it went to I1 conditional.
[27:09] And that was with a development that we looked at and that exact development was approved to go there with a lot of restrictions.
[27:17] So he does have the opportunity to bring forward a conditional rezoning.
[27:22] And that project did not go forward.
[27:24] Right.
[27:25] Okay.
[27:25] And that's why the conditional is no longer valid because it does not meet the specifications
[27:32] of what it was the conditionally resounding.
[27:34] To the chair, as long as Ford Motor Company is the tenant, the conditional rezoning stays.
[27:41] But when they're no longer the tenant, then it goes back to the B2,
[27:44] to revert back to the local regional business.
[27:50] Councilor.
[27:51] Yes, do we still have two industrial districts in the city?
[27:55] Are those, I think it's great.
[27:58] Are those all, are they different zoning there?
[28:01] Is there, seems like we have a lot of industrial.
[28:03] They're I-1 and mostly I-1, but there is some I-2,
[28:07] especially in the west.
[28:09] Is there a availability there still?
[28:11] That I don't know, we'd have to check with the assessor.
[28:13] I was just curious.
[28:14] Thank you.
[28:14] I know when we were looking at other changes driving through that area, there are a number of sites that were available for sale in Trawley West and other parcels.
[28:30] All right, any further discussion?
[28:34] Hearing none, all those in favor of denying the request, say yes, as opposed, say no.
[28:44] No. Yes, a seven-motion carried to deny.
[28:49] Item 7.7 is a motion to approve the amendment to article 13.00,
[28:54] used requirements, section 13.05, motor vehicle uses, subsection A, automobile,
[29:01] filling stations, of appendix A, of the Taylor-Mitchigan code of ordinances as attached.
[29:07] Motion?
[29:08] Support.
[29:09] Motion by Councilman Johnson, supported by Councilwoman Witten.
[29:13] Is there any discussion?
[29:15] Okay, so we talked about this at the last meeting, and so is it still 750 feet in between, and that doesn't seem like very much.
[29:29] So is that what the, what was it or the chair, that's what the proposal is, 750 feet distancing, and what are they now about, or is it making?
[29:41] There are some that want to go right next to each other and then basically on every corner
[29:47] and we have a lot of requests, we have at least four more coming that are requesting to
[29:53] come white.
[29:53] That's why we requested the moratorium to have time to study what we could do so that we
[29:59] We didn't have-
[30:00] All over abundance of these gas stations throughout the city. Council. Is 750 enough distance? It seems like we would need more distance than that. Or is that? I don't disagree with you, but what we're trying to do here is get something in place. We can always tweak it later or add more in it through the chair. It's up to the council if they wish to, you know, have more of a distance. But we felt that 750 feet was kind of in line.
[30:30] with current, what other cities are doing and keeping them off of every single corner that we have.
[30:40] Councillor Johnston. Could we absolutely, could we change that now to 1200?
[30:45] I believe you can. So through the truth, that was a question I was going
[30:48] to ask because if we, if they were to change it now, would we have to go through two readings again?
[30:54] Or can they just amend it now? Because I even would like a little
[30:59] Further of a distance, myself, to the judge.
[31:02] I think of it as just a matter of the distance requirement, the setback requirement.
[31:07] I think that can be changed tonight.
[31:12] Councillor, okay, so I don't want to do this, and then is there projects that if we went
[31:20] to the 1200 right now in place or that are applicants for that, that they'd be just
[31:26] qualified with it being 1200?
[31:28] I'd rather do two reading.
[31:30] I have not met with any of the new applicants yet.
[31:33] Okay, but-
[31:34] Okay, through the chair, all the applicants are already in, that are current.
[31:39] So this wouldn't affect any of them, but anybody coming in now would have to meet those standards.
[31:44] And I personally would almost like to see that doubled, but 1200 feet would personally be a good recommendation as well, or whatever you're thinking.
[31:53] But I think 750 was a little short myself.
[31:57] I was just thinking that so I was going to refer to Chairman and Miss Fallon, Mr. Plato, but I don't I would rather do it correctly right now if it does have to be changed it to the first and then do a second then do a second right now and then have a, you know, have them someone come up and say that we didn't do two readings or something I don't believe that we have that issue number one during the first
[32:24] public hearing, there was a discussion point specifically about the distance, that requests us to review it and actually make the distance longer.
[32:38] So that's the purpose of these public hearings, is not either simply, yes or no, it's to get feedback.
[32:48] back. And so I believe that we have the ability to make this very minor adjustment.
[32:56] We're not changing the substance of this. We're not trying to do something drastic.
[33:03] But as it stands, the maker of the motion and the supporter have not agreed to any change.
[33:11] So before we go any further down that discussion point, would you like to amend your motion to change the separation between stations from a minimum of 750 feet to some other number?
[33:32] Yes.
[33:33] And you would like that number to be?
[33:40] I mean, I was okay at 1,200.
[33:41] No, right.
[33:43] Okay.
[33:44] Well, I had so many people agreeing so I thought, okay, I'm just going to be doing a few more feet.
[33:49] Chairman.
[33:50] This is like the price is right.
[33:51] I know.
[33:52] About 1,201.
[33:54] Sorry.
[33:54] No, you're fine.
[33:55] I do agree now that I was going to bring that up as well based on the feedback.
[34:01] Question 1, even with us, people can bring forward requests for variances, correct?
[34:06] Yeah.
[34:07] So it, even if there was something, somebody maybe was closer distance, they do still have an opportunity to apply.
[34:16] The second would be,
[34:20] there's the station that closed at E-Course and Beach Dailing.
[34:23] I don't know if there's a plan for that.
[34:26] I certainly wouldn't want it, because I know that's close to the one, but I wouldn't want to see is that that just said.
[34:31] So through the chair, I think it's been for many years, and I don't know if it moves that.
[34:34] That would still be okay.
[34:38] Because it's, I mean, it's not open, but it's, okay, if it hasn't been vacant
[34:42] for over 12 months, they can continue the use as they had it before.
[34:46] Yeah, because I hate to see that just sitting there for many, many years.
[34:52] And I believe that's corporate owned, isn't it?
[34:54] Is that owned by Marathon?
[34:56] I believe so.
[34:56] So it was always interesting that Marathon granted their gas stations rich and then sold
[35:03] or had their name on,
[35:08] anyway, other folks that weren't that company.
[35:12] All right, so are you comfortable with it?
[35:15] 1250, Mr. Plano, did you have any?
[35:20] No, you're just right, okay.
[35:22] We're good, okay.
[35:24] Any further discussion from the audience?
[35:29] One comment as
[35:34] was mentioned, we should be encouraging folks to reuse
[35:38] used, adapt, improve the existing stations, but also for those that are in operation.
[35:48] I mean, they're getting kind of long in the tooth.
[35:51] So anything that we can do within that, try to help them step up the game.
[35:56] I know, Romulus has mentioned that by sheets going in, it's caused some of the other businesses to really improve their businesses.
[36:05] And so Mr. Chairman, there has been, I know of one that has pulled, you know, that on telegraph is redoing a lot.
[36:16] We're already seeing the effect of one of the least one.
[36:21] All right, any further discussion?
[36:24] Hearing none, all those in favor say yes.
[36:27] Yes.
[36:28] All as opposed to say no,
[36:32] motion passes.
[36:33] Item 7.A is a motion to prove the second reading to amend the City of Taylor's Code of Ordnances,
[36:38] is chapter 50, utilities to add emergency, article seven, fats, oils, and grease, fog, control,
[36:47] dated July 25th, 2025.
[36:49] The motion.
[36:51] The motion by Councilman Johnson, supported by Councilwoman Whitton.
[36:56] Is there any discussion?
[36:57] Chairman.
[36:58] Oops.
[36:59] Councilwoman.
[37:00] I did speak with Mr. Gibbs, and it looks like obviously new businesses would have to
[37:07] We have this existing businesses if they pull, like, a permit to do improvements would then have to comply.
[37:13] I hope I'm saying all this right.
[37:16] And if we notice that they're offending and we write, then we can address it.
[37:22] I mean, obviously, no patient, you're not supposed to grease down your drain at home, nor a business.
[37:26] So if they're doing this, that's obviously an issue that we should address.
[37:31] And my concern last time as it related was just some of these really small businesses springing
[37:37] an unexpected expense on, you know, some of these Kony Islands and such are, it might
[37:42] operate a few minutes a day, so that's it.
[37:45] Did I say everything right?
[37:46] Yes, ma'am.
[37:47] Okay.
[37:48] Chairman.
[37:49] That's all.
[37:52] So, I'm wondering with the existing businesses that are, you know, that are under this, if
[37:57] they could have more time, or if there are any kind of a district to get alone to be paid back,
[38:03] Because I hate for our businesses, our small businesses to go out of business trying to fix this.
[38:09] So through the chair, just kind of like what Councilwoman went and touched on and Chris talked.
[38:14] We're not going to go in, we're not attacking anybody, we're going to work with everyone.
[38:18] It's more about existing businesses that are coming in and it's about our frequent flyer so to speak.
[38:25] We're going to some of the same businesses over and over, so those are the ones we're going to address right out of the gate.
[38:30] But we're definitely not walking into every business and saying you have three months to comply and stuff like that.
[38:37] So I think this is just getting something on the books that makes any new business that's coming in.
[38:43] And we're going to sit down and kind of come up with a game plan, but we don't want to put anybody out of business.
[38:49] We don't want to put any added expense on somebody or even maybe going to some sort of a plan of attack over a year,
[38:56] a couple of years or something like that.
[38:57] So it's really not our goal to put anybody out of business or a huge expense on anybody's business.
[39:06] But it does become a burden on the city and the taxpayer.
[39:12] When it's not just, literally it's grease off of plates that's going down the drain.
[39:18] Some of them even have it, but we're getting some of them that are just, they're constant problems.
[39:23] And a lot of that grease is going down the drains, and it's causing us to go over there, and we don't have anything that makes us, you know, anything forcible on us to hold them accountable.
[39:38] Councilman Johnson.
[39:39] Through the chair, the majority of the businesses in Taylor, I can go buy a grease trap tomorrow for 500 bucks.
[39:45] So more than the majority of them are small.
[39:48] Yeah, it's going to be a couple thousand, but it's something that should happen as they go.
[39:53] I mean, it's, you're going to have a few big places, but it's really, it's relatively a little
[40:00] expense. I know nobody wants to pay any extra, but it's better for them, too.
[40:06] So they'll, they'll save on maintenance on clean and drains, because we're not cheap.
[40:12] All right, is there any further discussion?
[40:16] Hearing none, all those in favor say yes.
[40:19] Yes.
[40:19] All is opposed to say no.
[40:21] Yes, the Senate motion carried item 7.9 is a motion to approve Alta, current vendor, to pay for invoice to repair Windrow Turner for an amount not to exceed $8,028 through Act 179 equipment and repair maintenance.
[40:36] Motion?
[40:37] Motion by Councilwoman Witten, supported by Councilwoman Rose.
[40:41] Is there any discussion?
[40:43] Chairman.
[40:44] Councilwoman.
[40:47] This, maybe it's not this one.
[40:50] I saw one invoice that was like June, but it's probably the next item, so I have to remind.
[40:58] Okay. Any further discussion?
[41:05] None.
[41:05] All in favor say yes.
[41:06] Yes.
[41:07] All as opposed to say no.
[41:09] Yes, the Savit Motion carried.
[41:11] Item 7.10 is motion to approve Granger emergency purchase.
[41:14] Just for a portable air container units at the Taylor Police Department for an amount not to exceed $23,000, $26 funded through TBA capital outlay accounts.
[41:25] Motion, report.
[41:27] Motion by Councilwoman Whitton, supported by Councilwoman Daniels, or any discussion?
[41:37] Hearing none, all of them favour say yes?
[41:38] Yes.
[41:39] All is opposed to say no.
[41:40] Yes, the 7th motion carried item 7.11's motion approved night watch, sole source for the purchase of 37 security cameras for the animal shelter for an amount not to exceed $127,744 funded through act 179 animal shelter capital outlay motion support motion by council will win supported by councilman Johnson or any discussion.
[42:06] I think this was a five-year license on the Vercada, which I think covers the entire expense.
[42:13] Like we don't have ongoing, I think the way Vercada is done, is that correct?
[42:18] That's a five-year expense, okay.
[42:21] Thank you.
[42:23] All right, any further discussion?
[42:25] Mr. Chairman, everybody should have gotten their invitation.
[42:28] Is there a grand opening?
[42:30] Is that on the 17th, September 17th?
[42:33] All right.
[42:33] All right,
[42:37] any further discussion?
[42:41] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes, all is opposed to say no.
[42:45] Yes, motion carried.
[42:47] Item 7.12 is the motion to approve the administration to enter into contract negotiations with the SNA software.
[42:55] For the implementation of ERP software for an amount of $380,455 in year one and
[43:03] In 90,370 dollars annually for five years funded through Billing Department, Water Department, General Fund Administration.
[43:13] Motion?
[43:14] Support.
[43:15] Motion by Councilwoman Witt and supported by Councilman Johnson.
[43:18] Is there any discussion?
[43:22] Very none.
[43:23] All those in favor say yes?
[43:25] Yes.
[43:25] I was opposed to no.
[43:27] Yes, the motion carried.
[43:29] Item 7.13 is a motion to approve, rico, slow source for paper cut, yearly renewal,
[43:35] in the amount not to exceed $4,847 funded through general fund IT contractual services.
[43:42] Motion, support?
[43:43] Motion by Councilwoman Witton, support by Councilwoman Brandana.
[43:47] Is there any discussion?
[43:51] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes.
[43:53] Yes.
[43:53] All is opposed to no.
[43:55] The yes is how it motion carried item 7.14 is a motion to approve CBTS sole source for
[44:03] the yearly renewal of Red Sky E9-11 for an amount of $7,427 funded through general fund IT contractual services.
[44:15] Motion?
[44:17] Support.
[44:18] Motion by Councilwoman Witton, supported by Councilwoman Brandana, is there any discussion?
[44:25] Hearing none, all in favor say yes.
[44:27] Yes.
[44:27] All opposed to no.
[44:29] Yes, the Senate motion carried item 7.15 is motion approved, secure off, sole source for
[44:35] The renewal of secure authentication software for an amount of $6,947 funded through general fund IT contractual services.
[44:46] Motion to approve, support.
[44:49] Motion by Councilwoman Brandana, supported by Councilwoman Daniels, is there any discussion?
[44:56] Hearing none, all is in favor say yes, all is opposed say no.
[45:00] Yes, the senate motion carried item 7.16. It's a motion to approve amending city council resolution 8.360-25 for GHA. Technology is low quote for the purchase of 400 UB, UB key, multi-factor authentication fobs for an amount of $31,000 funded through general fund IT contractual services. Motion, support. Motion by councilwoman Witt and supported by councilwoman Rose. Is there any discussion?
[45:30] Chairman.
[45:31] Councilwoman.
[45:32] So can we just get some explanation on why it's being amended just for public?
[45:38] Is it on the- I don't have the sheet.
[45:41] I think he-
[45:41] Do we have-
[45:42] I think he sent an email.
[45:44] Okay.
[45:44] One second.
[45:47] I think he had sent an email of something with-
[45:50] Mr. Moore here?
[45:51] I don't hear the chair.
[45:52] I don't see the
[45:55] honest with you.
[45:56] I'm not sure why it was being amendment.
[45:58] I don't remember seeing that email.
[46:04] Mr. Bazzura, come on down.
[46:16] So this is item 7.16, and this is the same one we had to think the question on before or whether or not.
[46:22] The first change was there some backup attached, like $600, like tax was wrongly calculated or something.
[46:28] Is that part of the attachment?
[46:30] I think the approval is changing by $600 or $632.
[46:35] I don't have the whole package in front of me, so I apologize.
[46:39] That was cool.
[46:40] So was it, it's a different company, correct?
[46:42] Is what I, it was, they weren't the lowest bidder, the original one, after they removed the taxes,
[46:48] the other company came in as the lowest bidder?
[46:51] Is that what's my understanding?
[46:53] Sounds right.
[46:54] I read that somewhere, that's not correct.
[46:56] There was a difference of $644, and it was discovered that GHA.
[47:01] Yes, a difference of $644, it was discovered that GHA included tax, which when we were made them lower than CDWG.
[47:11] So, right, we don't pay the tax.
[47:15] So, it was an attempt to save the money and recognize who was low bed once the tax is excluded from the transaction.
[47:23] Because one company included the tax, the other one did not.
[47:26] And when they removed it, they came in under the other company.
[47:29] So they were, I believe, changing from one company to the other because they were now the lowest bidder.
[47:34] Great.
[47:35] Thank you.
[47:37] I think you're ready, these are little fobs that change the authentication code at a random time.
[47:44] And certainly another thing to try to keep folks from getting into our IT systems.
[47:51] All right, any other discussion?
[47:55] Hearing none, all of the favour say yes, all of the posts say no.
[48:00] Yes, the standard motion carried item 7.17 is motion approved, data national, soul, source.
[48:05] for a purchase agreement in the amount of $30,000 for AS-400 programming support funded through general fund IT contractual services.
[48:15] Motion?
[48:18] Motion by Councilwoman Witt and supported by Councilman Johnson.
[48:22] Is there any discussion?
[48:25] Hearing none, all in favor say yes.
[48:27] Yes.
[48:28] I was supposed to say no.
[48:29] Yes, this have it, motion carried.
[48:31] Item 7.18 is motion approved, Plant Moramp, PELC, to provide audit of federal award services for fiscal years ending.
[48:39] in 2025 and 2026, for an amount not to exceed $15,500 and $16,000 respectively plus $10,350 per additional
[48:50] major program, if applicable, amount to be funded through budget and finance contractual services and
[48:57] corresponding grant funds.
[48:59] Motion to approve.
[49:01] Support.
[49:02] Motion by Councilwoman Brandan, supported by Councilman Johnson.
[49:06] Is there any discussion?
[49:10] Here are none. All's in favour? Say yes. Yes. All's opposed? Say no. The yes is that motion
[49:16] carried. That brings us to item 7.19, the motion nominated and the point blank to fill the vacant
[49:22] position on the Taylor City Council per section 4.5 of the City Charter. Chairman. Council.
[49:29] I like to motion and nominate and appoint Keith Lehman to fill the vacant position of the Taylor City
[49:34] Council for section 4.5 of the City Charter.
[49:39] motion by Councilwoman Whitton, supported by Councilman Johnson.
[49:44] Is there any discussion?
[49:46] Chairman.
[49:47] Councilwoman.
[49:48] Thank you.
[49:48] Keith Lehman.
[49:49] I did send his resume over.
[49:51] He's very experienced individual.
[49:53] He's very community-oriented doing a lot of work with rotary, a lot of work with, you know,
[49:58] the police charity softball event that's coming up soon, he owns a business.
[50:05] Yes, I think he'd be a good addition.
[50:11] Is there any further discussion?
[50:14] Chairman.
[50:15] Councilwoman.
[50:16] I couldn't open mine.
[50:17] I could open all the other things that might in my email, but I just couldn't open that one.
[50:21] But I did go through Facebook and try to look up in all the candidates have been qualified in their own respects.
[50:31] But thank you.
[50:35] All right, is there any further discussion?
[50:40] Just know what I'm going to abstain on this one, and from time to time there's been different names and I don't want to be on record.
[50:48] If I don't know the person, well enough, it certainly saw the resume, great credentials, respect that the person put their name forward.
[50:58] But I got your information, and I just don't feel comfortable in it, so I don't want to vote against them, I don't want to vote for them.
[51:07] So I will be abstain that's been consistent in terms of some of the folks that I just I don't know
[51:15] Any further discussion
[51:19] Hearing none all is in favor of appointing Keith Lehman vote. Yes. Yes. Yes. I was opposed to vote. No. No roll call please
[51:30] Miss Daniels.
[51:39] No
[51:39] Mr. Geith.
[51:40] Abstain.
[51:43] Motion fails two to three to one.
[51:47] Chairman.
[51:48] Councilor.
[51:49] I wanted to nominate again a couple of the people that have come up before, or maybe just
[51:55] one is, and I have resumes here.
[51:59] I think they were submitted to us before, but I'm not positive, but one is I'd like to nominate
[52:05] And Justin Murgrowski, and I have his copy of his letter to us dated December 21, 2023, if anybody wanted a copy.
[52:21] Is there a support?
[52:22] Support.
[52:24] Motion by Councilman Brandana, supported by Councilwoman Daniels, is there any discussion?
[52:30] Chairman?
[52:31] Yes.
[52:31] Yes, so I know that some of the council people wanted next in line, and we brought that person forward a couple
[52:42] of times, the next person that did run for office, and we're not elected, so that would be like 9th and 10th.
[52:52] I think I'm not sure the numbers, so this person was the next next in line, I believe, so that's why I brought it forward.
[53:05] So the next in line did not want to be nominated any longer, is that correct?
[53:10] Correct. I called and she did not want to be nominated again.
[53:16] And so he was the very next one in line.
[53:18] Correct.
[53:20] Chairman.
[53:21] I'm just curious with this stance, do we go to 14, do we go next next next next next next next
[53:27] next is that is that the desire of the people who are bringing that forward?
[53:31] because again, I think filling it with a qualified individual, not just because again
[53:36] someone ran and got votes, does it mean that's who the voters chose?
[53:41] Through the chair.
[53:42] Councilor.
[53:43] I'm just curious if you've reached out and spoken to him to see if he's qualified?
[53:47] I'm familiar with this individual.
[53:49] So you spoke to him?
[53:49] I'm familiar with this individual.
[53:52] I'll take that as a thank you.
[53:54] I'm familiar with the individual.
[53:56] Councilor.
[53:57] I just want to say that through the years, through the 12 years that I've been on council,
[54:01] this has come up many times, many times.
[54:04] And sometimes the next person is voted in, sometimes they're not.
[54:08] Sometimes the next person isn't voted in.
[54:11] And then the next person after that is voted in, I can think of a couple of times
[54:15] where Mr. Salars was voted in in this way.
[54:20] And I think that in Mr. Stapleton didn't get the vote, so they went to the next one.
[54:26] But I'm not sure of, but I know that it's come up in almost every term.
[54:31] that I've been in, that people talk about the next in line.
[54:36] So I'm not really for next in line, but I'm trying to, for this not to be so
[54:42] one sided, to be just the same people bringing forward people and you don't have to say no.
[54:53] Through the chair.
[54:56] Through the chair.
[54:57] Councilor.
[54:57] So, I was, I would just like to say that, you know, I've always been for next in line.
[55:05] I think that's the way the residents voted.
[55:07] I think their votes should count, that should matter.
[55:10] There were several thousand residents that came out to vote for this person.
[55:16] And, you know, as far as being next in line,
[55:19] Ms. Rose had put it forward to the council to put it as a ballot proposal on the next election
[55:26] for residents to vote for, and half of this counsel voted not to put it to the resident.
[55:32] So I would just like to state that because, you know, they should have been given a choice
[55:37] to.
[55:38] Chairman.
[55:38] Councillor.
[55:39] Because half this counsel disagrees with that stance, because, again, unless you're going
[55:44] to apply it equally amongst all the elected official positions, that stance makes no sense
[55:49] to me, in my opinion, voters voted for seven.
[55:53] They voted for us to follow this, which says the council points if they can see.
[55:58] It doesn't say next in line.
[56:00] And again, the reason why not putting it forward to the voters is that doesn't make sense,
[56:04] unless you're going to do it for the mayor, the treasurer, and the clerk.
[56:06] In my opinion, that stance doesn't make sense.
[56:09] They did not choose 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
[56:14] They chose 7.
[56:15] It's worked fine all the other times.
[56:18] It's only this council, and you want to put forward people who are going out to stop.
[56:23] there. I mean, I'll do the chair.
[56:25] Hold on.
[56:26] There are proponents of them.
[56:27] We do have some residents that have been waiting to speak.
[56:30] And so, and we talked about this, that the, you know, the Robert's Rules of Order,
[56:37] and I want to have more back and forth between the council members.
[56:40] You need to get to speak twice.
[56:42] You have spoken, I think, you know, at least once, at least twice, on, you know,
[56:50] why you think that it should be this person.
[56:51] We don't need to rehash the differences of opinion, recognize Mrs. Susa?
[57:00] Oh.
[57:05] Carolina Pat, 60, at 60 Jackson, I understand some of you want the next in line or the next next in line or whatever.
[57:12] It's not that I have a problem with that, but that's irrelevant to what I want to say.
[57:16] I don't believe someone who is running for city council right now should be in the position to be appointed.
[57:22] We had that came up when I was on it one time too, and they said we are not going to interview anyone that is being a candidate that is a candidate running out for the election coming up in November.
[57:33] That's the problem I have.
[57:36] Please come forward.
[57:42] So I guess my question would be where in line is Justin?
[57:49] What? Because we had someone else that was nominated who was also on that ballot. And
[57:57] y'all didn't vote for him. You voted no. So I don't understand why all of a sudden,
[58:04] you know, you're picking someone that was on that ballot because the next person in line
[58:10] when you talk to him said, no, it has been what?
[58:15] 20 months that we've been doing this?
[58:20] And now you're just calling people?
[58:23] What a waste.
[58:25] You realize, you know, we want to move forward
[58:27] when we have to do stuff?
[58:28] But if you wait 20 months,
[58:32] that makes no sense to me at all.
[58:35] This should have been done 20 months before.
[58:41] Any further discussion?
[58:43] I recognize it will recognize the members one more time and this please go forward please come forward
[58:56] I was just curious which list I'll be going off of the last general election or the last primary election
[59:06] because we just had an election and we're going next in line presumably that's the most recent election
[59:12] So that's what we're going to go off of.
[59:15] In reality, I don't think we're going off that at all.
[59:17] I mean, we're going off of who's going to vote which way
[59:20] and the tone contracts.
[59:22] No, that's really it.
[59:24] I mean, everything else is just pretense.
[59:27] I mean, it's not even that controversial of a thing.
[59:31] Like, if we are in Democrat government,
[59:33] or a Republican government, they're heading to a point,
[59:34] someone to replace us.
[59:36] We wouldn't expect them to appoint someone from a different party.
[59:39] It's all taking a whole new position to say,
[59:41] I don't want to support them because they should have the balance of power, but nobody wants to say that.
[59:47] But that's obviously what it is.
[59:50] So can we end the pretense and just say what you're actually doing?
[59:54] Thank you.
[59:56] All right, is there any further discussion?
[59:58] Yes.
[1:00:00] I forgot what I was going to say. I apologize.
[1:00:06] All right, anybody else wants to be recognized?
[1:00:09] Small lady. Hearing none. All is in favor of appointing Justin Modarski. Say yes. All is opposed to vote no? No. Roll call, please.
[1:00:21] Miss Daniels? Yes. Mrs. Brandana? Yes. Ms. Rose? Yes. Ms. Winton? No.
[1:00:29] Thank you. Mr. Johnson?
[1:00:31] No.
[1:00:31] Mr. Geist.
[1:00:32] No.
[1:00:34] Motion fails, three to three.
[1:00:37] Chairman?
[1:00:39] Councilwoman.
[1:00:40] Yes, so I thought that those two might go that way.
[1:00:45] So I also would like to nominate, again, Jack Hayden.
[1:00:52] He is on the zoning board.
[1:00:56] He's his family has been here his entire life.
[1:01:00] His father was our treasureer for many years, so I think he would be an excellent candidate.
[1:01:08] We did pass out his resume before I have it here if anybody wants to see it.
[1:01:14] But I would like to appoint, nominate and appoint Jack Hayden to the vacant position on the Taylor City Council.
[1:01:22] Have you spoken with Mr. Hayden?
[1:01:23] I called today, yes.
[1:01:24] Okay.
[1:01:26] Any further discussion?
[1:01:28] I need a second.
[1:01:29] Motion by Councilman Brandana, is there a second?
[1:01:34] I'll second it.
[1:01:38] Any further discussion?
[1:01:40] Does
[1:01:44] any favor say yes?
[1:01:45] Yes.
[1:01:46] I was opposed to no.
[1:01:47] No.
[1:01:47] Roll call, please.
[1:01:49] Miss Daniels?
[1:01:50] No.
[1:01:51] Mrs. Brandana?
[1:01:52] Yes.
[1:01:53] Ms. Rose?
[1:01:54] No.
[1:01:54] Ms. Winton?
[1:01:55] No.
[1:01:56] Mr. Johnson?
[1:01:57] No.
[1:01:58] Mr. Grace?
[1:01:59] Yes.
[1:02:00] I think that was the same vote as last time.
[1:02:01] I think it was, too.
[1:02:04] Thank you.
[1:02:06] All right. Is there any further discussion?
[1:02:11] All right. That does bring us to open business before we go to the audience.
[1:02:17] Is there any open business from the council or elected officials?
[1:02:21] Chairman.
[1:02:22] Yes.
[1:02:24] I had brought, I brought today a resolution.
[1:02:28] Let me see, I wrote down my words here.
[1:02:31] So I would like to make a motion to approve City Council independent legal representation
[1:02:39] for a special purpose or a deposition.
[1:02:44] Her the attached resolution, would you like me to read the resolution or is it good enough
[1:02:49] just to say that, Chairman?
[1:02:50] I think it's fair enough the,
[1:02:55] so make a motion to approve resolution as presented
[1:03:02] or for
[1:03:10] Council representation?
[1:03:12] Any, any Council that wanted a representation for a deposition on any upcoming legal matters?
[1:03:19] Let me get the, adopt the resolution, let's try to keep this succinct, adopt the resolution
[1:03:25] for council representation.
[1:03:33] Chairman.
[1:03:35] As attached.
[1:03:38] Hello and corporate, corporate, approved, all your words.
[1:03:41] Anybody who wanted it, would not just me, but I did, requested and wanted it.
[1:03:47] And also I would, I had written in there the Pentiac law firm because they served as
[1:03:53] corporation council a few times ago and their office is a municipal office.
[1:03:59] I think the city has used them in the past, so I think that all of us have know that person and I had suggested for the same hourly rate as the Corporation Council.
[1:04:13] And it's just for a limited purpose because we're not defendants in the other case anymore, so it's just for that deposition or a deposition.
[1:04:21] Well, yeah, in the last council meeting, I did put an appropriation on, so there is none of the appropriation right now for this.
[1:04:32] In the last council meeting, if you look to your original resolution, which I don't think you made,
[1:04:37] we didn't take it to a vote, and then right after that, I had put a budget amendment to move funds into the city council budget.
[1:04:48] So if one pass, you need a corresponding budget amendment, so right now, even if this
[1:04:56] passed, there isn't, I believe, a funding mechanism.
[1:05:00] And we don't know how much that might cost, what, you know, what the anticipated
[1:05:05] amount of billable hours and what not.
[1:05:07] So if this does pass, then I think there needs to be a separate resolution, maybe
[1:05:13] not tonight, but to appropriately budget.
[1:05:17] That's an excellent point.
[1:05:19] I didn't remember to add the corresponding amount,
[1:05:23] but I think it's just a one-time event.
[1:05:27] A couple of council people were subpoenaed,
[1:05:31] but I can only speak for myself
[1:05:32] and the Corporation Council,
[1:05:37] and I disagree on this in my opinion on this topic.
[1:05:44] So I think there's a clear conflict of interest
[1:05:46] and I would really appreciate and vote today.
[1:05:49] Chairman, do we have a second?
[1:05:50] I know there.
[1:05:51] Motion by Council on Brandanas, their support.
[1:05:54] Okay.
[1:05:54] I'll support it.
[1:05:59] Motion by Council on Brandanas,
[1:06:01] supported by Council on Whitten.
[1:06:03] Is there any further discussion?
[1:06:04] Chairman.
[1:06:04] Council on.
[1:06:05] One, I think it's important to read the resolutions.
[1:06:08] I mean, I don't know if there's a bandana wants to read it,
[1:06:10] or I can.
[1:06:12] Would you like to?
[1:06:13] Yes.
[1:06:13] Okay.
[1:06:14] So the resolution says, where as the city and members of council,
[1:06:17] So, well, this resolution, this, this doesn't work now because the first, yeah, the first sentence, because we, Mr.
[1:06:25] Plato got us, just missed, yeah, I got to just miss from, for the first time that I brought this forward.
[1:06:35] We were all separate defendants.
[1:06:38] And so, Mr. Plato had that dismissed.
[1:06:41] So now, the only thing that remains for me is that I have been subpoenaed for deposition.
[1:06:47] and I think that it's important to have counsel if you're being deposed to represent you.
[1:06:56] So it would be, whereas the city and members of the council, okay, so the first part doesn't work.
[1:07:07] Okay, so I'm going to cross off the first paragraph and say, whereas there exist urgent views and
[1:07:14] positions among council members in
[1:07:22] a lawsuit outside of the area towing J.T. Krova lawsuit.
[1:07:31] This is a different lawsuit against a resident and J.T. Krova.
[1:07:38] So I've been subpoenaed in that case, whereas the mayor and administration advocates
[1:07:45] It's positions in the Towing Country Act in this litigation that are in conflict with some of the council
[1:07:52] members
[1:07:54] making singular representation
[1:07:56] impracticable and creating a conflict of interest for the office of corporation council.
[1:08:04] Now therefore be it resolved that City Council authorize any
[1:08:08] The council person to retain the Pentiac law firm as a separate legal representation
[1:08:15] for the aforementioned lawsuit for deposition purposes only.
[1:08:24] All right, so we have a motion by Councilor Brandon, supported by Councilor Wooden.
[1:08:28] It will still be the motion would be adopt, the resolution for council representation has
[1:08:34] I was attached with a lot of more of them.
[1:08:37] I know I changed a lot of them.
[1:08:40] Councilwoman Witton.
[1:08:41] Thank you.
[1:08:42] I did just for the record.
[1:08:44] I did support this only for matters of discussion, but I have a couple points.
[1:08:48] What I made last time was I think our Charters clear again on the role of Corporation
[1:08:53] Council, so I'm in disagreement with this.
[1:08:55] I think our Corporation Council represents the city in this matter and can represent
[1:09:01] any of us in a deposition.
[1:09:03] We were removed as defendants, which again, to me, that was, in my opinion, was a legal tactic and our council, we should have never been named in that similar to many of the lawsuits that have been filed against the city, and I don't recall us ever being named as individuals.
[1:09:22] I know Chairman Geiss already brought up the budgetary implications that these lawsuits have already cost us tens of thousands of dollars and we're spending more money.
[1:09:32] And then my curiosity is I've read, you know, our city legal arguments on what are the divergent views on.
[1:09:43] Thank you for asking that.
[1:09:44] Yes.
[1:09:45] Chairman.
[1:09:46] Councilor.
[1:09:46] First of all, this isn't the area towing in JT Crova lawsuit against the city anymore that I'm talking about now because we were dismissed as defendants.
[1:09:56] I'm talking about a resident being sued by J.T. Crova, and I've been subpoenaed in that case, so that, um, that's number one.
[1:10:06] Number two, the court, you know, when I asked the very beginning of this term, um, to perhaps be, um, you know, to get
[1:10:16] corporation counsel, if there was an issue that came up because, and I have history from many, over many years, um, and I was told
[1:10:26] that it would be the majority of the council that would have to vote on that.
[1:10:30] So, I can only speak for myself, but I think that the majority of council does not agree with the documents
[1:10:39] that are filed in my opinion, so everyone can speak for their selves.
[1:10:44] But mainly for me, and you can stop me if you need to, Mr. Plato.
[1:10:49] But for me, the divergent issue is that it's not about towing.
[1:10:53] It's never been about towing in my opinion.
[1:10:55] And this is about the balance of power, okay?
[1:11:00] Within their motion, for within their briefs and answer to this lawsuit,
[1:11:08] it talks about how City Council, that the administration doesn't have to go through
[1:11:13] City Council to sign contracts.
[1:11:16] And I think that's absolutely wrong.
[1:11:18] And if you think of the ramifications that that could cause, even if you like the
[1:11:22] the current mayor and agree with him, this would, if you, if we got an order that says City Council doesn't have to approve contracts, that's problematic, because if the City can't support the contracts that are being entered into, then it would go directly to the tax pairs.
[1:11:40] So the City Council's checks and balances, so absolutely, you need City Council to approve all contracts, because that's tax dollars.
[1:11:48] Number one, number two, number two, if we didn't have those checks and balances in place, you know, and we had this, it would be, it could be catastrophic for tax payers.
[1:12:03] So I think that the motion, I mean, the appeal talks about, this matter was appealed, there was an order entered, the judge ordered for
[1:12:16] For that part of it, the part that I'm concerned about, the judge ordered that the council does have the power to do that.
[1:12:24] So JT Crowva, I'm not sure, they appealed it, and the Corporation Council, or, yes, the Corporation Council filed a,
[1:12:35] what would it be, the city filed a jointer, or what would it be?
[1:12:40] So, they joined in their appeal, which, which at the time that it was done, it said all of our names
[1:12:47] and that I agreed that the council doesn't have to sign off on contracts or that they have to come
[1:12:55] before council. So, I do not agree with that. I think documents have been filed that say that I do
[1:13:02] agree with that stance, and I certainly do not. And it would be, if that were allowed,
[1:13:09] If that were allowed, they wouldn't even need that resolution years ago because Mayor
[1:13:14] Salars would have been able to just do the contract himself, but he couldn't.
[1:13:19] They had the City Council then had to do a resolution to stop it.
[1:13:24] So all of a sudden now the City Council doesn't have to sign off on contracts.
[1:13:29] I-
[1:13:31] Through the chair.
[1:13:32] Councilwoman, I believe I think you've made that point and I want to just, we have made these points, I think, on both sides.
[1:13:43] And y'all want to be here till 9 o'clock, we're going to go back through this for another hour.
[1:13:48] I think let's keep it to the resolution at hand, with the motion by Councilwoman Brandan, supported by Councilwoman Whitten to adopt the resolution for council representation as attached.
[1:14:00] Any discussion on the resolution?
[1:14:03] Through the chair, if I may.
[1:14:05] The resolution I ask for, separate counsel for the pending area towing lawsuit.
[1:14:13] None of the council members are defendants in that lawsuit.
[1:14:17] The deposition that have been subpoenaed by three of the council women are entirely
[1:14:24] different to have nothing really to do with the issues in the area towing lawsuit.
[1:14:29] There are nothing is going to come out in those depositions that has anything to do with
[1:14:34] the issues that have been briefed back and forth in the area towing lawsuit.
[1:14:39] I certainly, I will be there to represent those three individuals to make objections on
[1:14:45] the record.
[1:14:45] I'm not going to ask them any questions because I wouldn't do that anyway, but I will be there
[1:14:49] to protect their interests as members of this council, as council members of the City of Taylor.
[1:14:57] and there is nothing going to come out in the open.
[1:15:00] Council's depositions that's going to be in conflict with anything having to do with our position in the area. All right. Any? Did you want to be record? Mr. Mayor? Mr. Chairman. I just want to point out because something that was said. Yes, it's an argument, but it was brought to you.
[1:15:24] Please come forward.
[1:15:29] Mary, I want to try to get this straight because it's kind of.
[1:15:35] So the City, Corporate Council, and whatever else is in the package takes care of the Council
[1:15:47] members. Is that correct when you're for depositions or anything like that? And the reason
[1:15:54] that you want the Council and Brandana wants, other Council is because she disagrees with
[1:16:01] the council that the city pays for? Is that correct? Yes or no?
[1:16:08] Not for me to answer that.
[1:16:09] Is that correct? You disagree with the Calc corporate council who will take care of you
[1:16:16] at this deposition, but you disagree with him. Therefore, you want us to pay for an attorney
[1:16:23] for you. Even though the city already pays an attorney to take care of you, is that correct?
[1:16:31] Yes or no?
[1:16:32] No.
[1:16:33] The issue is, Mr. Plato would be paid, whoever was going to be next to me, to represent me, or this deposition, would get paid.
[1:16:42] So if Mr. Plato is not representing me, he would not be getting paid to do that.
[1:16:46] So it's not a double dipping in that situation.
[1:16:49] Okay, so but Mr. Plato just stated that he would be with you at this deposition, and he would take care of you,
[1:16:58] at this deposition, but because you disagree with him on other issues in this one, you don't
[1:17:06] want him there. So you want us to pay for an attorney for you personally to go and
[1:17:15] do this deposition. But we already have one who's paid. Why should
[1:17:20] we pay for you to have another one? If you disagree, and this is going to sound harsh,
[1:17:25] I'm sure if you disagree with corporate counsel, and he's here as a city to take care of you, then you need to go out and get your own attorney because we're already paying this man right here to take care of you through the chair.
[1:17:47] I'm going to summarize you believe that we already have an attorney, right?
[1:17:55] That's your statement?
[1:17:56] Yes.
[1:17:57] And he stated that he was going to take care of these people who are going for the deposition.
[1:18:03] So I think they need to get there.
[1:18:04] I'm just going to stop the back and forth.
[1:18:07] You're okay.
[1:18:07] I just wanted to make sure I understood what was being said because it was confusing.
[1:18:11] And I believe Councilwoman, well, since you have already been recognized a number of times on this topic,
[1:18:18] I will recognize Councilwoman Daniel.
[1:18:20] So I just want to clarify, because it's not saying that you want a second attorney, right?
[1:18:27] So during the deposition, it would either be Mr. Plato that would be there to represent,
[1:18:32] and he would be paid a specific amount for doing so, or there would be another
[1:18:37] other attorney in his place that would be paid the same amount?
[1:18:41] I don't know for a second.
[1:18:42] Mr. Plato, I'm sorry, just so you understand, if there's an employee of the city
[1:18:48] or a council member of the city, any officer of the city was giving a deposition,
[1:18:54] I will be there to protect the city's interest and that witness's interest.
[1:18:58] Whether Mr. Penteach or any other attorney is there, I'm going to be there to protect
[1:19:02] the city.
[1:19:03] Or someone from Yara's law firm, because last time we had a deposition, you weren't there.
[1:19:09] I'm just asking.
[1:19:12] Councilor.
[1:19:13] Yes, so yes, since I wasn't finished, if I could finish, I spoke out a term.
[1:19:19] So part of what I'm understanding the concern is that, you know, there have been statements,
[1:19:26] there have been legal documents filed that were stated that it was on behalf of the members
[1:19:31] of this council, and there were statements that were quoted saying they were coming
[1:19:35] from this council that we were in agreement with certain things. And, you know, I can only
[1:19:41] speak for myself, but when that statement was made and that was put out in the documents,
[1:19:48] I hadn't even been talked to in regards to it. I haven't even been asked my opinion.
[1:19:52] And it's something that I didn't agree with either. So I understand where Ms. Brandenna is
[1:19:57] she's saying that there are statements that are being made on our behalf, and we're not
[1:20:02] even consulted before those statements are made.
[1:20:05] So I understand where she's coming from.
[1:20:08] All right, I believe that we have covered this topic at last six, a whole bunch of council
[1:20:17] meetings.
[1:20:18] So I don't believe there's any new information here.
[1:20:21] The councilwoman has made a resolution.
[1:20:23] Motion, I would like to take it to a roll call vote.
[1:20:28] Motion by Councilwoman Brindana, supported by Councilwoman Whitton.
[1:20:32] All those in favor say yes?
[1:20:33] Yes.
[1:20:34] All as opposed to say no?
[1:20:36] No.
[1:20:36] Roll call, please.
[1:20:37] Ms. Daniels?
[1:20:38] Yes.
[1:20:39] Mrs. Brindana?
[1:20:41] Yes.
[1:20:41] Ms. Rose?
[1:20:42] Yes.
[1:20:43] Ms. Winton?
[1:20:44] No.
[1:20:45] Mr. Johnson?
[1:20:46] No.
[1:20:47] Mr. Geist?
[1:20:48] No.
[1:20:50] Motion fails three to three.
[1:20:52] All right, just to thank you, Councilwoman.
[1:20:57] Mr. Plato, I don't want to read this and it's an entirety, but do I have, do I have your permission to
[1:21:07] generally or do you want to stay without mentioning the person's name?
[1:21:14] Or would you love to register?
[1:21:15] I was just not going to acknowledge the comment whatsoever.
[1:21:20] I'm sure we'll hear from that individual and we can address them at that time.
[1:21:23] Okay.
[1:21:23] My position.
[1:21:25] And we do have a letter.
[1:21:28] Just one, in terms of my own opinion, statements, either we're getting, you know, where people have made the
[1:21:45] And it's my opinion that defamation either here in public setting, or be in email, is out of order.
[1:21:58] And therefore there was one online public submittal that I believe holds actual malice, which does not make it protected by the Freemones.
[1:22:15] speech. So with that, here's
[1:22:21] a letter to the Council Secretary, please read this letter
[1:22:26] at the next council meeting to the Taylor City Council. How can we improve our city
[1:22:30] parks? Chuck Kines, address as listed.
[1:22:35] But in Pickleball courts. And that's, I was going to say, Pickleball courts, you look at the
[1:22:43] The lighting, you know, really makes a big difference over at Heritage Park, all the solar lights, various improvements, certainly within the dollar amounts that we have, Mr. Mayor.
[1:22:59] Mr. Chairman, we're, I mean, we don't set down earlier last week and we're going to probably start doing the entire pathways throughout Heritage.
[1:23:09] Some of them are getting pretty bad, especially around the pond and the parking lots.
[1:23:15] Well, those are 20 years old, 20, 22, 23 parking lot over by a sweet shop.
[1:23:29] You take a look at the sign at Chelsea Park, right there at the signage there, I think that park is now, right around that 20, 22 years needs a little touch up.
[1:23:43] Councilwoman's neighborhood, and when you're sitting at that stop, stop sign there, so we're in,
[1:23:52] kind of that'll be a continental one.
[1:24:02] Can you give us an update on that?
[1:24:05] Through the chair, you took the algae bloom.
[1:24:08] Not too long ago.
[1:24:09] So what happened was every year when we got that real hot streak
[1:24:12] there in August, early August, that creates the algae bloom.
[1:24:16] And then we put in another type of algae that attacks the algae.
[1:24:20] Is your mic on?
[1:24:21] Yes.
[1:24:22] Is your mic on?
[1:24:23] Oh, yeah.
[1:24:23] Oh, sorry, I'll put it closer.
[1:24:26] So we put in a chemical, it's actually another type of algae, it's all natural.
[1:24:31] And that creates an even bigger bloom, but then as the water stirs up, it kind of calms
[1:24:37] it down and stuff like that.
[1:24:39] So I haven't been over there in probably a week or two, so by the pond, but I think it's
[1:24:45] calmed down a little bit.
[1:24:45] But when we first do that, that does create a little bit of a smell, but it's usually
[1:24:49] something we have to do in mid-August, somewhere around there, depending on the heat and stuff, but it usually gets it going.
[1:24:56] The problem is, you know, the heat, and we have a lot of geese and duck over there, which causes a lot of that as well.
[1:25:02] So, at the bottom of it is, um, councilor.
[1:25:06] So, was that working, that just was done?
[1:25:08] Yes, I believe so.
[1:25:10] Yeah, once the water is stirred up, it really helps.
[1:25:13] So, we've actually, we're trying to come up with some ideas to maybe, we're able to stir that water
[1:25:19] up a little bit when we add that stuff. So, you know, what we talked about, like, getting
[1:25:25] some, like, maybe some motors, just, or something, paddle boats. We talked about as well,
[1:25:31] yeah. Yeah. So, just to help circulate it, when we add that.
[1:25:36] All right. Is there any further open business from the council or elected officials?
[1:26:01] I don't know if it's a rollerblading thing that's right outside of the Open Poe
[1:26:08] million? Is that what that is? So we use that? I mean, do we use that?
[1:26:13] Sorry, through the chair. So there's a, like, you're talking about on the other side,
[1:26:18] the roller hockey rink. Yeah, the roller hockey rink. Yeah.
[1:26:21] They do use that? Yeah, absolutely.
[1:26:23] I've not seen any any advertisement on it or anybody using it or every time I'm over there,
[1:26:28] I usually see kids in there. I mean, not on the time. Maybe they could use it for ice skating,
[1:26:32] maybe in a winter time or something. We could fill it, but it would probably affect the asphalt in
[1:26:36] there, so you're going to get more of it in the summertime, but I've seen people in there
[1:26:43] quite a bit, actually.
[1:26:45] There were a lot of geese today when I was over at Heritage Park, there were a lot
[1:26:49] of geese, and so I know they leave their droppings everywhere, so we were clean up the museum
[1:26:54] today and did a lot of sweeping and goose stuff.
[1:26:58] We need more border callies, so I'm sure it's a hot topic, but they started to last
[1:27:06] The last year, let me anticipate, but then they quickly changed it, so.
[1:27:12] So it's the same problem with the golf course.
[1:27:14] Yeah, it's the same thing.
[1:27:15] It's the same thing, you've got to dance around.
[1:27:18] There's a huge abundance of Canadian geese, and it's really becoming an issue.
[1:27:24] The other thing is, as I went over and visited the Golden Ridge Cemetery, and the fencing looks wonderful.
[1:27:30] They did replace the gates that were there that I didn't even know we had gates on the outside ends.
[1:27:35] So it does really look nice if you get a chance to get over there and look at it with the black
[1:27:40] fencing there.
[1:27:41] Is it the one on telegraph?
[1:27:43] No, the one on McKinley.
[1:27:44] Okay, because I'm, yeah, they were starting to work.
[1:27:47] When I talked to them when I was there, they were going to start on telegraph, so I don't know.
[1:27:50] Okay, because I saw those stacked over there, and I was wondering why that.
[1:27:53] That's the next one, and then the other one off of Bamborne, so thank you.
[1:27:56] Chairman.
[1:27:58] Councilor.
[1:27:58] Speaking of the geese, do we do anything about the geese?
[1:28:01] I know on some of the roads they cross and they just stand there, you know, for a long time.
[1:28:07] So I don't know if we're doing anything to curb their path or there's things like that or nothing we can do.
[1:28:13] Really, there's nothing we can do.
[1:28:15] We can put a no-geese crossing something like this.
[1:28:19] Yeah, so like I said, this year the DNR changed it for like a brief second and there was a huge eye and they changed it back real quick.
[1:28:30] So yeah, it's just you have a lot you know, there's hunting numbers have gone down and there's just a huge abundance of them.
[1:28:40] And you know, I know the airport is very concerned as well, because we're very close to an airport and there's more and more decent.
[1:28:47] All right, Mr. Chairman is way to patiently to be recognized, please come forward, good
[1:29:00] evening.
[1:29:02] Good evening, Chairman, Councilman, Councilman, and women of Taylor, even though I'm not a resident of City of Taylor,
[1:29:08] I'm deeply honored to be in front of you today.
[1:29:10] I am here to address the Council regarding a major conflict of interest between Far
[1:29:15] Chief Hal Young and his position and his standards.
[1:29:20] On August 28, 3PM, Far One, showed on the side of the large of Taylor to transfer my 72-year-old
[1:29:31] father to corbal health for a possible stroke during the transfer from the
[1:29:37] bed to the stretcher, the paramedic, which should have a higher
[1:29:42] strand of care, draw my dad and heat his head to the metal bed.
[1:29:50] He screamed out of pain at that for a couple minutes at the time he was holding
[1:29:53] his head and at that time I asked my dad where was going on, how much his
[1:29:58] pain was, and you taught me.
[1:30:00] Call me then. You like the paramedics to take their hands off of him and stop all handling all treatment. And I conveyed that information to both of them and they refused to do so.
[1:30:15] At the time of the injury, the two medics complete neglecting assessing his injury. And I think the refusal of stepping away from him stepped into the idea of physical assault. My mom was also witness at the time. I and even
[1:30:32] to the day, I still have a part of attorney and my mom would have been the next of Quen.
[1:30:40] At the end of last week, when this didn't happen, I tried to contact the police chief,
[1:30:44] the fractured, sorry, multiple times, without no avail.
[1:30:48] I understand there was a holiday in a weekend, but no one was at the building.
[1:30:54] And it became the idea of lock, just to get in contact with someone.
[1:30:59] This morning, I received a phone call from a lieutenant and he insisted to have a phone conversation
[1:31:04] which I thought it was not enough for the incident.
[1:31:08] And I asked if we could have an appointment with the chief into his office.
[1:31:12] As we walked in the door, but me and my mom were attacked by the chief with false litigation
[1:31:20] about being trespassed and, literally, from both Coral Health and the Lodge of Taylor, which are natural.
[1:31:34] And part of the nine-minute conversation that we have with the Chief, all he vouched was to engage in obstruction of justice and
[1:31:43] conceal that individual's name no matter what the cost.
[1:31:47] Does the council approve of such on professionalism from a fire chief, and would the council support accountability and transparency on this situation?
[1:31:57] God is good and God is great for all.
[1:31:59] At some point in life, we all are going to walk the path of a 70-year-old person.
[1:32:05] And I don't want to wish upon anyone to endure what my father endured.
[1:32:12] Since the nation, this nation, not first justice for all, with the council can be to some justice for my father.
[1:32:19] First of all, is your father okay now?
[1:32:22] He is okay, but he has a history of ABCs and a hit, a major hit blowing the head can carry something down in six months to a year.
[1:32:32] And I'm not, I wasn't trying to litigate with the city and I'm still not trying to do that.
[1:32:37] I was in, all I was trying, I did the job a long time ago, I was in AMT.
[1:32:41] And I feel like the fact of the paramedic, step solo, he lied into the report.
[1:32:47] He had no accountability, he lied to the hospital, he lied into the report.
[1:32:51] I think he warned for him to step down.
[1:32:54] And that's all I ask.
[1:32:54] Sir, sir, I did allow you actually to go close to four minutes.
[1:32:59] I do want, I cut off the corporation council because this is certainly something
[1:33:08] I mean, difficult to speak about in, we've just talked a lot about lawyers.
[1:33:13] Yes.
[1:33:13] And certainly with that, that's why I wanted to make certain that your father is okay.
[1:33:20] But not because the lawyers.
[1:33:21] I want your father to be okay.
[1:33:24] Mr. Plato, would you like to weigh in here?
[1:33:27] Just thank you.
[1:33:29] I have a view of this matter with the deputy fire chief.
[1:33:33] My understanding of the situation, my understanding was your dad's head struck
[1:33:39] one of the rails when he was being transported.
[1:33:42] The Fire Department did report that to Corwell Hospital.
[1:33:47] They checked him over.
[1:33:48] They found no evidence of any injury, no bruising.
[1:33:51] They all went to the extent of giving him a CT scan of his head and reported back
[1:33:56] that there was absolutely no injury to him.
[1:33:58] So I think they went above and beyond the hospital, went above and beyond what was
[1:34:02] even necessary for the situation.
[1:34:05] I understand.
[1:34:07] All right.
[1:34:08] Thank you.
[1:34:09] Any further open business from the audience?
[1:34:14] Please come forward.
[1:34:20] Simple, simple.
[1:34:21] That makes sense.
[1:34:23] It's now been four months since the Chief Anterna thing to the 27G agreement with ICE.
[1:34:33] I was very happy to hear the member and councilman Diana saying that it's very important that the council
[1:34:39] approved contracts in session with the impact taxpayer, and this is a contract that remains
[1:34:45] to this day unapproved, now rejecting just completely siren line.
[1:34:52] It's known that there aren't costs.
[1:34:54] You can work directly at section 10 of the memorandum, where it serves very explicitly.
[1:35:01] Now, if I'm anticipating real, we'll carry out yesterday's functions, and we're at the
[1:35:42] known states and violation of the law, and is likely to escape before it went to the
[1:35:47] end. Now, of course, because I'm telling you that more than any foreign countries, no
[1:35:53] officers are going to see someone cross the border. So ultimately, it's just some
[1:35:58] down to an officer, just saying that somebody, let me look at, there's nothing wrong here.
[1:36:03] And then without more, without going to any judge, most simply hanging off to many
[1:36:12] in mass, who will take them who knows where,
[1:36:17] this needs to come to an end, and it's not
[1:36:20] for when our chief has aligned the same tailor with the new central district movement here
[1:36:26] nationally, which now is escalating to the point where he shoots on our feet.
[1:36:32] And you'll think Detroit is coming soon than that with.
[1:36:36] It's coming soon.
[1:36:38] Elaine's having, he seems having, in terms of international Chicago.
[1:36:42] So I'm curious how do you feel about soldiers in the streets of Australia, so maybe
[1:36:49] if I'm going to decide Wayne Telly,
[1:36:53] is there any opinion, is there any accountant known
[1:36:55] you from the chiefs, is there any willingness to sit in the principal on being willing to
[1:37:00] improve contracts that directly affect the city?
[1:37:04] I ask again for a vote to repudiate this agreement.
[1:37:09] Thank you.
[1:37:10] Is there any further open business?
[1:37:12] I commend the council for not listening to anything.
[1:37:15] All
[1:37:18] right, folks, I think a motion to adjourn is in order.
[1:37:21] Chairman?
[1:37:22] Councilwoman?
[1:37:22] Motion to adjourn, support.
[1:37:25] Motion by councilwoman Brandanna, supported by councilwoman Witten.
[1:37:28] All those in favor say yes.
[1:37:29] Yes.
[1:37:30] All those opposed say no.
[1:37:31] The yeses have it, motion carried.
[1:37:33] We are adjourned at 8.07 p.m.