City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm not here, you know, all I'm doing is I'm giving your options. I'm giving you my analysis, and it's really up to to the council to do what what you're elected to do. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

Thank you. And if I may add, uh, in our analysis, there is a a path forward, you know, with part of this language and the resolution you crafted. uh and the attorney can give the alternative options, but what we believe is probably your your best option is the ordinance specifies things can be permitted or special land use. And if it's not listed, which is what page 12 says, it's not permitted. But if it also says if it's not listed, the zoning board of appeals ultimately will be the the body that says if it aligns with a similar use or if it's not listed because it doesn't align with the use. The reason why those definitions uh A, B, and C in this ordinance are important is because those definitions provide the zoning board of appeals the the criteria or the uh the the scope of what that type of business is for them to say, oh, this use is would be permitted under this criteria or it is not. So there is definitely value in uh the process and the definitions that can allow you to at least say no, our ordinance doesn't say it's not permitted. It doesn't hit this definition. It shouldn't be permitted. So that's the first change we can make. The second change is uh labeled page 115. And these are all out of your zoning ordinance. It should be just the very next page. The as I mentioned it is not permitted in the ordinance. If it is not permitted it cannot happen because there is no process to allow it. However essential service

say that again

because it is not listed. So if you're asking Donovan where would it be listed at? If you go to the next page I put all these with you and we'll even if we got to bounce around I'll bounce around with you. That last three pages are your existing table of uses. Nowhere on that table will you find a detention center, a jail, a prison site or anything that fits into the definition of uh the this detention facility because it is not there. It is not permitted. There is not a lot of wiggle room there. It's not there. It's not permitted. However, we do have a utility use um and the federal government or anyone with that use could try to fit um a detention center into a utility or essential services. They could try it. It likely won't fit because it's way off, but they that would be their argument. What we could do is in addition to the definitions, we could strengthen the definition of essential services. So they are do not include detention centers. Again, that would give the zoning board of appeals more teeth to say this is not this and this doesn't fit into the use and this is why we should deny it. We can give more teeth to our current authority on how we can manage this. But as it relates to the initial draft that put a hard prohibition on it, that is where we have concern. But there are areas within the definitions. There are areas within the definition of essential services and there are areas within uh the uses section that we can improve to make that process stronger. Um which I believe is our best way to address this issue without uh opening ourselves up for liability.

That's all I got. I have a question for you, Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Um, you are aware of measures put in by the city of Detroit, correct? For detention centers, something related to this. There was a lot of I don't know if it was Councilwoman Waters that came forward or Santiago that came forward with some language. Was they are if can you recall was it a resolution? There was a resolution. They did do a resolution. I believe staff they mentioned to us they're look they're also doing the same looking at ordinances. Okay. Um but they haven't brought anything at least to the planning commission.

I I can I can speak to that. Um corporate council uh did a review uh that was uh Conrad Mallet. It was published on February 3rd a memo regarding immigration ICE enforcement and local policy. Um their conclusion was that basically if you uh you know if they did not advise that there be any ordinance changes or zoning amendment changes um that I've got that privilege and I I could have this copied and circulate this to yeah I figured as much and I'm thank you for having also the legis and also the legislative it should have been something you circulated to us a while ago

of city council it's a privilege this document. He doesn't have it was privileged. It was just published in the free press like last week, not that long ago. Um, and I do thank you for that because between today and when this was first discussed, what I was looking for was a comment from anyone that would take an action this aggressive. And I was looking for and Arbor hasn't even done it. They're probably the most liberal and wellunded city. If anybody was going to do it, they haven't touched it. Washington County is not. Detroit's not.

Yeah. So, nobody's touched it only because again, uh, a great sentiment, a great idea, you got to have something for it to stand on. It's not a matter of, um, well, if more more importantly, it's a matter of being able to stand behind something that'll stand up. Being able to stand behind something that'll actually stand up. Why don't we stand something up that we can stand behind? And if that is at the very minimum a resolution, you can author the resolution. Ham Tramik has a population three times what we have. They have a clearly visible illegal immigrant population. Clearly visible. And yet they haven't taken a stand like this as well. Probably because they don't want the smoke. They know that it will require people want to know what's going on over there and the federal government is not going to allow uh they're not going to allow precedent to be set on something that will undermine their authority not just here but across the country.

Yeah. Corporate council did indicate a concern of the federal government withholding federal funding which is what happened when that one sergeant at their discretion. Yeah. And that happened. There was a phone call that took place that about that sergeant losing her job because she contacted the federal government. That came out in the media. That's public record. And just I guess just to read this into the record, federal government by herself.

She was on her job. She pulled somebody over. They refused to license. They can't they popped up as a criminal, a vehicular criminal and other criminal. And so she asked, "What do we do?" In this instance, she made that phone call. There has been an agreement between the United States, federal government, and the city of Detroit since the city was incorporated for cooperation. We're talking over 150 years. Over these things are not hard to find if you know where to look. They're not hard to find. We have a standing agreement. We have just like we have a standing agreement with Wayne County MSP. Whenever we have a crime of signi of significant measure, the state police doesn't ask. They show up because we are they have a workaround. They have a work arrangement. And the federal government, which provides us twothirds of our budget, could very easily say, "Cool, let's go to court. We're going to hold that money, all of it, until we sort this out." This that's exactly what they told the city of Detroit. My recollection is correct that they were withholding. We that's fine. we'll go ahead and withhold all of those cooperative funds which were large millions of dollars and we are absolutely dependent on the federal government. We're on the dole as they say. So I think again I didn't write this nor did I bring it forward. This is an opportunity for discussion if it's just not legal. It's just not as it's written. So let's come up with something that is

if this is the route we're going to take. So I have a question. Yes. Um my question because my understanding with this uh this ordinance um you know I know we can't stop ICE from coming into the city. I'm very aware of that. But my thing is I thought we were prohibiting them to be able to have a building where they could if they were going to come here in the city and um detain or sustain people they would have to take them all the way to like Ramulus or Southfield or something like that. Correct.

So in my understanding are you saying you and Bosnik saying that we're not able to do that? We are not able to stop the federal government from purchasing a building and operating that building. They they have preeemption to do those things. No. Aside from our ordinance. So this ordinance would not effectively stop them from doing it. It may slow them down as we try to resist and and challenge what they are trying to do, but it it may not actually stop them from doing it. So what's wrong with resistance?

There's nothing wrong with but it just won't. If if the idea is to stop them so that they cannot do this, i.e. to prohibit that use, this ordinance will not effectively prohibit it. It just may slow them down. Okay. So then is it better if we say permit it then?

No. The the proper way to handle it is the ordinance effectively does it today. It does not permit detention facilities, ICE facilities, additional jail facilities. The ordinance does not permit that today. The protections are there. You you do not have to do any changes. We can do some changes. We can increase the definitions, provide the definitions that were included, uh improve some of the other definitions so it's more clear so there is not a confusion where someone may try to fit it in under an essential services uh a government agency or utility use. We can definitely do those improvements to make it clear, but the actual act of prohibiting uh those facilities and ICE specifically is is where the challenge is.

So, have we done that? Have we done? You said there are means and ways to make things clear. Have we done that? Has any of that been done by you or legal? That is the conversation we're having today. So, as I mentioned, those definitions, nothing y'all put in writing to share with us to read over, nothing of that nature. No, it's what you have here. Okay. This is it. So, the definitions in your draft A, B, and D, we can we recommend you push those forward to the planning commission to be included into your ordinance.

We also recommend that um and if you want to put this in a formal memo, we can. We also recommend that uh the essential services definition in the ordinance also be clarified to ensure that detention centers are not included in the definition of essential services. So at least it's clear that it can't slide in under a utility use or an essential service. Okay? If we make those improvements, it it will be a stronger ordinance in protection for that. Okay? And it will continue to be a nonpermitted use. Okay? So this process now from this point on since the attorney has done their part and and the McKenna group has has done their part. I move that we send this over to plan. We don't take votes.

I think you what you would do is you could amend your agenda today at the meeting to add the item under council affairs to move this amended ordinance to the planning commission. Okay. It's not a problem. Yeah. Okay. So I have two questions. one for you and then one for the president. Um my question when you said make it clear, who who are we making it clear to?

The interpreters of the zoning ordinance. So the ordinance says for uses that are not permitted. So I think it's on that page 12. The zoning administrator will make that decision. And currently in that role, I kind of act that as the zoning administrator would make that determination and then it would go to the zoning board of appeals. in that process between the zoning board of appeals and the zoning administrator is where that extra definition will come up and it will provide the teeth to the zoning board of appeals. Okay. So that's who it's going to be clear to zoning administrator and zoning of appeals. Yes. Okay. Okay. And then my last question to the president.

Um you were saying that make an example of us. What did you mean by make an example of us? So resist. So here we are. We are a small municipality. We have an ordinance. Can you speak in the microphone? I can't hear you.

We have an ordinance. We have a position. We're like, "This is our town. You can't do this here." What do we do? We have to file a case against the federal government in federal court. And so, why don't we resist? Sure, we resist. The federal government looks at this ordinance and says, "This is a bad idea. If this catches on this, we have people who with no legal experience, purely out of emotion, drafted an ordinance that would limit the federal government, the federal government. And so what they would do is they would say, "Okay, fine. We're going to get this out. We're going to string these people out on motions at every court appearance costs money. So, first they'll string it out. They'll still be able to operate under emergency powers. They'll string it out and then when it comes time for the court battle, it's not going to be a battle. It's going to be the entire attorney general for the federal government from down at the Magname Building here against our handful of attorneys who will have to work around the clock, billable hours to keep up with them. They have an entire building dedicated to legal precedent. We have a handful of intrepid attorneys. They will smother us legally. It'll cost us a fortune. It'll So any and anybody who has a real working knowledge of how the law works, anybody who has a real working knowledge and who does not have an unlimited budget would say that's not a road I want to go down because they're going to pull case law as far back as they can go. So you're saying that we do this and the federal government doesn't do anything about it or they'll be like okay you're saying that

there's other municipalities and other cities that will follow suit. So you say resist. So let's just go with the hypothetical if I mean everything is hypothetical.

Absolutely. So Novi and Highland Park share a very unique common feature. They are at the center of major freeway interchanges. So they could have picked Novi. They could have picked Highland Park. Either one is ideally the same with warehouse space. Okay. If they decided for whatever reason the federal government at a state of war decided we're going to operate in this particular way, they're going to just do it. And then if we say as a community, we don't want you to do that. We're going to resist. Well, then they'll say, okay, fine, then resist. Let's go ahead and play the legal battle. It's like getting into a fight with a trained fighter. It looks cute on TV until you get in the ring. It It looks completely different. And so we will be setting up whenever this would occur. If they ever decided to, not just now, but we'll make this decision under our let's say we approve this under our term. And then they had to go stand the test of the legal battle when we're not here. We've already we I have a print off on the legal department. In the first three years that we were here, we cost the city, this city council, this city council cost the city millions of dollars. I asked for a report. This city council cost the city millions of dollars that should have gone in the infrastructure. This city council on some foolish stuff related to weed and people talking about somebody else in in chambers. That simple amount cost the city millions of dollars. Imagine what what it would look like if for whatever reason the federal government decided Highland Park is convenient. same way Henry Ford did. And we had the audacity to say you're the you you you can't tell her you can't do that here. This is our city, our poor black city of 8,000 people, only 2500 of which actually own property and the other 6,000 people are renters here. We look like we're fit for the slaughter. And it's not my opinion. It's the analysis at hand. It's not a smart business decision. It's just not

Okay. It's just not. I heard you. Okay, that's only that's my opinion. Miss Manica, please. Good afternoon. Excuse my chartiness. I did have opportunity to go over this and talk with building and did the several others. Did you Did you get this one?

And so I just wanted Thank you. I just wanted to um before we vote because I know that was coming. There's no vote. There's no vote. I mean no vote but before we pass it on that we're going to pass on this new one or so we will just the definition the definitions and then we'll include the other uh changes to the essential services and you section and then we will include all of those all of that language with the planning commission we'll have a public hearing and then they'll take action and then they refer back to this board. So, I anticipate uh planning commission will meet. We're at the end of March. So, second Tuesday in April. Second Wednesday. I apologize. Second Wednesday.

Second Wednesday. Yep. I believe that's the 9th. Um following that meeting, they'll make a recommendation. So, you could possibly have it before the end of April. Okay. Possibly uh worst case beginning of May. And let me let me just remind you the role of the planning commission. The planning commission essentially rubber stamps based on the charter and the law which is the existing ordinances. I trust that they will do a thorough job. Sure you do.

Particularly with new members to ask a lot of questions but they will be it would it's a it's a very pragmatic process. It is non-emotional. It's very straightforward and pragmatic. It they have to check certain boxes and that's it. There's no emotion in it at all. I should know from being there. And so what they'll send us back is not a sanitized or watered down version. It is what is feasible. It's what's permissible. It's what's allowable. That's their job only. Their job as the planning commission is to make sure that we are within the boundaries of the law and the parameters that are set by our community already. So they have no feelings at all involved in this process. For the record, the uh second Wednesday is the 8th of April. I don't know if everybody caught that.

And then Mr. Bosik, you had wanted to offer something. Yeah. Just just the eth or the nth. Just the eth. The nth is a hold on, Mr. Prozer. I'm sorry. The uh the 9th is a Thursday. You said it's the Wednesday. Second Wednesday. The second Wednesday of April, correct? Correct. Is the 8th, just so everybody knows. Okay. I'll turn it over you, Mr. Prosnic. Go ahead. There. Yeah, there's a 18page uh report from Detroit City Council Legislative Policy Division and then a seven six just over six page report from Detroit City Council's Corporate Council. I could have these photocopied or have these distributed all council ask if we could you want to workshop this again in April on the entire council.

We have no choice. We have to do that in fact and I just wanted to just I'm going to piggyback on what you said. They have a tell me what the what body provided that uh the Detroit City Council Corporate Council Mr. Mallet and the Detroit uh city council legislative policy division.

Okay. So let me pause right there. the Detroit City Council legislative policy division. Let's assume it's three people. Let's assume it's more. They have an entire division devoted to pressure testing these things before they get to council. We have us with the assumption that we know. I will tell you I don't know in a heartbeat. And so let's just keep that in mind that the city of Detroit, 45 times larger than us with 650,000 residents, has an entire division pressure testing these to make sure that they that they don't get it wrong.

It is 654. Unless we have anything further related to this, we have established that this is going to go to planning commission. They will adjudicate. They will make recommendations working in concert with the McKenna planning department and the legal department to provide an updated more streamlined and within the legal framework document for us to review once again and at that time I will schedule a workshop to address that. Sounds good. All right. Thank you. It is 6:54. I'll call the workshop meeting ajourned. Thank you.