►
From YouTube: Public Health and Safety Committee Meeting 12-09-21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
F
G
G
Next
item
is
approval
of
the
agenda.
I
have
a
motion
by
commissioner
woodward.
Do
I
have
support
from
commissioner.
I
I
I
Would
it
be
our
right
to
move
the
creating
the
school
mental
health
fund
initiative
up?
First.
I
G
A
A
C
G
K
K
G
Is
there
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
speak
to
items
on
the
agenda?
I
do
have
one
person
who
would
sign
up
to
speak
to
these
items.
His
name
is
brian
partojian.
He
stepped
out
he'll,
be
back
so
when
he
returns
I'll.
Allow
him
to
speak
in
public
comment
for
items
on
the
agenda.
Otherwise,
this
portion
of
public
comment
is
closed.
G
G
Any
commissioner
ginseng.
B
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
so
just
to
comment
I
mean
I
know
this
is
under
away
for
some
time,
but
in
the
events
of
the
last
week
or
so
at
oxford,
high
school
I've
talked
with
chairman
woodward,
commissioner
spitz
and
some
others
and
from
my
personal
view
I
think
this
board,
and
hopefully
this
committee
can
come
together
and
start
thinking
about
mental
health
even
broader,
and
in
addition
to
that,
I
do
think
we
think
about
preparedness
and
training
from
the
sheriff's
department,
and
I
also
think
we
think
about
processes
relative
to
individuals
being
able
to
obtain
semi-automatic
weapons
within
oakland
county.
B
G
Thank
you.
I
I
agree
with
you.
We've
had
many
ideas
even
before
this
last
week,
one
idea
we're
embracing,
is
looking
at
a
licensed
mental
health
person
in
each
school
district.
Another
idea
is
looking
for
training
in
education,
for
teachers
and
social
workers
and
who
to
call
when
something
remiss
happens
and
more
so.
There
are
lots
of
ideas
out
there.
It's
what
will
be
a
best
benefit
and
most
productive
for
the
people
we
serve.
Commissioner
ginza.
B
High
school
would
have
been
more
troublesome
with
more
casualties
and
we
cannot
afford
to
diminish
or
or
cause
our
training
and
preparedness
to
be
delinquent.
We
have
the
funds,
we're
getting
lots
of
federal
funds,
it's
a
choice,
it's
a
commitment,
it's
a
decision,
and
I
know
in
talking
with
county
executive
coulter,
I
100
understand
we
have
a
feasibility
study.
Feasibility
study
gets
you
nothing
without
a
commitment
of
intent
and
a
commitment
of
intent.
B
Is
that
we're
going
to
do
something
so,
like
I
said
more
to
come,
but
clearly
it's
an
issue
that
you
never
think
it
could
hit
close
to
home.
It's
hit
close
to
home.
It's
here.
L
L
This
commission
did
assist
me
in
making
sure
we
had
an
extra
officer
there
per
what
they
requested
and
I'm
just
happy
that
they're
looking
at
that-
and
I
just
wanted
to
put
it
on
the
table
if,
for
some
reason
they
fall
short,
can
we
make
sure
our
schools
get
that
support
to
make
sure
they
get
those
officers?
I
went
to
a
school
that
had
metal
detectors.
We
always
have
police
officers
and
security,
and
I
appreciate
it
because,
especially
with
the
times
and
what
happened
in
oxford,
you
know
it's
needed.
L
A
G
G
G
M
The
sheriff's
opposed
to
this.
We
feel
this
should
be
a
three-year
contract.
Just
like
everybody
else
excuse
me:
we've
had
this
relationship
with
the
parks
and
recs
going
back
to
1990
when
we
first
started
contracting
with
them.
L
J
M
Is
that
in
the
contract
yeah
that
that's
basically
it's
a
three-year
rate?
Okay,
when
we
call
it
a
three-year
contract,
either
party
can
cancel
with
90
days
notice.
That's
standard
in
every
contract
cancel
the
contract,
they
can
cancel
the
contract,
but
they
can
modify
it
at
any
time
they
want.
How
many
times
have
I
come
before
this
committee
and
said:
pontiac
wants
to
add
seven
deputies
and
they
added
seven
deputies?
Okay,
so
another
committee
wants
to
reduce
deputies
by
one.
M
We
went
through
that
in
2008
when
the
when
the
stock
market,
when
everything
crashed
and
the
housing
market
crashed,
we
will
amend
any
contract
as
long
as
it
doesn't
place
deputies
in
jeopardy.
In
terms
of
safety,
we
will
amend
the
contract
if
parks
wants
to
reduce
the
number
of
deputies.
Fine,
but
just
say
no,
there's
a
lieutenant
a
sergeant
three
full-timers
and
58
part-timers.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
member
of
the
committee,
to
respond
directly
to
commissioner
hoffman's
question.
I
think
it's
important
to
say
that
we
cannot,
on
our
own,
amend
the
contractor.
We'd
have
to
amend
the
contract
by
taking
to
the
park
commission,
bringing
a
new,
amended
contract,
that's
negotiated
and
agreed
upon,
and
have
you
vote
upon
it?
So
it's
not
that
this
contract
as
written,
allows
us
to
change
the
level
of
service
the
number
of
officers
assigned
to
us
as
it's
not
a
surprise
to
any
of
you.
F
We've
had
a
lot
of
volatility
in
terms
of
the
operations
of
the
parks
caused
by
covet
19,
and
certainly
the
labor
shortage.
We've
had
to
cut
back
on
services
hours
operations,
the
waterford
oaks
wave
pool
was
closed
entirely
during
the
last
season.
We're
going
to
be
making
a
major
push
to
staff
up,
so
we
don't
have
that
happen
again,
but
I
think
we
all
know
the
difficult
labor
situation
we're
dealing
with.
What
we
simply
were
asking
for
here
was
a
little
bit
more
time
to
conduct
an
internal
assessment
of
what
our
needs
are
moving
forward.
F
If
your
preference
is
to
has
a
have
us
agree
to
a
three-year
contract
that
we're
not
sure
that
we're
comfortable
with
the
levels
of
service
and
then
come
back
and
amend
it,
you
know
that
that
is
certainly.
You
know
your
right
as
a
commission,
our
our
preference
and
our
parks
commission
had
voted
to
request
a
one-year
duration
contract
because
of
these
issues
and
the
need
to
make
this
assessment,
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
pretty
major
line
item
in
our
budget.
F
It's
about
1.2
million
dollars
and
it's
gone
up
about
300
000
in
the
last
10
years,
so
it
you
know.
I
hate
to
be
at
this
point
at
the
end
of
the
table
disagreeing
with
my
friend
here
and
have
the
you
know
looming
over
our
heads
that
we
can
either
take
it
or
leave
it
and
not
have
law
enforcement
services.
So
I
guess
you
know
we'll
have
to
hand
it
back
over
to
you
and
what
your
your
pleasure
is-
and
I,
our
chairman,
is
here
as
well,
so.
B
Yeah,
I
I
just-
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
understand,
because
originally
I've
had
a
few
discussions
around
this,
this
inability
to
get
to
a
point
of
understanding
what
the
needs
are
and
can
it
be
accommodated
in
a
contract,
and
that's
why
I
understood
90
days
to
try
to
get
it
figured
out,
maybe
a
reasonable
path.
B
M
The
rates
are
being
set
by
you
today,
hopefully
right
for
the
next
three
years.
If
the
parks
wants
to
reduce
staffing,
all
you
have
to
do
is
come
to
us
and
say
we
want
to
reduce
staffing,
but
I
will
say
this:
we
should
be
consulted
about
what
the
proper
staffing
levels
are.
We
are
in
the
law
enforcement
business
and
we
got
a
pretty
good
idea
of
what
can
be
done
and
what
can't
be
done
so.
B
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
so
if
I
have
10
people
at
a
piece
rate
of
x
and
I
sign
a
three-year
contract,
my
piece
rate
of
x
are
guaranteed
for
three
years.
Yes,
sir,
if
I
come
back
to
you
in
january
and
say:
hey
we've
worked
together,
we
figured
out,
I
don't
need
10x,
I
need
6x.
My
piece
rate
for
6x
is
still
the
same
piece
rate.
Is
that
correct.
M
When
you
say
open
the
contract,
it's
a
con.
The
contract
has
been
vetted
by
corporation
council,
okay,
it's
the
same
contract.
Basically,
it's
been
in
place
for
multiple
years
right.
What
what
we're
debating
here,
I
guess,
is
what
is
the
proper
staffing
levels
for
the
parks
and
we're
more
than
happy
to
sit
down
with
the
parks
and
say:
okay,
if
you
think
you're
overstaffed?
Let
us
look
at
that,
and
you
decide
that,
because
of
economics
that
you
have
to
reduce
staffing,
we
will
accommodate
them.
B
F
If
I
can
manage
chair,
I
mean
it
really
comes
down
to
the
level
of
service.
The
number
of
officers,
I'm
three
weeks
on
the
job
and
they're
trying
to
you
know
make
this
assessment.
So
it's
a
question
of
whether
we
should
enter
into
a
three-year
contract
without
knowing
the
answer
to
that
or
come
back
later
after
signing
a
contract
that
we're
not
sure
we're
comfortable
with
those
levels
of
service
and
ask
you
to
amend
it.
So
you
know.
H
H
M
G
F
On
this,
we
did
communicate
two
weeks
ago
that
we'd
like
to
reduce
the
duration
of
contract
for
a
year.
The
sheriff's
office
is
not
agreeing
to
that
and
because
we
don't
have
an
agreement,
that's
why
we're
suggesting
a
90-day
extension.
This
is
pretty
standard
process
here.
If
you
cannot
come
to
agreement
on
a
contract
to
ask
for
an
extension
to
continue
negotiations
and
come
back
with
something
that
is
commissioned,
that
we
both
agree
upon.
H
I
I
just
want
to
say
again
that
that
mr
ward
is
new
and
he
wants
to
look
at
this
and
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
can't
have
a
90-day
extension
on
the
contract
as
it
turns
out.
I
mean
I,
I
think
that
there's
ways
to
save
I
you
know
and
I'm
willing
to
sit
down
with
mr
mccabe
or
bouchard
or
whoever
we
talk
to
to
try
to
get
this
ironed
out.
But
if
we
do
a
contract
for
90
days,
we
can
at
least
sit
down
and
do
that
so.
J
I
guess
if
you
want
to
know
how
fast
90
days
goes
by
go,
borrow
some
money
from
the
bank
for
90
days,
it'll
just
be
so
fast.
I
have,
I
tend
to
agree.
I
I
honestly
under
sheriff.
I
don't
90
days
is
not
long
we're
in
the
winter.
So
that's
I'm
not
opposed
to
that.
I
think
that's
just
part
of
negotiation.
My.
M
Point,
sir,
is
that
can
be
easily
done
again?
This
is
a
three-year
rate,
in
essence,
not
a
three-year
contract.
It
doesn't
commit
them
to
have
this
for
three
years.
If,
on
january
1st,
he
comes
to
us
and
says
you
know,
we
want
to
cut
back
one
deputy
and
10
part-timers,
okay,
we'll
look
at
it,
we'll
bring
it
to
the
board
and
you
do
that.
G
D
Thank
you
chair,
lube's
apologies.
It
sounds
like
so
two
things
one.
I
I
want
to
echo
what
commissioner
gilbert
said.
It
sounds
fairly
reasonable
that
someone
three
weeks
on
the
job
is
just
trying
to
get
a
handle
on
things
and
so
to
give
them
90
days
of
grace,
to
figure
it
out.
D
F
F
L
L
It
does
feel
like
it's
one
of
them.
We
don't
got
another
option
and
I
appreciate
that
because
we
all
have
tried
to
work
with
the
sheriff
department
in
any
way
shape
or
form
to
appease
whatever
they
needed
to
keep
them
going
and
then
for
the
sensitivity
to
say
that
statement
at
a
time
of
what
is
going
on
in
our
county.
L
B
What's
the
difference
between
signing
this
contract
now
and
you
don't
even
have
to
worry
about
90
days,
you
got
365
days
times
three
to
get
it
figured
out.
I
understand
that
there's
a
process
that
a
change
would
have
to
come
back
to
this
board,
be
voted
on
and
and
then
move
forward,
but
we
have
done
that
a
lot
in
different
communities
to
add
people
and
take
people
away.
I
guess
I'm
missing
the
argument,
because
90
days,
what
you're
saying
is
I'm
going
to
try
to
negotiate
a
quantity
of
people?
B
If
you
sign
the
contract
now
and
if,
if
what
I'm
hearing
is
an
intention
to
be
able
to
open
it
up,
isn't
it
six
one
way?
Half
dozen
the
other
I
mean
it
seems
to
me
as
a
business
person
if
I
were
being
selfish,
I'd
lock
the
rate
and
give
myself
as
much
time
needed
to
figure
out
what
I
really
had
to
have
from
a
quantity
standpoint.
H
I
guess
to
mr
gingel's
comment:
I
I
believe
that
the
rate
is
important
and
I
believe
we're
going
to
pay
the
same
rate,
no
matter
if
it's
a
90-day
extension
or
if
we
sign
a
three-year
contract,
but
being
the
fact
that
mr
ward
is
new
on
the
job
he's
looking
at
ways
to
try
to
save
money
for
the
for
the
county
parks,
and
we
want
to
look
at
the
need
for
officers
in
our
parks
department.
H
I
don't
see
why
we
can't
do
a
90-day
extension
on
the
contract,
so
we
can
sit
down
with
the
sheriff
and
discuss
this
and
try
to
get
it
straight.
I
don't
think
that
it's
I
mean
I've
told
mike
before
I'm
all
for
this
training
center.
I
think
it's
something
that's
absolutely
needed,
but
with
the
attitude
he's
showing
me
today,
I
don't
know
I
can
change
my
mind.
B
B
Think
that's
why
it's
important
to
take
out
personalities
and
and
emotions,
and
I
appreciate
what
you're
saying
and
yeah
90-day
extension
could
be
reasonable.
You
might
get
to
the
same
end
point
on
rates.
You
probably
would
because
they're
set
consistent
with
every
contract
right.
So
that's
why
I'm
saying?
Isn't
it
six
one
way?
Half
dozen
the
other-
and
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it's
our
job
to
provide
public
health,
safety
and
welfare.
L
I
just
wanted
to
understand
process.
Wasn't
a
discussion
had
about
this
situation?
Isn't
it
a
board
over
there
that
governs
the
perks
right,
so
this
was
a
recommendation
recommendation.
Let
me
clear
this
for
everybody
in
this
room.
This
was
a
recommendation
that
came
from
that
board.
Correct
that
govern
our
parks,
correct.
F
That's
recommendation:
we
weren't
able
to
come
to
agreement
upon
that,
and
so
that's
why
we're
just
asking
for
a
little
bit
more
time
to
to
have
a
finalized
agreement
that
the
parks,
commission
and
the
sheriff
and
county
board
of
commissioners
can
all
agree
upon.
That's
that's
really.
The
only
purpose
here,
if
the,
if
the
commission
would
prefer
that
we
sign
a
contract
and
the
in
the
parks
commission
is
comfortable
with
it
and
we
come
back
and
amend
that
contract
within
months.
F
E
So
the
parks
commission
recommended
a
year.
Sheriff's
department
turned
that
down
you're
coming
back
asking
for
90
days
with
the
understanding
that
you
want
to
work
with
the
sheriff.
So
there's
I
don't
understand
the
slight.
I
don't
understand
the
anger,
I
mean
we
want.
Everybody
wants
and
values
the
services
our
sheriff
provides.
There
is
no
attempt
here
to
to
change
that.
Nobody
wants
to
change
that.
M
I
understand
that
ma'am.
What
I'm
saying
is
we're
more
than
happy
to
negotiate
that
on
a
standard
three-year
contract
three-year
rate.
Let
me
say
this:
look
at
a
lot
of.
Emotions
have
been
going
on
here.
Okay,
so
the
sheriff
said
what
he
said:
we're
not
gonna
leave
the
parks
unprotected.
Okay,
that's
not
gonna
happen.
If
we
don't
have
a
contract,
you
don't
pay
us.
Well,
then
the
county
general
fund
will
pick
it
up.
I
guess,
but
the
point
being
is
this
is
a
last
minute
thing
that
occurred.
M
Okay,
we
have
had
this
contract
in
place
for
years
and
years
and
years.
It
is
so
simple
to
add
and
delete
positions.
As
long
as
we
sit
down
with
them,
we
come
to
an
agreement.
There
is
no
difference,
there's
no
difference
why
we
need
a
90-day
contract,
a
90-day
extension
to
do
that.
We
can
do
that
with
a
three-year
three-year
contract
rate.
L
I
just
am
kind
of
confused
about
the
one
year
versus
the
three-year
parameters
and
how
a
90-day
extension
would
affect
that
because
it
looks
to
me
like
a
lot
of
the
discussion
from
the
sheriff's
department
is
in
regards
to
change
and
change
is
hard.
L
It's
the
frustration,
my
my
question
and
concern
is
this:
is
the
frustration
just
related
to
the
possibility
that
there
will
not
commence
a
three-year
contract
behind
this
process?.
M
Every
other
community
is
agreeing
to
a
three-year
contract,
which
has
been
the
tradition.
We've
had
five-year
contracts.
We've
got
three-year
contracts
when
the
economy
tanked
in
208,
we
had
a
couple
of
one-year
contracts.
Okay,
so
generally
the
average
has
been
three
years
so
so
we
want
to
keep
parks
in
the
same
in
the
same
place
as
all
the
other
communities.
M
L
F
I
can't
commission
you
two
important
points
in
2016
2010,
2011
2012.
We
had
one
year
contracts
across
the
board
for
our
law
enforcement,
so
to
say
that
I've
always
been
three
years
is
not.
I
didn't
say
that
now
to
do
an
idea.
Extension
does
not
seem
unreasonable
when
you
cannot
come
to
terms
I
mean
if
you
could
not
come
to
terms
with
one
of
the
communities
you
know
rather
than
ending
law
enforcement
services
for
one
of
those
communities,
I
think
he
would
probably
give
them
the
same
leeway.
They
were
asking
for
for
parks.
F
G
J
B
I
guess
I'm
just
going
to
ask:
I
know
we
have
commissioner
mcgill
race
chair
and
we
have
chris
ward
who's.
The
executive
director
is
the
intention,
and
I
know
it
takes
a
vote
of
the
parks
board.
Is
the
intention
of
the
parks
department
to
enter
into
a
three
year
or
multiple
year
contract?
Is
that
the
intention
of
the
of
the
department
of
the
parks.
F
Group,
I
can
respond
if
you
want,
mr
chair.
Absolutely
we
simply
just
wanted
to
go
about
this
process
of
assessing
what
our
need
is.
The
contract
not
only
ties
us
to
the
rates,
it
ties
us
to
the
number
and
officers
the
you
know
the
positions,
so
you
know
having
this
90-day
period
would
be
helpful
to
us
to
make
that
assessment.
Before
we
sign
a
three-year
contract,
I
mean
in
any
other
business
situation
where
you're
signing
a
three-year
contract.
You're
tying
yourself
to
the
terms.
F
B
B
F
If
I
can
ma'am
chair,
if
that
is
the
commitment
here,
I
don't
know
that
we
have
any
objection
as
long
as
we
can
come
back
to
make
those
changes.
You
know
it
did
not
make
sense
for
us
with
the
commission
having
voted
for
a
one-year
duration
contract
to
you
know,
agree
to
something.
That's
not
agreed
upon.
No
90
days
made
sense
to
continue
the
conversation.
F
If
this
commission
is
saying
if
the
sheriff's
office
is
saying,
you
know
we'll
be
back
here
in
a
couple
of
months,
if
we
determine
that
we
need
a
lower
level
of
staffing
and
that's
what
your
preference
is
to
reopen
a
contract
rather
than
continue
contract
negotiations.
We
can
respect
that.
I
mean
I
could
see
where
the
commission's
coming
from
and
why
they're
being
put
in
it's
not.
B
Let's
let
me
let
me
ask
a
question.
I
mean
undershirts
on
record,
saying
he'll.
Do
it
right
so
to
me,
that's
done,
but
let's
say
you
do
a
90-day
extension
and
then
you
settle
on
a
two-year
nine-month
contract
and
we
approve
a
one-year
contract
here.
Aren't
you
still
going
to
have
to
come
back
to
us
because
you're
going
to
be
sitting
with
the
one-year
contract-
and
you
just
said
you
ultimately
would
like
to
have
a
two
year-
nine
month,
you're
coming
back
to
us
either
way
it
doesn't
add
up
to
me.
I
G
G
F
We're
really
talking
about
a
pretty
minimal
difference
here
about
whether
you
continue
negotiations
or
you
sign
a
contract
that
you
immediately
know
you're
going
to
want
to
amend.
You
know
you
know
the
likelihood
is
based
on
the
information
I've
gotten
from
my
staff,
but
I'm
three
weeks
on
the
job
here
is.
We
would
probably
want
to
look
at
some
reductions
to
be
commensurate
with
the
reductions
in
operations
and
our
you
know
the
impact
on
our
facilities.
I
just
you
know
three
weeks
on
don't
feel
comfortable
telling
the
undersheriff
cut
these
positions
right
now.
F
B
To
amend
the
amendment
and
to
change
the
90
days
to
the
three-year
term,
because
ultimately,
mr
ward's
going
to
be
coming
back
to
us
multiple
times
anyway.
So
I'd
like
to
amend
the
amendment
strike
the
90
days
and
put
in
that,
they
agreed
to
a
a
three-year
term
with
the
understanding
that
they
will
be
able
to
reduce
the
quantities
of
deputies
based
on
a
if
needed,
based
on
the
discussion
and
testimony
from
the
undersheriff,
then
he
doesn't
have
to
come
back
here
anymore.
B
Well,
I
guess
he
would
for
the
for
the
amendment
of
the
resources.
So
so
that's
my
amendment.
J
G
G
H
C
Madam
chair,
I
am
so
sorry
to
interject
commissioner
mcgilvery
just
made
a
second
on
what.
G
F
B
G
H
I
I
G
D
Thank
you,
chair
yeah,
so
what
chair
woodward
was
we
voted
to
amend
just
now:
the
2019
to
21,
standard
law
enforcement
services
for
parks
and
rec
commission.
But
now
what
we're
looking
at
is,
if
I
am
looking
at
the
board
packet
right
is
7b
standard
law
enforcement
services
for
parks
and
rec
commission
for
22
to
24.
D
F
B
F
B
I
B
G
N
I
actually
came
here
tonight
originally
to
tell
you
thank
you
for
the
items
that
are
going
to
be
on
the
agenda
as
far
as
the
police
contracts
that
are
coming
up
and
the
passage
of
those
my
understanding
now
just
from
sidebars
is
that
it
wasn't
exactly
going
where
I
thought
it
was
going
to
go
and
what
I'd
like
to
say
is.
You
know
I
have
700
almost
800
members
that
are
very
concerned
about
their
future
with
these
contracts.
I
understand
that
originally
there's
supposed
to
be
a
three-year.
N
Then
there
was
some
talk
of
it
moving
to
a
one
year.
Now
it's
back
to
a
three-year,
but
there
might
be
some
amendments
to
it,
and
I
can't
express
to
you
enough
with
what
has
happened
over
the
course
of
just
the
last
couple
weeks,
but
in
general
in
this
country
how
how
important
it
is
that
there's
some
stability
for
my
members
and
they
come
to
me
and
they're,
worried
about
you
know
if
it's
if
it's
a
one-year
deal
and
it's
not
a
three-year
deal
or
if
it's
a
three-year
deal,
but
it
got
changed
last
minute.
N
You
know.
How
is
that
gonna
affect
me?
Am
I
gonna
have
a
job
in
two
years.
You
know
if,
if
on
the
one-year
deal
it
still
stays
at,
you
know
whatever
the
percentages
are
or
whatever
it
was
contracted
to
be,
but
then
that
third
and
fourth
year
or
second
and
third
year
get
changed
and
there
could
be
potential
layoffs
because
of
it
or
there
could
be
townships.
N
There's
a
lot
of
very
very
concerned
deputies
with
their
future
right
now,
and
I
I
can't
implore
you
to
move
forward
with
the
contracts
as
they
were
set
I
mean
my
understanding
is
that
they
were
set
in
an
agreement
with
the
townships,
the
sheriff's
department,
and
you
know
whatever
governing
body
handles
it
on
this
end,
so
that's
pretty
much
where
I'm
at
I
want
to.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
your
guys
after
I
really
do
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say.
Thank
you
very
much.
G
L
If
we
could
just
allow
the
sheriff
to
kind
of
speak
for
a
minute
because
he's
been
trying
to
visit,
if
we
can
thank
you.
O
Thank
you.
Well,
first,
I'm
sorry,
I
have
to
be
here
because
I
had
to
leave
going
to
a
family
that
had
lost
their
child
to
be
here.
The
last
understanding
I
had
is
that
we
had
an
agreement
with
the
county
executive
for
a
three-year
deal
very
specific
contract
language.
We
already
have
communities
that
have
agreed
to
the
contracts
they
passed
them
and
today
that
agreement
is
not
going
forward
is
what
I'm
told
I
was
called
in
the
middle
of
this
tragedy.
O
All
I
would
implore
you
to
do
is
understand.
This
was
agreed
to
by
the
executive
by
the
sheriff's
office
and
the
contract
communities.
If
you
don't
like
the
process
going
forward,
please,
let's
address
it
going
forward.
Not
today,
can
we
just
get
these
contracts
done
to
give
my
police
officers
that
are
emotionally
raw,
some
stability,
that
the
contracts
are
done
and
one
of
these
contracts
is
for
oxford?
O
F
O
G
G
L
O
L
O
L
I
just
have
one
question
for
clarity,
be
it
at
any
of
those
contracts
that
we
have
with
those
cities
if,
like
he
said
in
a
future
date,
there
are
some
discussions
that
need
to
be
had.
Can
that
process
come
back
before
us
and
we
can
then
review
it?
If
that's
the
case,
I
would
hope
so.
No,
no,
I
don't
want
to
hope.
L
O
Okay
and
the
only
thing
I'll
mention
because
I'm
told
about
the
parks
is
understand,
our
clauses
have
a
90
day
out,
so
you
know
we're
never
going
to
abandon
anybody,
but
anybody
can
cancel
a
contract
with
90
days.
So
if,
if
there's
a
concern
by
the
parks,
they
can
shut
the
contract
down
after
90
days,
so
all
of
this
is
already
built
in
all
the
contracts
we've
been
doing
this
for
years.
O
Super
participation,
cooperation
with
executive's
office.
Please
please,
please,
I'm
sorry
to
slow
your
meeting
down.
We
have
so
many
balls
in
the
air
we're
all
emotionally
raw
and
tired.
We
just
need
a
little
help
to
get
these
things
done
tonight,
so
that
this
is
one
thing
we
don't
have
to
think
or
worry
about.
G
G
G
B
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
clear:
we
have
all
the
community
law
enforcement's
on
the
consent
agenda,
including
pontiac
lake
oregon,
my
township
oxford,
others.
Those
are
all
three-year
contracts
from
what
is
said
here.
Is
there
any
intent
that
we
are
going
to
modify
those
contracts
to
be
anything
other
than
a
three-year
contract?
I
know
we're
addressing
them
at
this
point
in
time.
I'm
asking
you
when
they
become
addressed,
is
anything
changing
or
are
we
voting
the
consent
agenda
up
or
down,
as
is.
G
J
G
I
On
discussion
on
that,
so
I
mean
I
think
this
is
what's
been
communicated.
I
think,
there's
a
three
I
mean
there
are
three
things.
I
first
want
to
say
that
this
board
in
this
county
has
stood
side
by
side
with
our
law
enforcement
community.
Always
we
have
always
stepped
up.
We
have
always
supported
in
the
last
48
hours,
I've
heard
all
sorts
of
assertions
or
concerns
or
rumors
spreading.
Some
that
concern
who
mentioned
my
name
directly,
is
leading
some
sort
of
effort
to
cause
harm
to
our
law
enforcement,
and
it's
it's
downright
infuriating.
I
It
would
be
the
same
infuriating
I
mean,
I
think,
if,
if
our
sheriff
and
our
undersheriff
being
told
that
they're
not
doing
their
job,
that
they
do
well
in
this
county,
the
I
mean
the
discussion
around
this
and
let's
just
talk
about
like
our
role
as
a
governing
body
on
these
contracts
that
we
have
the
responsibility
of
setting
these
setting.
The
rates
of
what
things
are.
This
board
has
been
virtually
locked
out
of
this
conversation
out
of
this
discussion,
and
what
do
I
mean
when
things
were
brought
up?
I
I
These
contracts,
when
I
say
subsidize
that
there's
indirect
costs
that
are
not
being
fully
captured
by
these
communities
now
almost
everyone
around
this
this
table
represents
communities
in
which
their
their
community
pays
the
full
cost
of
law
enforcement
and
then
to
be
brought
to
the
tension
that
there
are
indirect
costs
for
these
contracts.
That
are
not
that
some
communities
are
not
paying
the
full
share
of
what
it
costs.
It
is
very
good
they
are
the
these
are.
These
are
very
good
services.
I
They
have
served
us
well,
we
saw
it
in
a
complete
demonstration
with
the
strategy.
As
I
mean
as
recent
in
in
oxford,
we
have
a
fiduciary
responsibility
to
also
address
those
things
and
what
this
amounts
to.
As
I
understand-
and
I
know,
we've
got
our
fiscal
experts
in
the
house
here
of
roughly
a
3.5
annual
million
dollar
subsidy
going
to
underwrite
these.
I
mean
the
these
contracts.
I
think
absolutely
need
to
be
addressed,
are
some
of
the
things
appropriately.
I
mean.
Is
there
some
effort
to
address
it?
Yes,
does
it
fully
address
it?
I
No,
and
I
mean,
has
it
from
a
fiduciary
responsibility
to
address
budgetary
issues.
It
is,
it
is
the
responsibility
of
this
board
to
approve
inset
rates,
and
so
there
is,
I
mean
I
think
the
sheriff
mentioned.
I
mean
a
lack
of
process
of
engagement
into
this
process.
There
is
not
like
a
lack
of
effort
about
highlighting
this
issue.
This
issue
is
coming
up.
We
need
to
address
this
issue,
I
mean
I
had
and
the
undersheriff
was
gracious
to
come
down
to
my
neck
of
the
woods.
I
I'm
right
before
thanksgiving
is
the
first
meaningful
conversation
around
this,
but
I
also
know
you
know
that
the
the
indirect
cost
is
a
major
issue
that
needs
to
be
addressed.
You
should
also
know
that
if
this
board
was
supportive
of
making
sure
at
the
indirect
costs,
then
the
executive
does
support
that.
It's
a
board
decision.
These
are
interlocal
agreements
with
a
local
community
that
need
to
be
worked
out.
Now
we
find
ourselves
at
this
end
of
the
line
I
mean
rushing.
We
knew
these
contracts
were
expiring
at
the
end
of
the
year.
I
I
know
that
there's
been
conversations
with
you
from
multiple
sources
over
the
year
about
this,
so
this
doesn't
come
as
any
surprise.
These
contracts
bake
into
them
expenses
charge
the
communities
for
services
or
equipment
that
they're
not
going
to
get
that
we
haven't
even
been
able
to
approve
yet
so
yes,
was
there
a
conversation
about?
Well,
maybe
we
should
do
like
we've
done
multiple
times
over
the
years
and
like
like?
Let's
put
it,
I
mean
put
a
year
in
motion
and
let's
figure
these
things
out.
I
I
At
the
same
time
I
mean
representing
other
area,
I
mean
communities
that
pay
the
full
cost
of
the
of
law
enforcement
that
we
we
need
to
be
able
to
address
that,
because
in
the
back
end,
if
we
are
not
charging
the
full
cost,
then
we
are
in
essence,
I
mean
appropriating
without
appropriating
the
the
subsidy
that's
baked
into
that,
and
we
have
a
responsibility
from
an
audit
perspective.
We
can't
just
give
it
an,
I
mean
we
have
to
actually
acknowledge
it.
Log
it
and
I
mean
approve
it.
I
So,
whatever
the
will
of
this
board
is,
is
fine.
What
it's
important
to
be
sad
because,
like
some
of
the
things
that
have
been
mentioned
today,
is
this
notion
in
any
way
that
there's
a
lack
of
support
for
our
law
enforcement,
or
that
there
is
some
sort
of
endangerment
of
mass
layoffs
happening
across,
is
completely
and
utterly
false
and
downright
insulting?
Also
insulting.
Is
this
expectation
that
we
can
just
throw
something
over
around
thanksgiving
and
that
the
board
will
just
just
take
it
or
believe
it?
I
mean
the
mentality
that
we
held.
I
This
conversation
on
another
thing
was
like
look,
take
it
or
leave
it,
it
is
insulting.
It
is
disrespectful.
This
is
not
a
rubber
stamp
board.
We
have
a
constitutional,
statutory
responsibility
to
approve
interlocal
agreements,
and-
and
I
mean
I
think
some
haven't
mentioned
my
name
directly,
but
I
mean
I
think
some
of
that
has
been
brought
up.
I
I
mean
that's
wrong.
That
process
is
absolutely
wrong
and
flawed
and
inappropriate
and
and
is
not
I'll,
be
honest.
It
has
nothing
to
do
about
trying
to
reduce
anything.
If
anything,
it's
to
make
certain
that
we
are
fully
funding
law
enforcement
across
this
county
that
every
community
is
paying
their
fair
share
to
pay
for
the
amazing
law
enforcement
that
we
have
in
partnership
with
the
sheriff's
office,
in
a
partnership
with
all
the
ancillary
services
that
are
applied
everywhere.
So
that
is
what
I
mean.
I
think
that's
that's
important
to
be
said.
I
All
of
those
things
should
be
addressed
and
we
have
a
responsibility.
I
understand
that
there
are
a
lot
of
other
things
going
on
and
we
find
ourselves
here,
but
it's
also
not
a
responsibility.
It's
the
fiduciaries
of
this
county.
We
can't
just
throw
our
hands
up
and
say
yeah,
we'll
just
deal
with
it
later
I
mean
these
are.
This
is
the
response.
This
is
an
appropriate
responsible
action
to
have
this
conversation
about
rates
that
we're
approving.
Now
there
are
lots
of
ways
to
do
that.
I
Given
the
circumstance
of
everything
I
mean,
I
I
yes,
I
am
one
that
was
like
putting
up
the
trial
balloon
like.
Can
we
just
like?
Do
it
like
we've
done
in
years
past
and
adopted
one
year
and
figure
out
all
this
other
stuff
that
somehow
got
met
with
like
a
a
resistance
which
I'll
be
honest?
It's
almost
it's
a
sense
to
me
that
we
don't
want
to
have
the
conversation
around
in
direct
cost.
We
don't
want
to
have
a
a
conversation
around
these
other
things,
but
these
are.
I
These
are
budget
implications
that,
frankly,
if
fully
captured,
is
more
dollars
that
could
potentially
be
put
towards
law
enforcement,
and
so
it
is
our
responsibility
to
have
this
conversation,
this
body
and
the
finance
committee
for
the
matter,
because
it
has
a
budget
implication
that
we
have.
There
is
a
structural
deficit
in
the
created
part
of
the
comp
study
that
we've
got
a
plan,
we're
working
towards
that
we
can
address
sooner.
I
If
all
I
mean
all
these
costs
are,
and
so
we
have
a
responsibility
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
I
think
that's
I
mean
it's
important
to
I
mean
to
acknowledge
we'd
like
to
have
that
conversation.
We
can
have
the
reality.
I
mean.
So
it's
not
just
this-
is
the
table
to
be
able
to
have
that
conversation.
This
conversation,
I
don't
disagree
with
anyone
that
should
have
been
happening
months
ago
months
ago,
but
that's
not
our
doing.
I
That's
not
the
board's
doing,
and
I
mean
I
do
take
great
issue
like
this-
is
thrown
over
right
before
thanksgiving
and
expected
you're
supposed
to
rubber
stamp
it
because
we
already
sent
it
to
the
communities
without
even
talking
to
the
actual
body,
the
one
that's
responsible
for
approving
these.
These
rates
in
the
first
place.
I
M
Don't
want
to
get
into
debate,
I
met
with
them.
On
november
17th
I
spent
an
hour
and
a
half
with
them
down
in
royal
oak.
I
gave
them
all
my
notes.
I
want
everything
line,
item
by
line
item
by
line
item.
Let
me
tell
you
this:
the
county
has
made
profit
on
these
contracts
for
the
last
three
years.
We're
not
asking
you
to
give
a
refund
to
the
local
communities.
Health
care
costs
were
way.
Overestimated.
M
Gas
costs
were
way
over
estimated,
there's
a
ton
of
things
that
were
in
those
contracts
that
last
three
years
that
and
then
concerns
were
brought
to
him
to
the
county,
executive's
office
and
and
I'm
not
speaking
for
them,
we
talked
to
them.
This
process
took
a
while
to
come
to
an
agreement
on
these
rates.
We
agreed
to
raise
up
the
the
first
year
of
anticipated
cost
of
a
deputy
salary.
M
We
agreed
to
raise
up
by
50
percent
the
building
and
liability
fund,
above
and
beyond
what
the
county
executive
recommended
and
we
came
to
an
agreement
with
the
county
executive.
I
don't
know
why
you
didn't
talk
to
us,
sir,
but
that's
you
know.
I
asked
you
on
the
17th,
I
told
you,
then
you
have
any
questions
and
we
had
a
very
good
conversation.
It
was
very
friendly,
it
was
non-confrontational.
M
M
Please
can
I
just
finish:
okay,
so
apparently,
I'm
not
quite
sure.
Last
week
these
contracts
were
supposed
to
be
on
this
committee's
agenda.
Nobody
ever
told
the
sierra
being
polled.
I
called
patty
dibb,
and
I
said
what
is
going
on
barbara
calls
one
of
her
employees
to
tell
her
they're
being
pulled.
Nobody
called
us,
nobody
told
us,
and
I
asked
patty
dibb
what
is
going
on.
Well,
the
chairman
was
supposed
to
call
you.
He
never
called
me
and
to
this
I'm
just
telling
you
what
she
said.
I
never
heard
from
him.
L
G
L
F
G
J
J
E
J
A
G
A
C
But
madame
cheer,
you
just
again
for
clarification.
I
apologize
for
everybody
in
the
room
because
voting
virtually.
It
is
popping
up
that
I'm
voting
for
charter
township,
so
refresh.
D
L
O
A
D
I
just
want
to
say,
as
someone
who
spent
a
night
in
the
jail
with
the
deputies
and
did
a
ride
along
in
pontiac
with
the
deputies,
I
would
like
to
have
been
able
to
vote
yes
on
the
overtime
and
no
on
everything
else,
with
further
discussion
and
questions
being
answered,
but
because
it's
not
how
we're
doing
it.
I'm
no
on
all
of
it.
I
G
K
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
catherine
kennedy
from
lake
orion
appreciate
your
time
a
little
confusing
this
meeting.
For
me,
I
have
to
admit,
I
just
want
everyone
to
know
that
I
really
do
think.
If
we
really
need
to
cut
the
budget,
then
we
need
to
start
looking
at
some
of
these
ridiculous
programs
we
just
put
in
place.
K
K
A
lot
of
these
workforce
developments
they
all
seem
to
be
targeted
on
some
of
these.
The
mental
health
is
the
one
I
really
was
worried
about.
I
actually
attended
the
grant
overview
meeting.
So,
in
addition
to
the
sheriff
issue,
where
we
have
a
lot
of
tension
where
people
don't
seem
to
be
appreciating
the
sheriff's
duty
with
how
what
a
great
job
they
do
for
the
citizens,
I
can
tell
you
the
citizens
genuinely
do
appreciate,
so
I'm
thankful
that
we
finally
got
through
the
three-year
contracts.
On
that.
K
The
sheriff
is
the
only
one
that
has
shown
up
as
having
their
budgets
cut
pretty
regularly,
and
I
found
it
offensive
that
the
board
of
commissioners
increased
their
budgets
by
four
and
a
half
million,
yet
the
sheriff's
budget
back
in
august
was
decreased
by
one
and
a
half
million.
To
me,
that
tells
you.
The
priorities
are
just
wrong.
K
When
I
manage
my
budget,
I
look
at
the
needs.
The
needs
are
always
going
to
be
paid
before
I
waste
any
money
on
wants.
This
board
has
been
spending
millions
and
millions
of
dollars
on
wants
and
not
needs,
and
so
it
shouldn't
be
surprising
when
all
of
a
sudden,
you
do
the
math
and
figure
out.
Oh,
we
actually
spent
more
than
the
revenues.
The
revenues
were
64
million
less
than
we
expected.
K
Well,
I
think
it
was
maybe
six
months
ago.
I
brought
up
that
point
that
I
was
very
concerned
that
we
were
spending
all
this
money
against
a
budget
which
was
based
on
unknown
numbers
because
we're
still
looking
at
financials
from
the
prior
year
and
we
had
an
entire
pandemic
that
took
out
a
quarter
of
the
businesses
that
create
the
70
of
the
jobs
prior
post
pandemic
was
small
business,
so
to
not
have
a
good
understanding.
K
K
The
government
needs
to
stop
getting
in
the
way
and
there's
too
much
government
increase
of
staffing
too
much
government
increase,
that's
all
inflation
that
creates
inflation.
So
the
very
thing
that
you're
trying
to
say
you
want
to
help
the
people
that
are
low
income,
their
disadvantage,
the
very
things
you're
doing
are
the
exact
opposite
to
get
that.
Thank.
A
E
I
just
want
to
say
on
behalf
of
myself
and
many
of
my
fellow
commissioners
how
grateful
and
proud
we
are
of
our
police
department
and
our
response
in
oxford
and
I'll.
Never
forget.
After
parkland
the
sheriff
came
to
us
and
said
that
one
officer
that
was
supposed
to
rush
in
who
didn't
and
held
back
that
that
would
never
happen
in
oakland
county
and
it
did
not
happen,
and
so
I've
talked
to
the
sheriff
I
want
to.
E
I
want
to
have
a
review
of
all
the
schools
that
have
had
the
training,
because
kids
turn
over
every
few
years.
So
I
want
to
know
what
the
schedule
is
to
have
that
training
that
proved
so
powerful.
He
did
not
get
into
any
classroom
and
the
sheriff
has
agreed,
I'm
not
sure
who
oversees.
So
we
can
look
at
the
schedule
and
be
sure
no
school
is
left
behind.
A
A
We
did
not
cut
any
funding
for
the
sheriff's
department
this
year
there
was
no
funding
cut
and
I
followed
up
with
the
executive's
office
just
to
make
sure,
because
people
have
been
stating
that
that
we're
cutting
the
budget
for
the
sheriffs,
and
that
is
not
true,
and
I
just
want
to
go
on
record.
Having
said
that
tonight,
thank.
A
A
Initially,
I
know
that
they
had
been
awarded
406
032
dollars
and
with
work
from
the
local
people.
We
were
able
to
get
that
up
to
967
117,
so
no,
the
only
reason
that
the
budget
has
not
been
cut
is
because
we,
the
people,
came
made
it
evident,
made
it
known
public
and
then
got
together
with
oakland
county
people
and
made
sure
that
their
budget
wasn't
cut.
So
thanks
for
your
time,
thank
you.
G
A
C
Yes,
commissioner
loops,
I
know
that
I'm
good
with
adjourning
the
meeting,
but
one
of
the
things
I
just
wanted
to
ask
in
light
of
the
time
and
us
running
late,
and
also
knowing
that
we've
got
a
lot
of
presentations
and
proclamations
this
evening.
If
there
isn't
any
objection,
I
would
like
to
cancel
the
democratic
caucus
meeting.
C
Okay,
I'd
like
to
postpone
our
caucus
democratic
caucus
until
a
further
time.
Thank
you
all
right.