Several residents used public comment at the Pontiac City Council meeting to object to the council's recent approval of a letter of agreement with M-1 Concourse, saying the decision left neighbors without an opportunity to be heard and alleging procedural violations.

Robert Bass, president of a neighborhood council, said he filed a formal complaint with the city clerk alleging violations of the Michigan Open Meetings Act and the city charter. "I have full filed a formal complaint with the city clerk regarding, a meeting on the September 9 about the M 1 Concorde noise ordinance...I am very disappointed in the council itself because I appreciate those council people that didn't vote for it because I feel like they took into consideration our feelings in District 1," Bass said.

Kermit Williams, another public speaker, raised concerns about a noise study tied to the agreement and said the ambient-noise baseline cited a consultant hired by M-1 Concourse. "The ambient noise or the 50 decibels was done by, M-1 paid consultant," Williams said, adding residents had not been given sufficient opportunity to review data or comment on noise impacts.

Other speakers faulted the process by which the agreement reached council consideration and questioned whether residents had adequate notice of closed-session or staff briefings that preceded the vote. Bass said complaints will address several alleged procedural irregularities.

Council members and staff did not debate the complaint at the meeting; the public-comment speakers asked the council to review process and disclosure. Council members who had opposed the agreement in prior votes were acknowledged by speakers as having considered residents' concerns.

What happens next: Bass said the complaint with the city clerk seeks an Open Meetings Act review; the clerk's office will process the formal complaint according to municipal procedures. Any formal determination, remedial action or legal review would be handled via city staff, the city attorney and, if applicable, the courts.

The council did not take action during the meeting to reverse or revisit its prior approval of the agreement; residents said they would pursue administrative remedies and public follow-up to seek additional study and transparency.