Council told rescinding Project Maze actions could expose city to liability; unions press for local-hire commitments

Council members, contractors and union representatives clashed over local-hire commitments and whether the Michigan City Common Council could rescind prior actions tied to Project Maze, a large data center development, during the Sept. 16 meeting. The discussion followed public comments from contractors and union leaders seeking stronger assurances that Phoenix/Project Maze would use local labor.

The council’s legal adviser, Attorney Joel Harris, told the council that, under Robert’s Rules of Order, the body “has until the next council meeting … to reconsider any official action taken at the prior meeting.” He added an exception: if the council’s prior resolution is tied to a contract and a third party has relied on that executed agreement, rescinding could expose the city to liability. “I would not advise the council to go forward with a motion to reconsider, because it would expose the city to liability because of the agreement that's in place,” Harris said.

Several speakers pressed the council to rescind incentives until Project Maze agreed to sign a local-hire or project labor agreement. John Watson, business agent for Laborers Local 150, said, “I'm asking this council to resend the incentives request until Phoenix signs an agreement and commits to utilize local workers.” Corey Campbell of Laborers Local 81 and Marcela Kuntzak of the Foundation for Fair Contracting echoed that request and said they would pursue public records to verify whether contracts have been executed.

Contractors currently working on the site told the council they are using local union labor and urged the council not to jeopardize the project. Jay from Paul’s Construction said his crew of 10 employees are union and local. Andy (Paul’s Construction/locally owned contractor) described flexible payment terms on the Project Maze site and reported rapid payment: “Our first check for our first pay up came within 7 days.” He said the developer agreed to payment terms that allowed his small firm to participate.

Council members expressed differing views. Dr. Cora said he had considered a motion to reconsider the resolutions tied to Project Maze and sought legal guidance. Councilman Dabney and others noted that if the agreement is executed and third parties have relied on it — including vendors and suppliers who have ordered equipment — reversing course could expose the city to legal and financial risk. Councilman Beatrice and others said the city will pursue workforce policies such as community workforce requirements and will meet with unions after the budget season.

No formal motion to rescind or reconsider was made at the Sept. 16 meeting. Attorney Harris advised that the council could face liability if it attempted to rescind matters tied to an executed agreement and that the executed taxpayer agreement is on file in the clerk’s office.

Why it matters: Project Maze is a high-value development that council members and the public say could deliver substantial economic activity and tax revenue. Opponents argue that tens of millions in incentives should be conditioned on demonstrable local hiring; supporters say withdrawing support now could jeopardize the project and the city’s leverage for future projects.

What’s next: Several union organizations said they will file public records requests to examine any contracts; council members indicated they plan to pursue formal workforce-policy discussions and potential community workforce requirements after budget season.