Committee advances $500,000 Sherwin‑Williams blight‑paint contract after questions on prison sales
Loading...
Summary
The Neighborhood, Community Services Standing Committee moved a three‑year, $500,000 Sherwin‑Williams contract for blight paint and repair services to formal session with a recommendation for approval after staff described how the funds will be used and said the vendor disclosed past sales to prison facilities but not an ongoing prison contract.
The Detroit City Council Neighborhood, Community Services Standing Committee moved a $500,000 contract with Sherwin‑Williams Company to formal session with a recommendation for approval after staff explained how the city will use the blight funds and answered questions about whether the vendor has supplied paint to prisons.
The paint, supplies and repair‑services contract is funded from blight remediation dollars and is intended to cover exterior work on private properties cited for blight, General Services Department assistant director Alex Weatherup told the committee. "This is blight funding ... it's primarily to cover up buildings that have been cited for blight and have gone through the BCED and DAH process," Weatherup said. He added the city attempts to recoup those costs through a Law Department process.
The discussion began during public comment and continued when the committee took up unfinished business item 5.1. A resident who identified themself only during public comment asked how $500,000 worth of paint would be used and raised concerns that beautification and related planning decisions can accelerate neighborhood change and displacement. William M. Davis, who said he is vice president of the Bart McFarland Neighborhood Association, urged making some paint services available to seniors and noted that the vendor has a Detroit address.
Office of Contracting and Procurement contractor procurement specialist Ayesha Harris told the committee Sherwin‑Williams disclosed that it "has sold paint to prisons in the past," but procurement did not identify an ongoing contract supplying prison facilities. "It wasn't identified if they're currently still selling paint to the prison," Harris said.
Committee members pressed staff on whether the work would be performed by a vendor under contract or whether prisons purchased paint retail from a Sherwin‑Williams store. Weatherup and Harris said procurement did not confirm an active contract between Sherwin‑Williams and prison authorities; the record indicates the company has supplied paint to those facilities in the past but procurement could not confirm the purchase process or whether sales were retail or by contract.
Weatherup said the structures painted under the blight program are private properties cited for blight; the city pursues reimbursement through legal action after remediation. He told the committee the city recouped about $45,000 through this process in the last year and has several pending cases for additional recoupment.
Graham Anderson of the Law Department told the committee that contracts presented to the committee have been reviewed by his office.
After the questions, Council member Scott Benson moved to forward line item 5.1 to formal session with the committee's recommendation for approval; no objections were recorded and the committee moved the item forward.
The contract summary on the agenda lists Sherwin‑Williams Company, 1345 Linden Street, Detroit, Mich., 48227; a three‑year term tied to City Council approval; and a total contract amount listed at $500,000. Committee discussion left open questions about the details of past prison purchases and the mechanics of recoupment in individual cases.
