Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Towing Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gotcha and Sons towing contract pulled from Detroit committee agenda after public complaints
Summary
After multiple public comments alleging predatory towing and high fees, the administration requested that the Neighborhood and Community Services committee remove a proposed three‑year towing services contract with Gotcha and Sons Towing from the agenda. Committee members agreed to withdraw the item for further review.
The Neighborhood and Community Services Standing Committee on Jan. 23 withdrew a proposed contract with Gotcha and Sons Towing from its agenda after public commenters raised complaints about the company’s towing practices.
The administration requested removal of line item 5.1 — Contract 606663, a three‑year, city‑funded agreement described in the agenda as “vehicle and equipment towing services for the City of Detroit, asset/property contractor Gotcha and Sons Towing,” located at 750 South Beacon St., Detroit. The contract was listed as about $350,000 and 100% city funded. Committee members approved removing the item from the meeting for further review.
Why it matters: multiple callers during public comment urged closer review of the company’s pricing and conduct. William M. Davis told the committee that board of police commissioner chairperson Woods’ vehicle was towed earlier this month and “they charged him over $800 for having this vehicle less than 2 days.” Davis asked the council to “take a closer look” at towing companies and their complaint histories.
Council members flagged the item for additional questions. Vice Chair Wind Galloway said she had questions about the bid and planned to reserve her questions for the agenda item; the committee was told the administration had requested the withdrawal. Staff present said the requester offered no additional comment beyond asking the item be removed for now because further information was needed.
The committee did not vote on the contract’s terms at the meeting. The administration’s request to remove the contract was accepted by the committee; no formal roll‑call vote tally was recorded in the transcript.
Members and commenters emphasized they will expect follow‑up reporting if the contract returns to the agenda. The item may be brought back for formal consideration at a later meeting after the administration supplies further details.
Ending: The committee moved on to other agenda items after removing line item 5.1. Several callers who had raised towing concerns also urged the council to block future contracts with companies described as predatory until questions about billing and conduct are resolved.
