Taylor council deadlocks on closed session as towing-contract litigation surfaces; court preserves status quo

A planned closed-door discussion about pending litigation over the city’s towing contract with a vendor known in the record as Area Towing failed on a 3–3 roll call, and a court order issued the same day instructed parties to preserve the status quo while the case is briefed.

Councilman Johnson moved late in the meeting to send the matter into closed session for a memorandum from corporation counsel concerning the towing contract. The roll call recorded three yes votes and three no votes (Missus Brandana: No; Miss Rose: No; Missus Daniels: No; Mr. Johnson: Yes; Miss Winton: Yes; Mr. Geiss: Yes), so the motion did not pass. After the vote the chair allowed a recess and stated that three members conferenced briefly but said no legislative action occurred. "We all have the information at the exact same time," the chair said during the later exchange defending how materials were distributed.

Earlier that afternoon the 3rd District Court issued an order to preserve the status quo regarding the contested tow-contract award, Corporation Counsel told the council; the court asked the parties to provide fuller briefing and said a decision would likely come in January. "What the court decided today was to just, in fairness to all the parties, to preserve the status quo and to not have the council rule on accepting the contract with JT Colby at this time," counsel said in open session.

Public commenters pressed elected officials for more information. Martin Julliard, a resident who identified his address on Beach Daly Road, asked the city attorney to confirm whether the court had halted the award and asked whether the administration had conducted background checks on the proposed vendor’s ownership and employees. One commenter alleged ties between the proposed firm and federal criminal investigations; the chair interrupted and asked the speaker to finish his statement. "Did the administration conduct a thorough and comprehensive background check on [the vendor's] ownership and all employees?" the resident asked.

Police leadership and the administration responded that background checks had been initiated and that certain details are restricted by law. A police lieutenant said background checks — including driving records and criminal histories — were completed for companies that passed the initial phase and that officers provided the information they were legally permitted to disclose. Council members asked why summaries of those checks had not been available sooner for review. "I would like to read it so I know what I'm going into closed doors to discuss," one council member said.

Council members and staff also described limits on sharing criminal-history information publicly. Staff explained CJIS certification requirements for anyone receiving restricted summaries and offered to arrange the training for council members; a CJIS training representative explained the federal and local rules and warned that improper disclosure can carry misdemeanor or felony penalties.

What happens next: corporation counsel said the court will accept additional briefing and indicated it would consider the matter in January. The council did not approve the contested contract at this meeting and the court order requires the city to preserve the existing arrangement while the legal process proceeds.