Taylor council deadlocks on closed-door discussion of contested towing contract as court preserves status quo

A motion to send the council into closed session to discuss pending litigation over the city’s towing contract—identified in meeting materials as Area Towing v. City of Taylor—failed on a 3–3 roll-call vote during the meeting. The chair recorded votes of No from Brandana, Rose and Daniels, and Yes from Johnson, Winton and Geiss; the chair announced, "Motion fails, 3 to 3."

The issue surfaced several times across the meeting as residents and council members pressed for clarity about the administration’s handling of a proposed contract award. Corporation counsel told the council that the 3rd District Court had acted to "preserve the status quo" and said the court expected fuller briefing from the parties, which will likely delay any contract approval until January. A resident asked, "Why is the city administration expediting the removal of the current tow Bender in favor of one that has been associated with multiple criminal investigations in the city of Detroit?" (public comment).

Council members expressed divided views about when and how the council should consider a vendor contract. Several members said they had received related legal materials late and asked that staff supply full documentation in the council packet rather than last-minute memos. Councilwoman Brandana said she did not receive certain information until the meeting and objected to what she described as "getting it at 4 o'clock and then have to vote on something." Corporation counsel replied that memoranda and briefs had been circulated at the same time to all council members and that a more complete memorandum of developments that day would be discussed in a closed session if the council chose to hold one.

Police and public-safety staff said background checks had been initiated for companies that passed the initial review; the police lieutenant said background checks including driving records and criminal-history checks had been completed for the companies that passed the initial phase but stressed legal limits on what the department may disclose publicly. The lieutenant noted that certain information is protected by law or court order and that council members could be given additional detail in a closed session or after completing required CJIS certification training.

Public commenters and some council members urged more routine study sessions or earlier packet distribution so members can review contracts and background materials before votes. The meeting record shows no contract was signed at the session and that the court's action preserves current arrangements while parties fully brief the issues.