Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on Michigan Transportation Fund and contractor eligibility
Summary
During public comment residents asked whether Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) dollars, which may include state bond proceeds, are being used for a road project and whether a contractor on probation (referenced as 'Al's Asphalt') should be eligible for city contracts; city officials said they did not believe federal funds were involved in the specific procurement and that they would not enter agreements if there were compliance issues.
Several residents used the public-comment period on Dec. 16 to press the Taylor City Council about procurement and funding compliance for local road projects.
Kathy Witt and other members of the public asked whether the Morton View Drive rehabilitation project—previously approved—was being funded with Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) dollars and whether MTF receives federal funds that could trigger additional procurement requirements. Witt argued that because the fund receives multiple revenue streams, including federal sources in part, the city should review contractor eligibility if federal money is implicated: "If federal money goes in there, you are going to have to resend that contract," she said during public comment.
Witt also raised concerns that a named contractor (referred to during comments as "Al's asphalt") might be suspended or still on probation and therefore ineligible; she asked whether the mayor or city attorney could confirm the contractor’s status.
Mayor/administration responded that they did not believe federal funding was involved in the procurement in question and said the city "would not be entering into any agreement if there was an issue." A different resident (speaker 14) said they looked up Michigan Transportation Fund and Act 51 and read aloud information indicating MTF is funded by motor-fuel taxes, vehicle registration taxes, income tax revenue and recreational-marijuana sales and that they saw "No mention of federal funds at all." City staff and council described the project financing as bond-funded and reimbursed through Act 51 proceeds.
The comments did not produce documentary proof on the council floor and the council did not rescind any contract during the meeting. The issue remained unresolved at the meeting’s close; residents were told they could follow up by email or through formal complaints.
