Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee forwards three resolutions on police uniforms, ReCAST evaluation and leak detection to full council
Summary
At its Jan. 21 meeting, Flint City committees voted unanimously (6–0) to send three resolutions to full council: a police uniform purchase (Resolution 260024), a contract renewal with Michigan State University for the ReCAST program evaluation (260025) and a one‑year leak‑detection services contract (260027).
Flint City committees voted Jan. 21 to forward three resolutions to the full city council, approving them to proceed for final consideration.
The first measure, Resolution 260024, would authorize a contract to supply uniforms and associated gear for Flint Police Department officers. Angela Emerman, the city’s finance accounting supervisor, told the committee the cost per new recruit — including uniforms, belts and holsters — ranges roughly from $5,500 to $7,500. Councilmembers asked whether the request covers replacement items or outfitting new recruits; Emerman said it includes both. The committee voted to send the resolution to the full council by a roll‑call tally of six yes, zero no.
The second item, Resolution 260025, would renew a contract with Michigan State University to evaluate the ReCAST program. Michelle Scott, community liaison and program coordinator for ReCAST and CBI, said MSU conducts recurring evaluations and that ReCAST incorporates community surveys into reporting. Council members pressed to know why some contract paperwork shows after performance start dates; staff said contract preparation, insurance renewals and attorney review can delay paperwork and that staff will provide additional subaward information to council members. The committee voted 6–0 to send the resolution to council.
The third resolution, 260027, would contract for a leak‑detection survey to expand the city’s monitoring from biennial to annual. Howard Hudson, water service center supervisor, described the contractor’s equipment (deployable data loggers placed on valves, then field crews use listening devices to trace leaks) and said the initial setup year is estimated at about $192,000. Committee members asked about prior results (a 2015 survey) and whether annual service after startup will cost less; staff said they will request those follow‑up pricing and transparency details. The committee voted 6–0 to forward the item to council.
Each vote was procedural at this stage: the committee action sends the resolutions to the full council for final approval, contract signature or further amendment. Council clerks recorded the roll‑call votes and will publish the finalized materials with the full‑council agenda.
