in the past, but we don't even know why they approved those weights or what the authority was expended.
So reading back from the prior minutes, there was an assumption that's kind of the interception. I don't know it's an accurate assumption. I believe what we consider as a heavy duty tow, currently, many of those are being proposed as a heavy, 60,000 pound vehicle. They are very heavy. You're looking at commercial semi fowl dump trucks, cement mixers, very large tractor trailers. That's a very small category. So to jump from a 16 foot or 20 foot box truck to a 60,000 pound vehicle is a huge leap. So I think what a lot of people that were considering heavier still within the median category of what the old pay schedule was looking for, the
towing guidelines. So that's going to be back in tab nine, tab nine. So that page 25 to 26
so at this point in the discussion, I will you know, this part of the discussion we the rescue commissioners, so
look at page 25 have to defer in large part to The experts. We have agreed and we understand that I
we
understand that light duty refers to vehicles and includes, as I had some notes. Includes SUVs, right, minivans and some trucks. I didn't know how to call those trucks. I don't know if they're like
trucks, the personal trucks. Personal
trucks, medium and heavy duty. Toes are used, are used for commercial vehicles, so but I got that right. We do know that we could not determine what information was used to set the current weight guidelines. I did note that the rates again, we voted and Rose. Rates are supported by benchmark studies and trends, and we have vetted the TRC. So this is kind of getting this ready for our presentation. Again. We, if you look at page 25 I think we need to have this discussion between the PhDs and the DPD to help us come to an agreement as to what we are going to propose for the weight class. Yes, so
Captain Adams, you mentioned that 26 was in the medium class, and you're proposing that it goes 33
Well, current, currently, it's in the medium class. And also is 33 everything up to 60,000 pounds is in the medium class. So what I'm proposing, if you look at the schedule, class one and class two, light duty, these are light duty trucks, which are half ton trucks, passenger vehicles. And then class three through class seven is what I'm recommend to be the medium totals, which is a great change from the previous tow commission. What was the previous one? Then 6000 60,000 this would cap at 33,000 when you look at class eight. These are the very large vehicles that I was talking about, very large tractor trailers, very large busses. I don't know what the very vehicle on the right is. Maybe that's a cement truck.
And these are a small part of the tow, most of the vehicles are going to fall into light duty,
so it's rare to get anything over 60,000
considering how many vehicles we tow. Yes, it's a very, very small percentage, but we do have to tow them, so it needs to be part of the schedule, right?
So you're actually, uh. That that sounds advantageous for totals. Am I thinking about that correctly? Because, because if people over 33 now, if they go over 33 then that's heavy. Is that? What you're saying? It
should go, it should be over 26
so i So, if I may, Commissioner Goodwin is suggesting the cap for medium be at 26 I'm suggesting you get 33 and
the reason we're suggesting that it's at 26 is because that falls within the guidelines like medium and hip the guidelines from the Traa is you know, it has heavy starting at 26,000
so these, if you look at the chart class seven, where it's 26,000 These are all heavy, doing, probably these trucks belongs in the happy duty category, after the 26,000
point. So
question I have is, Adams, is your insurance? We don't know where the previous waste came from. So I guess I would ask, what is your rationale for deviating from this? The
some of these trucks, like 26,000 pound rental truck, like a 2426 foot rental truck, falls in that 26,000 pounds, those are common. Those have automatic transmissions. Those are one of the common vehicles that we do tow, and sometimes are covered as stolen vehicles, the tractor trailers these, these are very rare. I've not seen a commercial truck cement mixer that was brought in. We've had one or two busses, I believe, this year, just off of my memory, because they're very rare. But these trucks fall into that meeting category, and I believe there's different equipment that's used to tow busses in semi tractors, as opposed to a rider rental truck or U haul rental truck. That's a 26 foot box as my rationale behind it, just practical application. They're not exactly the same. And then also I I have to look at the outcome of what the previous commission was. I believe it was very intentional to have that space in there. There's a lot of, I don't say gray area, but the gross vehicle waste, one part of the rating, and the private tours have illustrated with the recreational vehicles, the RVs, that the gross vehicle weight is not very high, but the bulk, the size, the length of the vehicle, is problematic for them, and I understand that. But for some of these other vehicles, I don't see a real big difference between a 24 foot box truck and a 26 foot box truck, where the 24 would be a medium, if it's 24,000 pounds or 26,000 pounds, where the larger 26 would be 32,000 depending on the vehicle type, the brand, at 550 may go along up into some of the bigger, bigger vehicles. So my rationale is from what I've seen from practical
application, if I may, I don't think we should be using the frequency of these toes to guide the weights. It doesn't matter if it's a rare there's still a need for a heavy duty tow, and it's a heavy duty toe. And these have been in practice, these types of vehicles heavy duty toes, so there's really no reason to deviate from this.
Yeah. But the current, the current you were in medium, all the way up to 60, right with the current. Way it was, was medium all the all up to 60. So my thought behind it is, I mean this right here. You know, we can refer back to it if we, if we deviate from it, we have to, I think you have to have some rationality recorded on why you deviated from it. Because it's kind of coming from here. I think, you know, I'm not sure this is the industry, some type of industry standard or so if you deviate, if you do deviate, I think you got to document why you need it, because you're going to this document the next time, but then his rationale would have to be recorded
somehow. Let's be clear, this is not for both,
if I may. If we're going to, if we're not, we're going to stick to GBW, then the gross vehicle weight, we need to do that for all categories then. So that means boats and RVs need to be at GBW and not based on length. So that, if that's the case, on this is already a deviation. So we can't, so we can't deviate from that as well GBW,
if I may. I thought, Pastor, well, I thought. Uh, with his original composer that it did, I thought it was at least advantageous that you're going to lower when you get into heavy duty now. So if you're 33 you're going to get a heavy duty rate, whereas before, you didn't get that heavy duty rate until you got to 60, so you got 27,000 pounds there. Now more than you're going to have, you're going to be paying more. So I'm saying sort of compromise. If you did go to 33 then you're still starting at 33 for your heavy toes. So it is sort of a, I mean, it seems that the medium becomes advantageous for you, because it don't go up 60 anymore. You're only getting a, you know, medium toll for 60,000 pounds. Now you'll get a heavy toll from 34 up to 60. And what you said about deviating with the other that's probably also a rationale. But anyway, my thoughts,
so here are my
thoughts. I don't think it's fair to go back to current rate guidelines, because we have no support and no documentation for those that's one of the things that this commission will not happen or allowed to happen, is the rates that we propose have been will have been thoroughly vetted and supported and agreed upon. And so with that in mind, I, as Mark pointed out, I think we should go with the industry standards. I will ask Mark to make sure that this is the latest standards, and that this document, as we've done with all of our documents, because it is supportable, it's black and white. Now, when we have so if we agree to do that for this, for vehicles, then we will have this same discussion at the next slide, when we talk about the next category. That's my proposal to do two things. First, verify that this is the current rates, proposed rates. This is the authoritative Association, because, if I can in our industry, we have the ones that authoritative, and then you have all the others. So we will do our due diligence to make sure that this is the authority, authoritative organization. And my proposal is that we use these classifications like medium and heavy for our weight guidelines. Any more discussion?
I just think that I agree with you, and I think the mention of the length came up before
we'll just pay for that, because that's next. Focus on this, right? And if we and then we just have apples to apples, let's so. Are the commissioners ready to vote? Do you? Do we want any more discussion? Captain Adams, I'll open it up to you as well,
so we may not, as a commission, Tory commission, refer back to the old schedule the City Council name, and the one thing it has to be, it has to be understood, is it has to be simple, because this is for a large government agency, and the rates have to be understandable For the layperson, so our schedule can't be overly complicated. I think that 27,000 pound change from media to heavy is very substantial. I think it's more than reasonable, and I would not support the police department support the change at 26,000 pounds.
I think we should take a vote and desires they can't get any none of us voted this time, but you should take a vote so that we can move on to the next candidate. May have a motion, motion
to approve the TRA vehicle identification guide is our guide for the 2024 tail rates
for the weight guidelines.
I think I was just going to say that we're trying to approve and losing the tiara guidelines for the weight and then whatever comes after that consistency.
So, just so you we have it correct. The motion is to approve, using the TRA guidelines, the post weight guidelines for vehicles, for. For the light, medium and heavy duty toes,
all in favor, aye,
the vote carries. Are there any other comments that, and I think about this and over the next week, any other verbiage that we may want to add to the schedule. This was preliminary, just trying to get my thoughts about how we present this in the most clear and cohesive fashion. So if you do, just send it to me and let me know I was just
going to say, I do think that city council will appreciate that we did due diligence on this, and that still keeps it to three categories, so it doesn't over complicate. It just change, changes the weight in each category. It doesn't add categories.
I appreciate the work that we did last few months to narrow the categories. Narrow the classifications. Agree on the rates. And like I said, these two, the weight guidelines, are really the only two open issues that we have. We've just closed one with vehicles. And now on to what I'm sure will be a very robust discussion is on the next second category, which we all agreed that both trailers and RVs commission agreed that that is one a single category. The current rates are $100 for each one of those, there aren't any current weight guidelines. It's my understanding at this point, the proposed toll rates from the DTA and PTs, 225, 507 100, the Commission agreed that we would go that, that we agreed that we would go forward with those proposed rates. And I do want to just stop and talk and jump over to the weight guidelines before we talk about storage and the disposal rates. Okay, those two different things. Yes, one
correction, the medium duty should be 425, we're keeping it consistent with the other rates.
What are the rates of equal rate?
Okay,
so the medium
trailer and RV should match vehicle.
Well, see, I thought it was because the original proposal had trailers rmes. We main duty at 500
okay, we wanted to recommend 425
instead of the 500 right. Okay,
all right, so we'll make a change. Probably do it here, but we'll make a change. And then is the heavy duty at 700 Yes. So that was a change even from the second proposal that you presented. The second proposal actually has a typo, that votes at 220 it had the 500 we talked about it being 225, that was a title. And then it had the votes 17 to 24 at 700 but all the others, the trailers and RVs, were 225, 507 100. So now you're saying, just to be clear, that it's 425, correct. Okay, I'd like to have a motion to approve the commission going forward with both trailers and RVs, medium duty toes, the proposed weight at 425,
motion, motion
to approve all in favor. I'm
simply saying
that.
Use a proposed weight guidelines where okay, because it's not, let us
not wait. Is weight and
guidelines. So
this will not be 25 But
ma'am, if I may, if we're sticking to GVW for vehicles, then RVs should not be in this category, because, if that is our deciding factor, the gross vehicle way, the vehicle should fall under all the other motor vehicles, because on that, trailers and boats are not motor vehicles, meaning they're not registered to be driven by their home on on a roadway or highway, so RV should fit under regular motor vehicles on this schedule. Previously voted on as a vehicle, yes, because it's a motor vehicle registered to be on the roadway. Okay? Since we since we decided, as a commission I pose, but we said, as a commission to approve the vehicle identification guide, then we have to stick to that, then for continuity.
So that's a separate issue, a new item, but worthy of discussion. I
think this is the way they were categorized in the ordinance altogether, and I think that's why we categorically put these together. Well,
no, yeah, why? Well, but, but when you submitted the rates, both trailers and vehicles were all submitted and RVs were all submitted separately. We discussed and decided at the last meeting that it made sense to put it together, right? Why did we do that?
Well, so that was under my assumption that we were we weren't going to be guided solely by that document. So now that we're guided solely by that document, the rationale compromise on that
motorhome, correct? Is already considered motorhome, yes, so we got motorhome right here
last week or six, okay,
and I, I would like Troy, because he Troy or Matt, because they're heavy duty towers to speak to this, because they know why this has been an issue in the past on the link. Well, let
me, let me suggest this, because it may be a new point where we classify it. I think we need to move to the next big question is, how are we going? What are going to be the guidelines for boats and trailers and RVs will, may or may not fall out, right? So that's the next big question. And then let's get back to where RVs should fit, because that may give us the answer is that, okay, Captain Adams, you are suggesting that, since we are following the TRA guidelines, that they should be applied to both trailers and RVs. How would that work? Only RVs, right? Well, vehicles would would fall. If you went to wait, it would still fall
within our RVs are registered, like you see, dry trailers. And
my point is, if we, as a commission, say that we're going to stick to the trade vehicle guidelines for all of the classification, it will fall in the medium total regardless of whether it's here under this category or vehicles. Okay, you see what I'm saying. So I think that we should deal with that afterwards. The bigger question is, how, what are going to be the guidelines to separate medium light, medium heavy toes for this category, and for purposes of discussion, we can exclude RVs at this point,
so what we should, at least for sake of experience, is to cross out that our view from the Second Master, we remove it, and then in the previous phase where, in the previous phase, where we Have the Tour race. I know that on the footnote, a footnote the previous slide where we have lightly tours include medium. We can now include RVs in that footnote over there. Okay, let
me ask, how
have they been handled?
We need to know. Let
me ask question. And I'm the director Captain Adams, you suggested that, since we've used this for vehicles, this is clearly say. To me the trade vehicle identification identification guide we should apply, or use weights as the guideline for boats and trailers. And I'd like you to explain that line of thinking, because this says vehicles, it doesn't say boats and trailers. So what's your line of thinking? What's your rationale for saying we need to use weights for boats and trailers?
Because, according to that document, the most important factor is gross, capable weight. So the other considerations that you were deviate from that don't make sense now, because if we're basing our decisions off of gross vehicle weight, we need to be consistent with that all
the way through. But they're talking about vehicles. They're not talking about bed traders.
So motor vehicle. So this document, I'm not, not sure of its origin or what state, but states have their own legal definition. So in Michigan, the definition of a motor vehicle is driven on its own to be registered on the roadway. So a vehicle is designed for off road use exclusively, is not considered a motor vehicle under that context.
For purposes of this discussion this category, let's take our ideas out boats and trailers. How do we classify totals? That's the main question. Is it length? Is it weight? Is it something else? This was the same question we had last week that we were hoping to have this robust discussion so we can come to some agreement. And on the one hand, I could say this is the new vehicle. So if I take RVs out, it doesn't necessarily apply to boats and trailers. There's this whole new category. And so what is the best way, what is the right way to classify those toes? Is it weight, or is it length? To me to and I'm a layperson. I'm not in the business, I would look at this and say, well, this doesn't apply to boats and trailers. There's no pictures of boats and trailers here. How could I apply weights the boats and trailers to try to classify by eating and heavy? Because it's not there. So I don't know if there's a document that helps us classify boats and trailers. Boats on a trailer, trailer by itself, boat by itself. I know that one of the or if I recall one of the earlier suggestion was, let's think about the type of boat, right? And maybe we have to go back to that, but I would put forth that just because we've decided to use this for vehicles, and maybe RVs rightfully so does move into vehicles to make it clean, then that's For vehicles. But we, we do need to determine votes and trailers.
Is there any guy?
Is there any
like, something like this, identification of weights,
you know,
you mentioned about being consistent, and that's where I think, I think left is probably better. Lymphas is identifiable. You can measure and also now the police are Tollers. You are tour now where, when I did it in 12, the police were not towing. But I said that to say I listened to the tours a lot because, of course, they that's their expertise. But in this instance here, how could you use I guess I would pose that question. How could you use weights? And you don't know what they are, so bad.
So for trailers and boats, they're going to be under $10,000 unless it's an industry a commercial trailer, and those will have a rating by a manufacturer.
But then the issue is it doesn't fit the light duty flat.
So one of the if I made it, and I'm not trying to muddy the water, I just want to use this as an example. And we haven't voted on, we haven't agreed to, but the length for a motorhome at 24 feet motor homes are measured from the rear bumper to the front bumper. And so effectively, that's a 16 foot truck, a box truck with with the the cab on it. And so now a motor home that is the same as close to a 16 or 18 foot box truck is getting a heavy tow. It's it doesn't make sense, because the gross vehicle weight of that is not a heavy toe, and so the length can be an issue. Also, what are we measuring from? Are we measuring for boats, the vessel? Are we measuring the trailer? And then are we measuring the trailer should fall to the motor like, where do we?
Should we first? Then. I thought we could do a set second. Should we vote first vote and decide on where RVs should be?
Yes, okay, you
want to make a motion.
I make a motion that RVs be treated on the TRA vehicle identification guide that was previously over there by those people.
Can you do that? Since he didn't support the guidance, just point of order.
Now he's saying used it doesn't matter. The Commission voted and approved, whether it was unanimous or three to four, or whatever. It's approved, we have decided to use the trade for vehicles. Captain Adams has motioned that RVs are rightfully classified as vehicles. They're identifiable on the vehicle identification guide, and he's motioned that they be included in vehicles discussion which What's your this discussion,
I just think we're trying to simplify boats and trailers by length as a guideline, because the weight does not suffice. So I just want to be clear on that
and this. This actually makes it easier to do that, right? Have a discussion on just boats and trailers, right?
So RVs, I think there is a length issue when it comes to the flat the light duty flatbed, and I think that needs to be considered as well. Kim, what way
and in the
question is, how do we categorize RVs? Are they in this category, both in trailers, or are they in the vehicle category? They
are in the vehicle category. So I support that, but I think there's all there's a gray area, just like I showed you 35 slides last week. Yes, there's great areas of towing. It's not, oh, it we fits this. No, sometimes they're overloaded with debris, and a medium duty tow may become a heavy duty tow because it weighs 60,000
and so we discussed, they're always going to be great areas. Right by what I've said, what I've said as chair, is, you're always going to have great areas. They're always going to be, I shouldn't say they're always there may be issues where you get the wrong call and they'll dispatch your toe. Yes, those are operational issues, right? That I hope and I believe that you and the PA TS will be able to work with the DPD to iron out those issues, to come up with better processes. A lot of that has to do with, how are you going to streamline your processes? And now that this is all coming out, it's a better opportunity, you know, to sit down and say, Hey, this is, you know, one of the things that came out in the commission. Let's try to work this out, right? So, but, but it's, it's not appropriate for us to try to put a rate out and consider all those ones, right?
But when I guess my issue is, yes, it is operational, but there's a rate involved, and the rate the tour should be paid, the rate for the fair amount of work they've done. If they've told a heavy duty tow, and it's an RV, if it's a medium duty tow, but required a heavy duty piece of equipment, they should be paid the heavy duty piece of
equipment. And I'm suggesting again that those kinds of conversations I believe you could have right with Captain Evans. So thank you. Would you make the motion again so that we can second it? And
yes, I motion that the motor homes include any Traa vehicle. I didn't forgot identification guide that was previously voted and approved by the commission based on gross vehicle weight.
Second All in favor, aye. All right, so our fees come. Postal rate goes to 425, now the question is, this category is boats and trailers and for for purposes of the public and even myself, is boat by itself, a boat on the trailer, a trailer by itself, a trailer in a boat. I don't know, maybe a trailer on a boat, but that's this classification. It's light, medium, heavy. The question on the table that we need to decide as a commission is, what will be the weight, and this is, should be safe, weight and guideline. In this case, what will be the guideline to distinguish those three types of toes, the the P, A, T's, the DTA have proposed those lengths, 16. 18 foot and under is light, 17 to 24 medium, over 24 heavy that's been proposed. I'll open up the floor for discussion to you, Captain Adams, since that is what's being proposed by the pH so
for purpose of discussion, when we discuss length? Are we discussing the vessel length for boats, the on a trailer? Are we discussing the box of the trailer, for instance, for an enclosed trailer? Are we including the overall length of the vessel, the boat on on the trailer, and an enclosed trailer with the tong to the ball
overall? Okay,
so these measurements, if that's the case, are overall a 16 foot boat would be a 12 or 13 foot boat if we're counting that. So these categories are way too small to be realistic, because if you're having a three to four foot tongue on a trailer, you just minus three or four feet from 16 feet, you end up with 13 to 12 feet. So the minimum I believe for light should be 20 feet.
Madam Chair, I think we need to hear from the experts on that, because they tell these votes, and I don't, I don't agree. I want to hear from Troy, because he chose the majority of the boats in Detroit first.
I'd like to make sure I understand your point. So you said, Peggy, that this is the overall length of, let's say, a boat on the chair. And if I could draw probably a boat on the chair, right? Is that? What the length of space? That's what
we discussed, okay? And because there were no guidelines within the city, so we had to do our own research and discuss them amongst ourselves.
I understand, and Captain Adams your suggestion that if I interpret what you're saying, is that if it's the overall category, then if you had a 16 foot overall limp, that a portion of that is just a trillion itself. In a session, the vote is only 13 people, and that's not necessarily realistic. Realistic is what you're correct, suggesting, and is that? Because, why is that? Is there? I mean, a range of a small boat. So
a boat of that size would be like an aluminum boat with an outboard motor, be very, very small, or a personal watercraft, like a jet ski on the trailer of that size there, I can't think of many vehicles that we've impounded this year of boats that would fit in that category, most boats are the actual vessel. Are going to be between 14 and 20 feet. It's typical for your sportsman boat or your fishing boat. Okay,
so you say with that, let me just make sure I understand, and I'll open it up, and you can open up the trailer. What are you saying with that? If the average vote is 1415, feet, and you add a couple of inches or after for the trailer, trailer, then that's going to put it over 16 feet for the majority of the case. Yes, and that's why he's suggesting that life be 20 and under, or something a little bit higher than 60,
very minimum 20 for light. Okay,
so I understand that question now, okay, yeah, yeah. I just,
I just want to say that before Tory speaks that if this, if these this information exists, why don't we have it? Why did we have to go through all this work to come up with something? Because there's no standard in the industry. We can't find it. But if Detroit Police has it, why aren't they forthcoming and bringing it to us?
We're not going to go back and forth. Okay, I will make a comment. You propose your rates. We're here discussing them. Catherine EDS has right to, you know, we at the point where we're now just discussing this. So I ask both of you all to come back with, I hope you've had some discussions to come back with. What is the weight? What do you have to offer to support your 16 foot? So
it's right, it's near expertise of the police authorized towers, and they're going to hear work from him. But
I don't think it's fair to say, why didn't they provide it? It's not up to them to provide it. You provided the proposed rates he's bringing up in public discussion. That's
they're the governing body. I mean, if they're well, they have. Guidelines. We need to know
what those guidelines are, but they're not published,
is my point. So if these guidelines exist, the tower should be privy to them. We should all be privy to them.
Let me say it again. I think this pink finger pointing is not not fruitful. It is because this is all new. There were no guidelines. So you fought some guidelines. He's suggesting some. And we may decide that nothing that's being said here today, we have enough to even vote on it. We may have to go back, and you may have to bring some more hard evidence. We'll hear from Troy and Captain Adams. May have to bring back some more hot evidence. We may have to decide that there's a whole different way to look at boats and trailers. What's it from Troy? From Mr.
Troy, thank
you. I just wanted to clarify, because I think there is a little bit of misunderstanding going on. This chart is accurate, but it's accurate for the size of the boat. So the 16 to 16 foot with a trailer is up to about 19 feet, which can go on light duty flatbed carrier if the trailer is no good. Okay, so I think that I'm agreeing with Captain Adams, okay, but I think that our that our limps are still a bit off, because he's saying up to 20 feet, but it's really from 16 to 19. Is where you add the three to three and a half feet for the trailer. Okay, so, and how am I telling you this information we've been towing them? Okay,
so one option is it could be 19 feet in under, or 20 feet in them. Well, we could,
yeah, but these guidelines are for the best, so we're right, yeah.
So when we say these limbs, we are counting for with the trailer. So if I may, so to to Troy's point, the 16 foot boat, the overall length of the trailer would be 1920 feet, correct?
All right, I think, yeah. I think we all kind of the same page. So we need
to define, if I may motion, that we define that boats are by the vessel, not the trailer. And we will in with this caveat that we were considering the length of the trailer with the best example, if
they have a trailer, if it has a trailer, but it's another gray area.
So if it doesn't have a trailer, then the 16 foot is going to fall in the length from what I think is, for the sake of clarity, if we say it's the overall length, right? Whether it's a boat by itself or a boat in the trailer, then that's what we should do. It's the overall length. And then we set the length based on that overall length. If it's a boat in the trailer, and you say it's 19 or 20 feet, if it's just the boat is going to be like doing right? If it's a bigger boat and a bigger trailer, then it's going to move to the next medium. So that's my suggestion. I will ask Troy at this point, if you can, what would be your recommended list for life, medium and heavy, based on what we now understand.
So the problem, the problem is, is that once you have a vessel with the trailer, yes, that exceeds 22 feet, now you're out of medium duty range. Now you're definitely into a heavy duty boat. I'm sorry, a heavy duty carrier that has to transport that. So
let's start one at a time. We know that the 16 feet and under is not reasonable for light duty. What's your recommendation for light duty? Okay? What's your maximum overall? Just
to understand your question, with the trailer,
we said overall. We're going to stick with
overall. I think we all need
to be overall, right? This
is not overall. Maybe do we need to discuss and agree on that? I think for clarity, it has to be overall, because if you don't, then you'll get into, oh well, it was just a bold and has to be
overall. I have to ask if it's a trailer by itself. So
gotta have a motion. Motion
to approve was we were talking about it into JD hours, and we're talking about a fiberglass fishing board, this 16 foot to 20 foot category, which seems like alignment with what Commissioner. Adam, she saying, looks like 20 feet with the maximum. And then they also talked about how many pounds it weighs, between 17 129 pounds. And if you combine it with the heavy duty trailer, and you could easily anticipate up to 5000 pounds before we vote on this. I know that it was a question that he asked earlier, for the sake of consistency, are we going to stay back in length, or
are we going to stay back? It's not. We're not bound by vehicle. But okay, so boats and trailers are going to be the limp, okay, overall length, which means the trailer when
chair, you have some empirical standard measure, be it weight, be it length, that it's one and it's well defined. Yes. So with that, I'm going to add one more caveat to this, that we had to discuss the motor on the boat. So when we're measuring the boat on a trailer, does that include, if it's an outboard motor, from an outboard motor to the tip, because that would change things, also
to the does it change the overall length?
It would change the length so a six, so a six, so a 16 foot bolt would have two feet of an outboard motor that's 18 feet, and you have a long tongue out of the other four be 22 feet for 16 foot boat,
and then the trailer may add another three feet, right?
That would be, that would be with additional so
that will move it into, theoretically, at this point, if we said 20, into medium duties,
so that almost all boats, and this is where I have to struggle with this, because we have, right now, we have, when I say we, the police department has five paps, private office doors of those five companies, four of them tow these boats without heavy duty vehicle equipment, and one that is an approved heavy duty tower charges for the heavy duty to tell for the same type of votes. And so that's it tells me that it is being done and it is done on the equipment that's existing
me. But I would interject that, since this is directly related to your pht, that's what we look at. I Captain Adams brought
this up at the last meeting. I discussed it with the towers, and they all agree that they are doing what record tow, which is gov toe tells them to do. He may be dispatched more for the heavy duty toes, because he's a heavy duty tower. Others may be dispatched more for the light duty toes. And again, there's gray areas of bolts that are loaded with debris that become heavy duty toes. And light duty tower may have been dispatched, but it doesn't work, so they have to call in the heavy duty tow. So there's nobody's doing something they shouldn't be doing. They're all being dispatched and doing what they're supposed to be doing. I just want to make that clear. I'm
good on that, and we're just trying to set make sure we have a fair rate. So again, I'm going to go back to
just Yeah, I think you should agree on what would you say overall, because
yes,
yes, the question yes. So define, define overall, as my suggestion is to define it to say if it's outboard to but just define what Overall it is. Right on what overall is
motor vessel and trailer correct,
is that correct overall?
So for with with that, we define it very few boats already. So so we go back to the original Tory commission, where they had one rate for boats. Because very rarely are we going to have a boat that's on a trailer with an engine that's going to be under 2224 feet because of the length of the tongue of the treasure and the extension of the motor, even an inboard motor is going to protrude out a foot and a half or two feet.
So, so if you have one of those bolts with, like the with the motors inside that typically, like with a 350 in there or something, they're a little short.
Yeah, some of them have car engines or Yeah, like a media engine or cylinder that they don't stick out as far as an outboard motor, but they're still a foot and a half for the the end of the engine that goes into the water and the propeller. And so very, very few bolts will be under 24 feet, so that essentially every bolt tone would be a heavy tone under that under these current links.
So the question is, how do you measure the length? But it's overall, and if it's overall. What is that definition? And Baby, do you want to defer to? Yeah,
like Troy speak again, okay, because he's the expert in this.
Before we talk about
so, so we're talking about lymphoma overall. I just want to just kind of give you some guidelines of a carrier truck. And I'm only giving this guideline because a lot of cases we go out for these boats that are in these fields and the tires are no good. The hitches are no good. Some don't have tires. Some are not on trailers. So dealing with this every day, the length of a light duty truck is 19 feet. So overall, 19 feet can go on a light 19 feet overall can go on a light duty truck, a meeting duty truck goes up to 22 feet. So that will be the length overall for medium duty, anything above that would have to go on a heavy duty that goes up to 32 feet.
And I do, I do recognize that there are some folks that do get pulled but we found more than half that we go out for from sitting in those fields, and you know, been sitting there for 1020 years. They just can't. Most of them have to go up top
on the back button. Yes, yes. They can't be tougher.
And I think to your point, and probably a point that you've not made yet, Captain, captain, Captain Adams is based on this, if it's overall, most of the tolls will be in heavy duty. That is a very high proposed toll rate. And it's my understanding that most of these votes are not redeemed, which becomes, then a city cost to the city. And I know we're not here to really look at the cost of the city. I guess I would go back to then the proposed toll rate, because this kind of changes the dynamics, and I don't recall of him. Do we have any good benchmark studies for boats and trailers, for tows from any other in our benchmark studies,
I don't think we had we looked at their light duty, medium duty and Heavy Duty tow rates, mostly.
So you had mentioned before Captain Adams that you had no comment, or that BPD was not going to speak on the proposed toll rate. This kind of puts it in a different light, correct?
Yeah, the police
department now position on the rate fee,
so we still then just looking at the weight guidelines, you're still in agreement with the proposed rate. Are we still now, then looking at the guidelines, and I guess going back to trying to get a agreement and consensus on overall what that means regardless, and I want to say regardless of where it's going to fall in the classification.
So for discussion, I think we need to consider, because of the complicated nature of boats and trailers, being on a trailer, not being on trailer, inboard, motor, no motor, that boats be one category, because very rarely are we going to tell one that's under 2224 feet,
one category, one feet, one
category. Left me. That's
what that we had before,
yes. And I
just want to add that, you know, knowing that that was the vessel length, and then with Troy clarifying light duty, medium duty and heavy duty, I think now that we're considering overall, I think, you know, we just need to change those categories to reflect the overall link based on what a light duty, medium duty and type
of duty? Yeah, I'm sorry. Commissioner Goodwin, are you? Are you proposing we stay with the light, medium, heavy schedule? Yes, which is different than what you proposed. You're probably different than what I'm proposing. And are you proposing different lengths for those three categories? Or definition of those lengths?
What are you proposing?
I'm proposing that, because of the complicated nature of determining the length of the boats, that very few boats will be under 2224 feet, that there just be one category boat and one feet for both, flat rate,
a flat rate for votes.
Want to have a discussion? It would just be one class, not heavy medium, not. Up, no, no classification. One way,
right? One way, in regards
to land.
And may I add this to the complicated nature of this, and I think the private towers would agree, who's going to measure it. So I don't see the tow truck driver point out there with the tape measure, measuring the outboard motor and measuring, I mean, it's, it gets into really difficult practice, and then, do we measure it when it comes to the lot to make sure that it's within the category that the towers billing for? It just gets very, very complicated,
because they have, they have the responsibility to verify your invoices from the blind. So, yeah, it does add a good mention of administration, then maybe you don't necessarily have to have so I would ask that if you want to have a conversation with your tours, maybe a private conversation, or we table it. And
if we're going to talk about one flat rate, yeah, for towing boats, we need to have a discussion on that and come back to the next meeting. We can't, we can't decide on that today. Okay,
can I take a poll, though not the rate, but to just see how the tourists feel about that? Sure? How do you guys feel about it possible, depending what
we need to discuss the rate. I mean,
okay, it's been an issue. So I'm not going to just make a snap decision on that. Okay, and I'm
not going to add is one last thing, yes, I agree with what he's what Captain Adams is saying in regards to the RVs, they are motor vehicles. However, at the end of the day, they will have a disposal fee,
because now, okay, so we
agree, and I think we can motion on that. We've already taken RVs out. We already have one category, boats and trailers, and I'd like to hear a motion that we will have one flat rate for boats and trailers.
I didn't consider trailers Converse. So
by the definition of this, is there? Well, by this guy, they're not, because they don't have their own means to drive, right? I don't know what the industry standard is. I would treat those as trailers, if we're sticking to this definition. Did
you say campers? Yeah? Like,
trailer, yeah, trailer, trailers, like I showed you in the slides left,
there were some trailers that were, you know, traditional, and then there were camper trailers. I'm
just wondering if we need to include that in that consensus.
Well, I would have, like, I had on the other one, you know, includes campers and anything else, nothing too
far ahead. Commissioner Andrew, I agree with with your what I think you're you're proposing here is that trailers kind of fit in the same category, RV trailers, and that, what do we define? Do we define the spare tire on the back up to the point of the ball? Do we are we measuring the box, just the box, not the tone of the trailer? It gets into the same thing. So maybe the best course of action would be one fee for for trailers and
Lisa and I'll add Durango, any, any other type of argument. So I think we need a motion to have one flat rate for boats and trailers, and we will define what's included in that one for boats and trailers both one category, Okay, can I have a motion? I don't think much. One flat rate proposal trailer.
Okay, it's
it. I am saying, Commissioner Goodwin, we can bring this back up in my recommendation. Okay?
So with that being said, motion fail give a motion we have at the next meeting. Need to come back to boats and trailers. The discussion has to be or looking for discussion and recommendation as to one category, Mike versus three classifications, that's one question. If it changes to one classification, the proposed what is the proposed rate right? If it remains three classifications, we have the proposed rate, then we're back to the discussion of the guidelines.
So we will table that to the next meeting, and I would ask that you bring the support for that so we can finalize that. And given that that is going to impact the discussion on storage rates, then we should table that as well. It will also impact the discussion somewhat on disposal rates. But I would like to discuss that and
bring open that up for discussion so we can consider that. So you consider that, you know, as you determine whether you want, classification. Same thing with storage. Yes,
do we need to discuss disposal rates? It sounds like they have a service they use that does this service or is this something? I was going
to bring it up and open it up. I think
you recall the share for the record.
So before we get there, though,
so this reflects our current rates of the contract that we have with our recycle company, which would remove recycled remarket LLC. It's under contract number 6005331, and it has a pay schedule of boats, 12 feet and under 1318, feet, 19 to 2420 feet, 25 and over for 12 of both costs of disposals, 170 for 13 to 18 to 25
for 19 to 24 is 275 and for 25 and over is $375 for recreational vehicles, RVs, or motor homes, 18 to 24 foot, the cost is 295 for RVs, 25 to 32 feet, $380 recreational vehicles, 33 feet and over or 495, and there are four categories of trailers, 12 feet and under 170
13 and 18. 225, 19 and 24 275, 25 and over 375, and then solid waste is 1000 pounds for 425, and this would include the trash as being an abandoned RV or boat or trailer that has been removed, not the vessel, but for the solid waste that we removed from other vehicles.
And you submitted this for discussion, so I guess I'll open it up for discussion, because I'm not really sure how the plays or what discussion needs to take place.
So if I may, the vast majority of the abandoned boats and trailers that we impound do not get redeemed, and they are disposed of by the city of Detroit at additional costs, and these are the costs associated with having those vehicles recycled or demolished, or however you want to say it, I and
this
doesn't involve the towers, correct? I mean, other than they told
them, they told you to, they told you our lots, right? Your
lots, and then you take care, take it from there too.
But do you submit it? The PDT submitted disposals,
right? Because we didn't have this information. We didn't have his information of this service.
Okay? So this was, this was, this is not related to because
they have been involved in that, but it sounds like they're not anymore, based on. Be submitted today, watch captain Adams. Okay. Currently,
currently in Troy
can yard. I apologize, but currently, Captain Adams is right. Currently, everything that that needs to be disposed of, like that goes to their yard. But it changes. Sometimes it comes to us and sometimes it doesn't, but as of late, the last several months, it has been going to the city lives. But there was a time that we less than a year ago, by less than six months ago, that we were taking our own yard, and we asked why? And they were like, because you're on the contract. So we did incur disposal fees. Did
you get reimbursed?
No, that's, that's why we
I don't think there was, there's a, I don't think there's anything for us that we can build, because of the current rate structure, we can't build the city. I don't
think for disposal. Correct. Me wrong, correct. And I, since I've been at the police towing unit, or over the police towing unit. I'm a management services section. I have several units on but we have done this practice for this year of where the PT IU lots take in all the abandoned vehicles. And so they're the paps are not burdened with storage or with removal or cleanup of these.
But these proposed rates are being proposed by them for the one offs, in case they do Is my understanding correct? I'm sorry I say the way I understand it is you're proposing these rates for storage and disposal for those cases, one off whatever, whatever caused it to happen, so that you have an avenue of recovery,
which they happen, correct?
So again, the question, and I think you said before Captain Adams that you we agreed that we did agree on the storage rates and disposal rates. So I'll ask you again, do you have any comments on their proposed rates? This is for them. In those cases, for whatever reason you request them or they do store and dispose of a boat and trailer,
the proposed rates are considerably more than what we actually pay by the current standard and current contract.
Well, it's to us that he's using a service. Obviously, they didn't know, and I didn't know that there's a service being employed that obviously is high volume that does this. That's all they do. So it makes a big difference.
The question is, what rate are you proposing for those cases where you know things may change, where you are requested by DPD to dispose of, and that's what we're here to discuss. Now that you have these rates in front of you, do you want to go back and look at your proposed rates, or,
well, I guess the question is, are you being paid for me? Because this is where you have a disposal fee. You're not right under
the current rate versus in place. Now, we are not being reimbursed in Norway ship form,
so while we're at the table. So is this, is this work that
is? I mean, will they honored a disposable fee? If we go through and research this further to see what the fees should be, if we do indeed want to change them, I don't know. I'm just saying, if they're
these rates are pretty accurate based on us being individual,
independent companies, right? They're not high volume recycling companies. The
operational side of it is, it behooves the DPD to make sure that you don't dispose of anything, that they make sure that you bring it to their lots and they dispose it to take advantage of the city savings for the contract. But
that doesn't happen. And what's happening is they're not getting paid what they're doing, and that's
why it's here. I'm not advocating that it comes off the table. I'm just the
distinction of why these rates are higher than a company they fire to high volume. You understand your account.
I understand it. I but I wanted to give you the opportunity now that you know what the rates are, if you wanted to think about maybe making your rates a little more competitive, I don't know. Now, did you know, like you said, you didn't have this information, right? You know the city is paying, so it's really up to you. I think Captain Evans has said in the past he doesn't have an opinion one but the other, he's presented you with what they do now. And yes, they are savings, savings of scale, economies. L or or, you know, contracts, and how the city contracts, Louis bid, and all that kind of stuff. So, but you do have to, again, decide, or think about what that proposed rate is going to be if we go to a single category and a single class, in a single way,
when I did the same thing with the storage fees for those cases that and that would ensure that if they happen, when they happen, that you have some avenue to get reimbursed, which is, I think it's fair, and I don't think Kevin Adams is saying anything different than that. Okay, so that will also be tabled, but I did want him to present it with that you have the information and you guys can discuss it. Okay, so boats and trailers open category. We'll finalize that at our next meeting. We have to so the next page includes everything else, and I'll open it up for discussion. So this would be our third category, miscellaneous that I misspelled ATVs, motorcycles, jet skis. The Commission agrees that it is a light duty tolls. Current weight is $100 flat. Proposed rate is 125 out of town toll retrievals, current rate, okay? $4 per mile, 6.95 prohibit per mile, heavy duty. Proposed rate, $6.08 89 per mile. We've agreed that those are okay, and this is more for informational purposes. Again, me trying to think about how to present these categories so that we focus on the main thing. We want to major minor. We want to major in a major and not minor in the major, something like that, administrative fee, current rate, $75 proposed rate, $75 Okay, and I'll talk about that a little bit. Any other comments questions on we were now on item two in our agenda. So now just like to move on quickly to bonding and insurance inspection and permit so I reclassified everything. This is just a copy of the letter I sent to our Corporation Counsel, comrade mallet, asking them again to verify one more than the other, if they had any information regarding relating to any changes, if any, to the current insurance and body standards for police or device tours. I have not received a response, nor do I expect to receive a response. So again, by recommending that we assume there is no change. And to close out this item. And so this is a slide that I hope to present just showing what the current and proposed rates are for bonding and insurance and Commissioner A has already given us the information for licenses and permits and that the current there's no change to the current cost. And with that, that brings me to the end of this presentation, but I'll go back up to the agenda and
we are and
we are going through page
two. Yep, we are number eight new business we had talked last week about all of us going through and comparing the 2021 and 1984 touring rate ordinances. The previous condition was under the 1984 touring rate ordinance. We are on the current 2021 service. Mr. Lockleridge here has done an excellent job of going through and highlighting the comparing the 2020 One in 1984 and just briefly to go through what I what my plans are, is to have a section on the history, to bring in the charter, and of course, this is the city charter, to just highlight the differences and changes as it relates to this commission. And so if you go down, I think the first real change was on page three, and it does specifically relate to this commission. It adds that if we fail to forward a recommendation within the time provided, which is by October 1, the city council can adopt a resolution to set the fee services and storage fees without such recommendations. So we don't want that to happen. So that's why we hear a meeting and working so well together to come up with an approach rate it also added the tolling contracts. Initially after 2021 include the income based rate structure, and I did note that that was included in the contracts now 2022 through, 2027 so that's one of the big changes, and I'll just point out this. The other big change was on page five, and that essentially removed the board of police commissioners from having anything to do with the procurement of P, A, T's, they put it squarely into the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the office of contract procurement. Go on page six. This introduces the administrative fee, which what came out of the 2012 Tory commission. And it adds again that city council can adopt the cost of towing and storing through resolution. And then it just talks about how that resolution will be made public, as we all know or based on the last toll rate Commission. The Commission did provide the proposed rates to city council before that October 1 deadline, but the resolution was not affected until April of the following year. I suspect that that may still be the case, because it'll take effects the next budget year, but they probably will adopt it during the on during this next budget
cycle, going
that change when we sell. Case,
we are on six city sales, the variable in an option and the cost, I mean, the proceeds from the vehicle exists all the accumulated Chinese storage and everything, delivery ambush, the owner has a vehicle for a
difference, yes, so a vehicle that's auctioned. The hierarchy of fees is storage, towing, and then administrative fees, and then, if there's any overs left over there's a $40 fee that of that $40 fee done 25 with the state of Michigan, Fernando vehicle, and 15 goes to the municipality, and then the rest of that overage, the remainder, goes to the Treasury, and the Treasury just gives it to the private
owner. It's it's
simple, but complicated seems like exceptions, but vehicles that are sold for less than the storage and towing, there are no overages and no money goes to the Treasury. Some cities do, but we do but we
do not, okay, so page eight, I
strictly, rates, rates, rates and so. Although we didn't do it then we
said payment added on page 12.
You. So with that we reviewed it, I will again just bring out some of those highlights in the presentation. The next thing on the agenda is to discuss the need for and or proposed days for another special call meeting right now our next scheduled meeting is in three weeks, right because we decided not to meet on the next meeting two week. Meeting would have been on September 5, but we decided to meet on the 12th. That's, to me, it's cutting it close. We definitely need to have a meeting in between, and the 12th would be reserved to having our eyes upon what I hope to have the presentation as we're going to send out, if we're going to speak before the public health and safety committee, you know, as I talked, if we finalize that really on the 12th, and get it out to them by the end of business on the 12th, they would Have a few days to look at it, so that being said, but I would hope to have you know, send out the presentation for you to review between then and now. I would prefer to have a meeting next week, special call, meeting that gives me time to finalize the numbers, I may have some draft parts of the presentation ready, either next week or the first weekend.
So I support August 29 I do
because then, which comes to shove, and we need an additional meeting, we have the ability to do that, as opposed to waiting till the fifth. Okay,
I like that, too.
Madam, Chairperson, for clarification, this September 16 has not been confirmed yet by Ray Duncan, right?
Where's that confirmed? No, it's not okay.
I just find it
right? Because actually, I gave her the 16th and the 23rd and she said the 23rd was problematic for them because they get your dangerous buildings and it's already gone. So Right? What she needed to clarify was, did I need to send it to city council to have it referred but I talked with Brian White, who's Chief of Staff for council president, and I can put it in to the Council of the whole agenda to have it referred to them for the 16th. So I would actually do that. I would do that on their back from recess that first week. So I would submit a request to be on their agenda either for September the third or September the 10th, so that it's preparing time right? So so I don't think it's going to be an issue.
Madam Chair, for our meeting on the 29th the meeting times be the same, from one begin to three. Yeah, we
can move it up.
I would prefer to keep it on the same time schedule.
So we have, that's how it was scheduled. I don't know if that's the change, all right, so I'd like to propose and that we meet on october 29 same time, I will try to confirm our Meet room again. If not, then it will be in our office. It'll be a special call meeting post. Oh my
gosh, good. Gosh, good. 253, wow. Any other comments? Tell me minutes from the comments from our commissioners. Commissioners report, you make a great scene, which I think. You. Well, with that being said, I'd like to adjourn this meeting at 2:54pm
