CITY OF SOUTH LYON

CITY OF SOUTH LYON

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

April 23, 2007

Mayor Doyle called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Mayor Doyle led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

PRESENT: Mayor Doyle

Council Members: Dryer, Kivell, Kopkowski, Maida, Morelli, and Wedell

City Manager Cook

Attorney Lee

City Clerk/Treasurer Zemke

Department Heads: Martin & Renwick

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Councilman Dryer thanked Lisa Lynch for a fine job on the minutes in the City Clerk’s absence.

CM 4-1-07- APPROVAL OF MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2007

Motion by Kivell, supported by Dryer

To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 2007 as presented

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CM 4-2-07 – APPROVAL OF MINUTES – STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING WITH RCOC – 3-28-07

Motion by Wedell, supported by Kopkowski

To approve the minutes of the Strategic Planning Meeting with the Road Commission of Oakland

County held on March 28, 2007 as presented

Council Member Maida questioned the order in which the projects are listed. City Manager Cook stated that they are in random order, not order of priority.

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS: None

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor Doyle stated that he would like to remove Old Business #1 from the agenda. He stated that he is finalizing the appointments to the Compensation Commission and hopes to bring this back at the next meeting. Also, the City Manager has requested that New Business #2 be removed from the agenda. Furthermore, he would like to switch the order of Executive Session and Council Comments.

The question was asked why we are pulling New Business #2. City Manager Cook stated that he needs to have some further discussion prior to presenting it to Council

CM 4-3-07 – APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Dryer, supported by Morelli

To approve the agenda as amended by removing Old Business #1 and New Business #2 as well as

placing Council Comments prior to Executive Session

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CITIZENS SUGGESTIONS:

Mr. Timothy Geiman of 616 E. Lake Street stated that he is present to bring up the issue of the T-Mobile tower proposed to be located at 201 S. Mill Street. He read a statement in opposition. (See attached statement as part of these minutes.)

Mr. Richard Zecchini of 516 E. Lake Street stated he and his wife moved to South Lyon and chose the City due to it’s uniqueness and richness. The community is rich in it’s history and is unpretentious and unassuming, which is part of the appeal. He stated that Chris from the Lumber yard and his parents spent two years trying to get their property as a State Historical Preservation site and the Pastor of the Presbyterian Church also is trying to preserve that property as a State Historical site. The State Historical Preservation Office indicated that there was a proposal submitted to their office regarding the tower, and after reviewing it they have found two sites which are less than the required distance. There is also Paul Baker Memorial Park, which is less than 1/10 of a mile from the proposed site. He spoke with the Planning Commission at their last meeting and was disheartened because he was told that this was a “done deal”. He indicated an additional point that he spoke with National Tower Review, which is a neutral party to assist communities in their planning process. They do note to look out for “cookie cutter” applications because they are not in your best interest. They will slip items through that will cost the community greatly. Many communities have been successful in not preventing this type of technology from going into their city, but preventing them from scourging the City. He stated that he loves this City and believes in it.

Mayor Doyle asked the City Attorney for a review. Attorney Lee stated that he is not part of the planning process, but as City Attorney he ensures that the City follows the law. He stated that the City has always taken a strong position against anything that is tall. Up until the Federal Communications Act of 1996, we did not even allow private radio operators to have antennae that exceeded 80 feet. However, the Federal Government has seen ft to pass an Act, the 1996 Federal Communications Act, which mandates among other things, that the City must provide adequate tower facilities and empowers the Federal Courts to order us to do so if we do not provide such facilities. Secondly, that Act took away from us the power to even look at health issues relating to power issues, radio waves, distance between the tower and nearest home and impact of radio waves on humans, animals, plants, etc. We are not even permitted to look at or base any approvals predicated upon health issues. We are obligated to make space for them. Up until this time, we have always insisted that these tower be placed on our City property to minimize the impact on residents as well as to allow us to keep a “handle” on it. In this case for a number of reasons that the City Manager has fiercely negotiated, we were unable to convince them that this tower should be on our City property. They then have a right to put it elsewhere, and they are in that process. Other than having requirements that are not precluded by the Federal Government, we are powerless to stop the location of these towers. We can keep them out of purely residential areas. We can zone specific areas for them, but even in that case, if they come back and say that we cannot get the needed coverage, we are still obligated to work with the zoning to give them their coverage areas.

The question was asked if there are other options in the City. Attorney Lee stated that in the past we have had them in three places that being the water tower, in our DPW yard and we have one at the Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Council Member Kopkowski asked what is stopping them from putting it on the water tower. City Manager Cook stated that we have an older tower. There are other antennae on the tower and a lot of conduit running down the ladder. There is not sufficient room for the safety of individuals who go up the tower. We asked them to hold us harmless because there would be people going up to inspect and if you add another conduit it only makes it more difficult. They refused to do that, and it is not our responsibility to insure them in the event that someone did go up the ladder and fell. They just walked away at that point.

The question was asked what other city properties were offered to them. City Manager Cook stated that they already have a tower on Dixboro Road. The DPW tower was not acceptable either because of the area in which they are having difficulty providing service. Attorney Lee stated that the DPW yard is only ½ mile away from the Wastewater Treatment Plant and they needed coverage further east.

Council Member Kopkowski asked if we are not allowed to look at health issues, are we allowed to look at historical issues. Attorney Lee stated that we can, only from a zoning perspective. City Manager Cook stated that his understanding is that State Historic Preservation (SHPO) will be re-evaluating the tower, and this item has been pulled from the Thursday night Planning Commission agenda. SHPO has indicated that they will be re-evaluating their original decision based on the comments they have received recently. He does not know how long it will take them to evaluate, but would expect it to take 2-4 weeks.

Denise Donley of 225 E. Liberty stated that the City has land close, and that is the cemetery. City Manager Cook stated that the cemetery is zoned residential and would only be moving the problem.

Roger Miller of 430 E. Liberty Street stated that this will be within 300 feet of his house. He stated that he has a pacemaker. It does not make any sense medically. Attorney Lee stated that the Federal Government put this in the hands of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC authorized a number of studies, all of which came back indicating that there is no proof whatsoever that these radio waves have any health affect of any kind. That is their ruling and they have forbidden us from taking a counter position. If you disagree with that the only people that have jurisdiction is the FCC and the Congress. Mr. Miller stated that from a historical standpoint, his house has been there since 1855.

Mr. Zecchini stated that according to the research he has conducted 1996 Act is being revised and was reviewed and amended in 2003. Attorney Lee stated that they are always reviewing it, but as of right now the law is as he has indicated. It has not been amended or changed to date.

Mr. Ray Tiernan of 702 E. Lake Street asked if we have no authority to turn this down, then why are we going through the motions. Attorney Lee stated that it has to be in an area that is appropriately zoned and it has to meet the minimum requirements that we have the right to review. But, as long as it meets those minimum requirements, then we are obligated under the 1996 Act to approve it. We cannot “knock it out” because we think that it is ugly and we cannot because we are concerned about radio waves, or because it ruins our view. Mr. Tiernnan stated that voting people in to run our city government the way we want it run is somewhat a moot point. It would seem to him that there should be some other avenues.

Mayor Doyle stated that we do care about what is going on, but there are certain constraints that we have to work under. There are many times we are superseded by State or Federal law.

City Manager Cook stated that this issue goes back about three years. There is a narrow proximity where they need a tower. If you move it to the south, you move into a residential zoned area and you have the same environmental conditions further south that you have where it is proposed now. The cemetery is residentially zoned, which would prohibit it. Moving it is not going to change the issue and you just bring in a different set of people. The City did not own any land that was acceptable. We have a number of antennae up on the tower and it is very cramped. We do not need any liability issues resulting from someone having an accident on our facility. It is an old tower, and we would not build this water tower based on the new construction codes that are in place now that were not in place when we built it 25 years ago.

Council Member Maida asked why it has to stay in South Lyon. City Manager Cook stated that we do not determine the area. They know the areas where they cannot provide service. They would not be doing this if all of their users in the area were getting good quality communication. They are already a co-locator on the tower on Dixboro Road, but that is not servicing everyone they need to service that has T-Mobile telephone.

Councilman Kivell stated that one of the misconceptions is that we are the ones that have determined the location or that we have the ability to determine whether something does or does not take place. If it meets the zoning and the usage for that zoning class, it is allowed. It is not a reflection of what we are looking for, but it is what we are legally obligated to allow to take place. The problem with this site is that this is an older area developed prior to the transitional zoning that you would see in planning that would take place now. This was at a time where you had manufacturing next to the people who worked there, and it was not seen as an impediment. We do not live in that time any longer, but the existing zoning is still there.

Councilman Kivell asked if there was a possibility that we could solicit CSX to forecast the potential hazard if a tower failed and collapsed on the tracks. CSX seems to have an unbelievable amount of ability to provide pressure on any kind of government entity. City Attorney stated that you are talking about a political process and he does not think there would be enough time within the permitting period. He further stated that the Act says that if we do not permit a tower within a reasonable time, not only can they get an order from Federal Court ordering us to permit that tower, but also we have to pay their actual attorney fees in obtaining that order. That could cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Councilman Kivell further stated that we are to take the oversight position of the City to not put the City in jeopardy. We could end up having this pushed on us plus we could have to pay legal damages. We have to weigh whether or not there is any advantage to the community as a whole.

Ms. Paula Geiman of 616 E. Lake Street stated it has been stated that the City is sympathetic to the issue. She has spent a great deal of time to communicate to City Council through a lengthy email and she only received one response. This is an issue she feels very strongly about and feels that it affects the City. She feels that more than one person should have responded. She further stated that there was a tower that was planned near Reese and Donovan Streets and that was stopped by the City and she understood that was due to the affect it would have on the downtown businesses. City Manager Cook stated that Mr. Edwards, the property owner actually stopped that because of the location on his property would have prevented him from using portions of his property.

Councilman Dryer stated that Council Members do receive a decent amount of emails from residents. They do read them all and study them. They have to be careful that they do not violate the Open Meetings Act. If Council were to start some sort of debate through email, that puts us all in jeopardy. It is not that they do not care, it is just that they have to be careful. Council wants to hold this type of debate in an open forum where minutes are being recorded and people can see it on television. Otherwise, they are dealing behind the scenes and that is not what this is about.

Mr. Timothy Geiman questioned what level of coverage is this community obligated to provide to T-Mobile. He stated that they have a T-Mobile phone and use it quite a bit and have never had a dropped call anywhere in South Lyon. Attorney Lee stated that they go through the national process first. He would presume that the Planning Commission addressed that issue. When T-Mobile or any other company comes for a request for a tower, one of the first things they show is their circular charts, engineering information as to “blank zones”, etc. His understanding is that they have made this sufficiency arguments and we can find no objection within that argument.

Mr. Geiman questioned that if there is all this concern now, why was the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals without verifying the distances between neighboring residents or property lines. Attorney Lee stated that he believes there is a misunderstanding. He stated that they did come to the ZBA for a variance, but that was on the height. They wanted to make it higher based on the fact that they wanted to have some additional co-locators. We indicated to them that we would not accept the decision the ZBA made to increase that tower, and if they insisted on having the additional height as granted by the ZBA, he was going to request Council authorize him to go to Circuit Court to vacate that position. In response, they elected to withdraw that permit. It was stated that there were two variances granted, one for height and one for setback.

Mr. Geiman stated that the setback variance was not verified. There was no survey information available to verify the distances. That needs to be scrutinized.

Councilman Morelli stated that he does sit on the ZBA and was in attendance at that meeting. He did vote against the request and it was a split vote. There was no public in attendance. All they have is the information that is given to them.

Mr. Tiernan asked what would keep another company from doing this same thing after T-Mobile. Discussion was held on co-locators. Attorney Lee stated that from an engineering standpoint, if that tower is saturated and cannot support any further traffic, we would be obligated, as he understands the FCC regulations, to permit another tower. The Federal Government has seen fit to take these decisions out of our hands.

Mrs. Geiman stated that she has copies of the address labels for the notices, but there is a group on Lake Street that did not receive the January notification. The first they heard of this was the notice that the received for the Planning Commission meeting. If they had known, they would have gotten out and talked with people in January. She further stated that one of the items that was addressed in her email to City Council was the fact that one of the ZBA members, Jane Schimpf, commented that this was an area that was not “over gushed” in beautification and was not a pristine part of the City that would be ruined by an eyesore. That was something that influenced her decision. Mayor Doyle stated that Ms. Schimpf is no longer a member of that Board, not because of this decision, but she no longer serves in that capacity. He further discussed the appointment process. He stated that these people who serve on these boards and commissions are no different than anyone here. They come from various backgrounds and areas of the City. They are independent and do not check with Council. They serve because they want to give something back to the community.

Larry Laethem of 584 E. Lake Street stated that notification is 90% of the battle, and people that the City claims were notified were not.

Mayor Doyle stated that what these residents are doing now, is the right thing. Nothing is going to happen that they do not know. If you want updates, contact City Hall and show up at every meeting. Discussion was held on public hearings and lack of attendance by the public.

Ms. Denise Donley of 225 E. Liberty Street asked what type of notification is given for these meetings. It was stated that for ZBA, rezonings, etc. letters are sent to everyone within 300 feet of the subject property and published in the South Lyon Herald. For public hearings for budget, etc. notice is only published in the newspaper. Further discussion was held on regularly scheduled meetings.

Councilman Kivell stated that Council is subject to limitations. Council cannot do something knowingly is illegal. If there is usage acceptable to zoning, Council needs to be creative in determining a way around an issue. He stated that it appears that the ZBA decision may be something that needs to be revisited to find out about the setbacks. Attorney Lee stated that the City has the same limitations that a citizen has relative to appealing a ZBA decision. The ZBA is a quasi-judicial body that makes a judicial decision that the City may appeal just as a citizen may appeal. There are only 21 days after the decision to appeal, and that 21 days has passed so we do not have an opportunity to revisit.

Councilman Kivell stated that since there is no final plan approved, we do not know the actual footprint nor the setback impact. City Manager Cook stated that a final plan has been submitted. He further stated that these towers are designed to collapse on themselves, they do not freefall. Attorney Lee stated that they can only use the variance for the purpose for which it was granted at that time. If they move the tower that would require another variance, they would have to come back. Any modification would require another review by the ZBA.

Councilman Kivell stated that he would still like to investigate the impact CSX may or may not have on this.

Council Member Kopkowski asked if the person whose property they locate on benefits monetarily. City Manager Cook stated that they would receive a monthly payment. Council Member Kopkowski asked if we can look at other city property. City Manager Cook stated that we do not have any more property where they need to locate their tower. It would have been nice to put it on the water tower, but we should not be obligated to hold them harmless if someone has an accident. That could be a very large law suit.

Mr. Geiman asked if they looked at Volunteer Park. City Manager Cook stated that they already have a tower at our plant on Dixboro. That was not an acceptable location for them. Attorney Lee stated that there is also a mobile tower at the school bus garage. City Manager Cook stated that if they could avoid building a $200-300,000 tower by co-locating, they would have chosen that.

OLD BUSINESS:

Appointments – Mayor Doyle – Removed from the agenda

Community Development Block Grant Program – Possible reduction in usual allocation

City Manager Cook stated that we received two memos from Oakland County indicating a reduction in our CDBG funds. There will be a change, $39,000 had been our allocation and they will re-evaluate. We expect that we will lose roughly $10,000. Councilman Kivell stated that he was surprised that we received the second largest loss from cities. City Manager Cook stated that he did contact them after the first memo, and based on that dialogue they will be re-evaluating and expect our loss to be $10,000. He stated that this is simply for notification purposes.

Councilman Wedell asked if this was reduced nationally. City Manager Cook stated that it was. He further stated that a few years ago, there was a move to eliminate the program, but that did not happen.

City Manager Cook stated that we only have one quadrant left that is eligible, which is the northwest quadrant. In the mid 1990s, HUD made a re-evaluation similar to this and we lost two eligible areas because of population estimates. There is a possibility that we could, in the future, lose that eligible area. That will cause us additional problems as it relates to distributing the funds in a legitimate area. Discussion was held on Senior Center as an eligible program. City Manager Cook stated that you can only use up to 45% of the funds for that, so you would have to find another program to spend the funds.

Council Member Maida asked if the new homes being built in that area affect this further. City Manager Cook stated that it would not for this project. But, when you get into the income data, you can tell that they would not be eligible.

Councilman Dryer asked if there is anyway that we can use different boundaries of the quadrant. City Manager Cook stated that we have to go by what they tell us. He further stated that Lyon Township has no eligible areas and put their funds toward the Senior Center and other similar programs.

Further discussion was held on the eligible area and the private developments within that area leaving the City a very small area to deal with.

2007 Tree Plantings – Bid Acceptance – Low apparent bid – Brien’s Services, Inc. - $25,085.90

Superintendent Renwick stated that earlier this year, the City received a $15,000 matching grant from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We went out for bids for a spring tree planting. We sent out ten bids and received four back. Brien’s Services, Inc. is from the Milford area and have been in business for approximately 25 years. They came in with the low bid in the amount of $25,085.90 and ask Council to approve that low bid.

Councilman Wedell asked if we have worked with this company in the past. Superintendent Renwick stated that we have not, however they do work with a number of communities in the area including Milford and Wixom, and they do maintenance for Lyon Township as well as other communities.

Councilman Dryer asked that if we have a $15,000 grant and the bid is $25,000 does that mean that they are matching $15,000 to our $15,000. He further stated that a 50/50 grant would mean we pay $12,500 and so do they. Superintendent Renwick stated that is correct. Councilman Dryer asked if we could increase the number of trees to reach that $30,000 so that we get more value. Superintendent Renwick stated that we can do that. They have agreed to hold the prices. The bids came in lower than he estimated.

The question was asked how many trees are we going to plant. Superintendent Renwick stated that it would be 120 trees. The question was asked how many trees we planted last fall. Superintendent Renwick stated that we planted 160 trees, but we received the full $20,000 grant. Discussion was held on the number of trees left to plant from the removal of the Ash trees. Superintendent Renwick stated that after this planting, we will have 150 left for all of the trees that were removed.

Council Member Kopkowski asked if all of the companies were bidding on the same type and size of tree. Superintendent Renwick stated that they were. Council Member Kopkowski stated that there is a large difference between the low and high bid.

Further discussion was held on increasing the number of trees. Attorney Lee stated that Council could approve the bid and authorize the City Manager to spend an additional $5,000 with the same contractor and prices.

CM 4-4-07 – APPROVAL OF LOW BID – 2007 TREE PLANTING

Motion by Morelli, supported by Kopkowski

To approve the low bid from Brien’s Services, Inc. in the amount of $25,085.90 for the 2007 Tree

Planting

Councilman Dryer stated that if this is a 50/50 grant, in order to get the full $15,000 then we need to spend $15,000 ourselves. Attorney Lee stated that a 50/50 grant means that they will pay ½ of whatever you spend up to $30,000.

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CM 4-5-07 – AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE – 2007 TREE PLANTING

Motion by Dryer, supported by Kivell

To authorize the City Manager to contract with Brien’s Services, Inc. to acquire additional trees at the

unit prices for an additional $5,000 of expenditure

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

First Reading – Mobile Home District – Section 102-263 – subsection 7 – State Licensed Adult Facility

Attorney Lee stated that what the Planning Commission has requested is an amendment to a very narrow section, the Special Use Permit section of the Mobile Home Park Zoning Ordinance so that we can allow, as a special use within that district, the facilities of a kind set forth in this section. That would be facilities for services for 6 or fewer persons under 24 hour supervision subject to the limitations listed in subsections a – e. This affects only properties zoned Mobile Home. State 6-person facilities can be put in any residential area so long as they are not within 1500 feet of another. We have no control over that.

Discussion was held on the subject property. Councilman Morelli stated that it is between the car wash and the oil change facility. That is zoned mobile home, but it is actually a house. They originally came before the Planning Commission to get that re-zoned to single family residential. It was the City’s Planning Consultant who told them that it would be easier for them to go this route. They are not proposing a half-way house, but a sobriety house. The Planner thought that it would be easier for them to allow, as a special use this type of operation instead of trying to rezone. He further stated that he understands that even if this is allowed, it still has to go back to Planning Commission to make sure they meet parking and other requirements. City Attorney Lee stated that they have to meet subsection a-e.

Council Member Maida questioned that if they do not have a license yet, why would be looking at this before they have a license. Attorney Lee stated that they cannot get a license until they have an appropriate, permitted facility.

The question was asked if this type of facility can go in any residential area, but not mobile home zoning, if this is changed does that mean they can put this type of facility in a mobile home. Attorney Lee stated that if they could possibly meet the standards they could. He further stated that he does not know of any mobile home that has 6 bedrooms or food preparation and kitchen facilities.

Ms. Denise Donely of 225 E. Liberty asked if this type of issue would have to go to the people. Attorney Lee stated that there is never a vote by the people about any zoning in the City. It was stated that this would allow the activity to take place, not necessarily that it is going to happen.

Mayor Doyle asked why we would want to do this. Attorney Lee stated that what he is hearing from our Planner is that given the space and location, it is a good use of this property. The objection to the rezoning to residential is that it would be spot zoning. It would be next to commercial and surrounded by mobile home park. This was a way to resolve two issues that being that it is a good use assuming that he can fit what he wants within the space and if we do it as a special use and we can control it. It has to be approved on a use by use basis versus a blanket permit.

Councilman Wedell asked if the mobile home park owner wanted to combine several of his lots and put a structure, could he build a group home. Attorney Lee stated that they could if the Planning Commission approved it. The applicant would have to convince the Planning Commission that it is an appropriate special use with all the residents within 300 feet able to express their views.

Discussion was held on the size of the existing house. Attorney Lee stated that if they can meet the State requirements for a group home, then it is going to help the people that are going to be there.

Councilman Kivell asked if there is a way to do this by consent judgment rather than doing it this way if he can provide proof and bonding that this is what is going to take place. Attorney Lee stated that essentially we are doing the same thing. Councilman Kivell further stated that we would be doing it open-ended. Attorney Lee stated that it is not open-ended. You can still say no if you do not think the facility is in the best interest of the City or is a danger to surrounding citizens. It is a permitted process and this sets out the minimums that have to be met. The Planning Commission could also impose additional requirements.

CM 4-6-07 – FIRST READING - Mobile Home District – Section 102-263 – subsection 7 – State Licensed Adult Facility

Motion by Dryer, supported by Kivell

That this be the first reading of an amendment to the City Code Section 102-263, Subsection 7 – State

Licensed Adult facility

ROLL CALL VOTE: Kivell – No

Kopkowski – No

Dryer – Yes

Doyle – No

Wedell – No

Morelli – Yes MOTION FAILED

NEW BUSINESS:

Reschedule May 28, 2007 meeting

Set Public Hearing for Annual Budget – FY 07-08

Mayor Doyle stated that the regular meeting falls on May 28^th, which is Memorial Day. City Manager Cook stated that in the past, we have moved to the 3^rd Monday, but we end up in a smaller room because of the School Board. He is suggesting that we move it to Tuesday, May 29^th.

CM 4-7-07 – RESCHEDULE MAY 28, 2007 MEETING

Motion by Morelli, supported by Wedell

To reschedule the regular meeting of May 28, 2007 to May 29, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

City Manager Cook stated that the public hearing will need to take place on May 29^th. Council Member Kopkowski asked if we could move it to the next meeting due to people being out of town for the holiday. City Manager Cook stated that we have to adopt it in May.

CM 4-8-07 – SCHEDULE BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING

Motion by Wedell, supported by Kivell

To set a public hearing for the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 annual budget for Tuesday, May 29, 2007

VOTE: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

May workshop session

City Manager Cook stated that everyone has had the budget for a couple of weeks. If any of the Council Members would like to meet with him individually, that can be arranged. Likewise, if Council wishes to schedule a budget workshop we can do that as long is it is not the first or third Monday.

Council Member Maida suggested May 8^th at 7:00 p.m. Consensus of Council was to schedule the workshop for that date and time.

Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study – bid recommendation – Inland Waters Pollution Control - $32,625.50 – Removed from the agenda

City’s Annual Garage Sale – May 5 & 6 and Spring Clean-Up – May 7, 2007

Mayor Doyle