CITY OF SOUTH LYON
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 10, 2005
Mayor Doyle called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Mayor
Doyle along with three boy scouts, led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance
PRESENT:
Mayor Doyle
Council Members: Crawford, Dryer, Schwarck and Wallace
City Manager Cook
City Clerk/Treasurer Zemke
Department Heads: Martin & Renwick
Attorney Lee
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES:
CM
1-1-05- APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 13 2004
Motion by Dryer, supported by Crawford
To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 2004 as
written
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL
OF MONTHLY BILLS:
CM
1-2-05- APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS
Motion by Schwarck, supported by Crawford
To approve the monthly bills as presented
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA
CM
1-3-05 – APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Crawford, supported by Wallace
To approve the agenda as presented
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CITIZEN’S
SUGGESTIONS
Denise
Donley of 225 E. Liberty stated that she does not believe that the Liquor
License should be issued to the theatre without them first proving their need.
The City needs this liquor license to attract new business.
A restaurant coming in would be looking for such a license.
She stated that she also believes that they do not meet the distance
requirement from a church. Ms. Donley further stated that she does not understand the
necessity for the parking lot on Wells. There
are lots downtown that are not being utilized.
The City could use the two homes to create new businesses.
She stated that we need to attract businesses that people are willing to
walk a few blocks to get to.
Mr.
Jim Craver of 316 Wellington stated that he is in support of the Bistro group
receiving the liquor license. He
stated that it would be nice to invite friends to South Lyon for a show and
dinner. This would be a great asset
to the community. It would be nice
to invite friends here rather than go out of town.
Ms.
Jane Schimpf of 59715 Ten Mile Road stated that she also supports the issuance
of the liquor license to the Bistro group for the theatre.
Several years ago she had an opportunity to open a business in South
Lyon, and one of the things she looked at was an entertainment business for
South Lyon. Unfortunately, the
Theatre had already sold. Over the years she has watched what they have tried to do
with the theatre and the
restaurant.
He is doing his best to make something out of downtown South Lyon.
Other cities in the area strive for a downtow, and we have that here but
we don’t have the draw that the City requires.
She would ask that the Council look to see what this man is doing with
his time and his money to make downtown South Lyon a better place.
Mr.
Jim Morrison, partner with Paul Baker in opening up a Coney Island at Eleven
Mile and Pontiac Trail stated that they are concerned about the possibility of
another restaurant opening within the same complex. When they took over this project with Mark Zurleg and Jim
Barnas, they understood that Big Boy was out of the picture and were confident
they could bring in a full-size restaurant there.
Now they are somewhat skeptical of another restaurant that close even if
it does have a liquor license; it still will take away from their business.
He stated that he counted the restaurants between Eight Mile and Ten
Mile, and we have fourteen establishments that serve food plus two more coming. If they had known this was going to happen, they would not
have looked at this business at that end of town.
Mr.
Tom Duncan of 60440 Eleven Mile stated that he also has concern about the plans
being denied for the developer to change the restaurant at Gateway Commons to
office space. There were some
issues that the Planning Commission overlooked, especially concerning the whole
downtown development area. Going
through downtown there are several offices taking up prime retail space none of
which are really friendly to a downtown area or encourage people to come
downtown and spend money. It would
be remarkable if a number of those office spaces could relocate rather than
robbing the retail space. The
Planning Commission was disregarding the developer’s choice of his investment
as to what goes in there and disregarding the affects that it is going to have
on the local stores, particularly Mr. Baker’s Coney Island and disregarding
the area residents. He stated that even your own Planning Consultant said that
office use would be a much better use for this parcel being located so closely
to residential already existing. Also, it is going to be a major traffic
generator, which was one of the main concerns of the people who signed a
petition. This is a remarkable way
to ease the congestion and expand the versatility of the retail space in the
City. He feels that this should not
be overlooked and ask that Council consider approving this as office space.
Ms.
Marilyn Morgan of 61391 Dean Drive stated that she has concern about the
clearing of the two historical type homes to be removed for a parking lot.
She opposes these homes being taken away without careful consideration.
The immediate need for extra parking space needs to be considered.
She does not feel that it is pertinent at this time.
Mr.
Michael Conforti of 1078 Polo Drive stated that he is in favor of changing the
restaurant to office. He is ready
to lease 1/3 of the upper floor for office space for his wife’s dental office,
so there are tenants already waiting for the office building.
Ms.
Diane Roest of 57050 Nine Mile Road stated she is in favor of the Bistro getting
the liquor license. With the growth
of our town, additional liquor licenses will become available.
Furthermore, she indicated that she hates to see historical buildings
taken down, but the City purchased these homes with the intention of making a
larger parking lot. For the people
who do not feel that additional parking is needed, if we want to see our
downtown grow, we cannot continue to take advantage of the parking lot that
belongs to the Post Office. The
overflow from the church activities also uses the Wells Street lot.
You can park blocks away across from the fire station, but most people do
not realize that.
Ms.
Morgan stated that the historical homes could be refurbished to bring businesses
in. Farmington and Northville use
some of their older homes for office and business and would like to see
something like that happen here.
OLD
BUSINESS:
Traffic Control Order
#05-01
Chief
Collins stated that this is a housekeeping item that supports the signage
already put in place following the study done by the Traffic Engineers from the
Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County.
Mayor
Doyle stated that this is a follow up of the dedication of the streets in
Trotter’s Pointe.
CM
1-4-05 – APPROVAL TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDER #05-01
Motion by Crawford, supported by Dryer
To approve Traffic Control Order #05-01 as presented
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2.
Gateway Commons – Proposed amended final Site Plan – per
recommendation by the Planning Commission
Mr.
Jim Barnas of Gateway Commons Development, 403 E. Grand River, Brighton, stated
that back in March, their development was approved at the northeast corner of
Eleven Mile and Pontiac Trail. Since
that time they have started construction. The
reason they are here today is that originally there was a retail building, bank
pad site, condominiums and a pad restaurant site. They are asking for an
amendment to the PUD. The project
was designed specifically for a Big Boy, however there was some timing issues,
and the user for the site went out of contract with them.
Since then, they have been looking at restaurant sites with very little
success. After the Big Boy user
went out of contract, they have had a number of requests for users of general
office. Back in June they applied
with the Planning Commission to change the restaurant site to a class A office
building site. The planning consultant and engineering consultant reviewed the
plans and did not have a problem with them.
The reason they are proposing this is that they feel there is a need for
class A office space and that the building would provide a nice transition
between the commercial and residential. There
was a retaining wall originally proposed around the Big Boy site, and they have
been able to eliminate that wall. There
will be less traffic with the office use, and they feel that architecturally the
building would blend well with the commercial development. They understand that
the Planning Commission has denied their request, and if there is an approval,
they do not have a problem with going back to the Planning Commission to review
their architectural plans.
Councilman
Wallace stated that the Planning Commission unanimously denied this request.
Mr.
Ron Morelli of 179 Eagle Crest and Chairman of the Planning Commission stated
that this is not an issue of whether it fits.
It is a beautiful building, it looks nice, it fits and it is an accepted
use. The Planning Consultant did
not say that it was a better fit, but it was an acceptable use and so is the
restaurant. What it came down to is
that it is a PUD development that is reviewed as a whole.
As planners they look at what would benefit the entire community.
What they feel is that what fits there and will encourage people to come
into our town and spend money in our town is a destination restaurant.
Big Boy may not have been the best fit, but they were there at the time,
that does not mean that someone will not be there tomorrow.
He discussed various restaurants, independent, successful restaurants
that could do very well. The date
on the plan was January 2004. They
had this in their back pocket and when Big Boy backed out, they pulled this out.
Through this whole process, they have been prepared.
He does not feel that this is a bad looking building, but what it comes
down to is what we need in our town to keep revenues in our town.
Office buildings typically are 30% vacant.
It will create very little traffic.
He asked if this is really what we want that plaza to be, with the drug
store being the focal point instead of the restaurant.
He stated that the Planning Commission must consider what will benefit
the community as a whole and they feel that the restaurant will do that.
Councilman
Crawford stated that he understands the Planning Commissions views and does
agree.
Mayor
Doyle stated that this was a lengthy process and he has not desire to do
anything but to affirm the Planning Commission’s decision.
Ms.
Lisa Morgan of 1108 Surrey stated that she will be able to look down the street
and get a clear view of the restaurant and parking lot. She is representing several homeowners who have concern over
this issue. She is speaking in
favor of the office building as it is a much less invasive use. She does not think that the Planning Commission or Council
knows how close this restaurant would be to their homes. Even though there is a small strip of condominiums between,
they will all see the cars and smell the smells, and at night with their windows
open, they will be able to hear the people in the parking lot yelling to each
other. She does understand the
desire to have a fine restaurant in South Lyon, but none of the restaurants that
were talked about in other communities are so close to neighborhoods.
She does not see why you would want to put a free-standing restaurant so
close to such a nice neighborhood who is paying some of the highest taxes in the
City. With an office building, most
of the cars and traffic will be gone by dinnertime.
Because of the wetlands, the restaurant would have to be set back closer
to Carriage Trace. There is going
to be a family style restaurant in the strip mall.
She understand why the Council would not want to go against its own
Planning Commission, but the City’s own paid professional stated that he
thought the office building was a better transition than the restaurant,
although those comments were not reflected in the minutes. The theory that a
stand alone restaurant would bring in more traffic.
She does not see anyone going to a fruit market or bank after eating
dinner. If you put in an office
building, people working there would be more likely to stop at the fruit market,
bank, etc. on their way home. The
office building at a minimum, would lower the retaining wall or eliminate it.
The office building would blend into the landscape, and they already have
a number of tenants waiting for the space.
The petition drive was intended to give the people of South Lyon an
opportunity to vote on the new development.
The majority of people they spoke with felt that there should be
something less dense in that spot. An
office building would provide less density and less traffic in the area.
She would ask that Council vote in favor of the office building.
Mr.
Tom Duncan stated that he understands the reluctance to vote against the
recommendation of an advisory board, but you have an obligation more than they
do. Council is not using consistent
rationale by supporting downtown. You
need alternative office space to relocate these types of businesses outside the
downtown area so that we can provide the needed retail establishments.
The recommendation of the Planning Commission did not have a reason for
their recommendation. He had asked
that the rationale be put into their motion, and they said to refer to the last
meeting minutes, yet the only thing that you can see is biased and unsupported
claims as to why the request should be denied.
He feels that sometimes you have to say to your advisory board – thank
you, but we see it differently.
Mr.
Conforti stated that if you poll the people here tonight, you would find a very
small number of people in favor of the restaurant. It seems like a very small minority of people that want that,
the rest of people want to see it office. He
stated that 2100 people signed the petition, which is quite of few residents.
Furthermore, there is no room for the traffic as it is.
With an office building, most of the traffic would gone at night.
Mr.
Paul Baker, partner for the new Coney Island at Gateway stated that competition
is a good thing, and is not concerned about another restaurant.
A good independent would do very well here.
He discussed what would improve our town, including a good, up-scale
restaurant. His opinion is that a better use in this area is office.
The Coney Island is going to be over 4,000 square feet and will not be an
up-scale restaurant, but a good restaurant.
From the residents’ standpoint, lighting issues, noise issues, etc.
would be of concern. They are going to offer a good restaurant that will be a
destination point. Looking at
people who could relocate their office from downtown to a more desirable area
for an office, and based on what they are planning with the Coney Island, office
use would be a better use at this site.
Mayor
Doyle stated that we have three options, to approve the change and amended site
plan, approve the change and send it back to the Planning Commission or affirm
the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the request.
Councilman
Dryer stated that he did disagree with the original plan due to the residential
area. He does like the restaurant,
and feels that without the restaurant, the whole corner has no real interesting
parts to it. The office that is
proposed is quite big and takes up much more space than the restaurant and much
more visible. He feels that the screening of the restaurant would do its job.
The office does blend well architecturally, but adds no spice at all to
the gateway of our community.
CM
1-5-05 – DENIAL OF REQUEST TO AMEND FINAL SITE PLAN – GATEWAY
Motion by Dryer
To deny the request to amend the final site plan by Gateway Commons
Motion
died due to lack of support.
CM
1-6-05 – GATEWAY COMMONS – AMENDMENT TO FINAL SITE PLAN
Motion by Wallace, supported by Crawford
To approve the request for an amendment to their final site plan for
Gateway Commons changing the
restaurant use to office
Discussion
was held on the size of the building, square footage in keeping with the
original approval, etc. Attorney
Lee stated that you might want to send this back to the Planning Commission for
review with the recommendation that you are inclined to approve the office
building, but would like them to look at the footprint, square footage,
architecture, etc. Mayor Doyle
stated that regardless of what goes there, setback requirements, etc. will have
to be met. Attorney Lee stated that
this is not subject to our usual ordinance requirements because it is a planned
development; it is essentially contract zoning. He simply wants to ensure that the change is in keeping with
what was originally envisioned.
Councilman
Wallace amended his original motion to read as follows:
To refer back to the Planning Commission to reconsider the Gateway
proposal to change from restaurant to
office and give recommendation as to size of footprint, location and
other requirements they would suggest
Councilman
Crawford supported the amended motion.
Councilman
Wallace stated that he does not like to step on the toes of our Planning
Commission. He was against the
development from the beginning with condominiums next to some of our largest
homes, so in order to appease the people in the area, he is in favor of the
change. The statement of the 14
restaurants in the City was misleading. These
are not sit-down restaurants.
Councilman
Schwarck asked if the restaurant pad stayed would it remain vacant until a
restaurant was interested. Mr.
Barnas stated that when the project was originally approved, it was a pad-site
sale and they were ready to move forward with Big Boy. However, once the Big Boy went away, that stopped and it
would remain vacant until another user could be found. He stated that they already have users for the office space
and would proceed with that building.
Mr.
Barnas stated that HRC has reviewed the engineering drawing as well as the City
departments. Vilican-Leman has
reviewed the setback requirements. They
have substantially reduced the parking. The
footprint did get bigger, but originally they had 70 parking spots, which has
been reduced.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED (2-opposed)
Proposed Sale of
Building Authority Bonds – Wells Street Parking Lot in the amount of
$380,000
Resolution Approving
Building Authority Contract and Authorizing Publication of Notice of
Intent
City
Manager Cook stated that we have a revised resolution.
The original resolution indicated a 19 year issue which should have been
15 years. There is no payment the
first year, therefore there are actually 14 years of payments.
The resolution provides for the publication of the Notice of Intent and
45 day referendum period. If we
proceed and sell the bonds, based on previous discussions, the DDA will apply
their captured revenues for the payment of debt.
The resolution also provides the relationship between the City and the
South Lyon Building Authority because we would be leasing that property to them
for a 15 year period and we would be handling the maintenance and the debt.
The DDA will be passing a formal resolution this week even though they
have already pledged their TIFA funds. We
will not have bids until mid February so we will not have any action until after
that point. The 45-day referendum period would expire February 28th.
This is standard language. This
does not commit us to selling the bonds, but is the first step.
Councilman
Wallace asked if the Planning Commission was involved in the analysis of the
need for the parking lot. City
Manager Cook stated that it is part of the Master Plan. Councilman Wallace asked if we have had a professional needs
analysis. City Manager Cook stated
that we have not done a needs analysis; this is a request of the DDA who have
recommended the construction of a parking lot.
Councilman Wallace stated that this is not a recommendation of the entire
DDA. City Manager Cook stated that
it is a recommendation of the Board. He
stated that the DDA meetings are open meetings and members of the DDA as well as
the community are invited to attend and voice their opinions.
Councilman
Wallace stated that Providence started this with us, and now they have
“bailed” leaving us to sell bonds and commit the DDA revenues, which leaves
nothing for the rest of the DDA for at least 14 years.
They can say that the values will go up a little bit, but not enough.
We have already invested in the downtown with the new sidewalks and
streetlights. He does not see any new businesses coming in to need this
parking lot. Overall, he feels that
we are going to have a parking lot with 8-9 cars in it. He is adamantly opposed to this.
Mayor
Doyle stated that you have to have vision with this. He stated that he attended a meeting at Lyon Township
recently and inside their chambers they had the plans of all the developments
going on in their community. We are
talking about almost 3,500 homes. He
can see our downtown flourishing. He
stated that he could be wrong, but does not think so.
Michelle
Tucholke of 857 Challenging Trail and Co-Director of the South Lyon Area Chamber
of Commerce stated that what comes to mind to her is that you have downtown
business and property owners that have been here for a number of years and are
willing to sink a lot of money here. You
have a lot of people who are already invested and willing to continue building a
future here.All they are asking for is a parking lot.
The existing parking lot with the one light and dark corners is not
someplace you want to be at night. The
Merchantile offers classes and you have elderly people carrying their sewing
machines, and it is not the kind of environment that is going to build business.
It has been mentioned that people are going to New Hudson; they are
looking at their alternatives with new development, well-lighted, clean, ample
parking. If you have property
owners willing to invest like the Bistro, are you going to tell them then you
have to park in the “murkey” parking lot with the one light. If you say you want a better downtown, then put your money
where your mouth is. The property owners that have invested for many years will
be willing to put theirs there too. Many
of the businesses that have come in over the last couple of years did so with
the understanding that the parking lot would be redone.
Mayor
Doyle stated that the captured monies are to be used for this type of purpose.
If we go down this path, there may be some merit to taking a look at the
houses. It is not clear at this time if there is a historic value.
Ms. Marilyn Morgan stated that she watched renovations of old homes
taking place in Northville. If you rip off the old siding, there is the original molding,
etc. that could be restored. Further
discussion was held on the Historical Commission looking at these houses for
possible relocation to the Historical Village.
CM 1-6-05 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING BUILDING AUTHORITY CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF INTENT
Motion
by Dryer, supported by Crawford
WHEREAS,
there exists in and for the City of South Lyon, County of Oakland, State of
Michigan (the “City”), a need to reconstruct,
expand, resurface and upgrade an existing parking lot and construct, install,
and furnish a new parking lot including necessary demolition, site preparation
and all appurtenances and attachments thereto as
described in the Contract, as defined herein (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS,
the City Council hereby determines that it is necessary for the public health,
safety and welfare of the City to acquire and construct the Project for the use
of the City; and
WHEREAS,
Act 31, Public Acts of Michigan, 1948 (First Extra Session), as amended (“Act
31”), provides through the procedures of building authority financing a means
for the acquisition, construction and financing of the Project; and
WHEREAS,
the City, in accordance with the provisions of Act 31, has previously adopted
Articles of Incorporation and has established the City of South Lyon Building
Authority, County of Oakland, State of Michigan (the “Authority”), with full
powers to acquire and construct such building and facilities; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council determines it to be in the best interest of the City to acquire
and finance the Project through the Authority in accordance with the provisions
of the Act 31; and
WHEREAS,
a Limited Tax Full Faith and Credit General Obligation Contract of Lease, dated
as of January 1, 2005 (the “Contract”), between the City and the Authority
providing for the acquisition, construction and financing of the Project and
such matters as are deemed necessary thereto has been preliminarily prepared;
and
WHEREAS,
in reliance upon the lease payments of the City payable under the Contract, the
Authority intends to issue its building authority bonds pursuant to Act 31 for
the purpose of paying all or part of the costs of the Project; and
WHEREAS,
as a condition of the effectiveness of the Contract, the City must publish a
notice to taxpayers and electors to the City of its intention to enter into the
Contract and of certain matters related thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1.
The City Council hereby determines it to be necessary for the public
health, safety and welfare of the City to acquire and construct the Project
substantially as set forth in the Contract for the use of the City.
2.
The City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City to
finance part of the cost of the Project through the Authority in accordance with
the provisions of Act 31, which part of the cost is not expected to exceed Three
Hundred Eighty Thousand Dollars ($380,000).
3.
The City Council hereby approves the Contract in substantially the form
accompanying this Resolution for the construction and financing of the Project,
with such changes or revisions as may be necessary or advisable from time to
time prior to the sale of the Bonds as approved by the City Manager.
4.
The Notice of Intention of Entering into Limited Tax-Supported Contract
of Lease as hereto attached (the “Notice”) shall be published in the South
Lyon Herald, a newspaper of general circulation in the City, promptly upon
adoption of this resolution, the Notice shall appear as a display advertisement
at least one-quarter (1/4) page in size.
5.
The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute immediately
and deliver to the Authority the Contract approved by this resolution.
The Contract shall become effective upon the expiration of 60 days
following the date of publication of the Notice, unless, under the provisions of
Section 8(b) of Act 31, the effectiveness of the Contract is stayed by reason of
the filing of a petition for referendum thereon within 45 days following the
date of publication of the Notice and the resultant necessity of prior approval
thereof by the qualified electors of the City.
A copy of the Contract shall be placed on file in the office of the City
Clerk and shall be available for public examination.
6.
The City Council does hereby ratify and confirm its covenant in the
Contract to levy ad valorem taxes against all taxable property in the City to
the extent necessary to meet the obligations of the City thereunder in the event
revenues from other sources are insufficient for any reason whatsoever.
Any such taxes levied to pay the cash rental under the Contract shall be
limited as to rate or amount in the manner provided by law.
7.
The reasonably expected source from which debt service on the Bonds will
be paid is tax increment revenues received by the City from the City of South
Lyon Downtown Development Authority.
8.
The Mayor, the City Manager and the City Clerk/Treasurer are each
authorized and directed, on behalf of the City to take any and all actions,
perform any and all acts and execute any and all contracts, applications and
other documents as shall be required, necessary or desirable to effect the
proper public or private sale, execution and delivery of the Bonds and to
implement the Contract.
9.
The Mayor, the City Manger and the City Clerk/Treasurer, or any of them,
are also hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the City, to execute and
deliver any documents or contracts necessary and advisable to accomplish the
assignment or other conveyance of the City’s interest in the Site (as defined
in the Contract) with respect to the financing contemplated herein.
10.
The City Council shall take actions within its control and it shall not
fail to take any action as may be necessary to maintain the exemption of
interest on the bonds issued by the Authority for the Project from gross income
for federal income tax purposes pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the “Code”).
11.
All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as the same conflict
with the provisions of this resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED (1 opposed)
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF ENTERING INTO LIMITED
TAX-SUPPORTED CONTRACT OF LEASE AND OF
RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REFERENDUM
THEREON
TO
THE TAXPAYERS AND ELECTORS
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH LYON, OAKLAND
COUNTY, MICHIGAN:
PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE that the City of South Lyon, County of Oakland, State of Michigan
intends to approve and execute a Limited Tax Full Faith and Credit General
Obligation Contract of Lease with the City of South Lyon Building Authority
pursuant to Act No. 31, Public Acts of Michigan, 1948 (First Extra Session), as
amended. Such Contract will
provide, among other things, that said Building Authority will reconstruct,
expand, resurface and upgrade an existing parking lot and construct, install,
and furnish a new parking lot including necessary demolition, site preparation
and all appurtenances and attachments thereto, and WILL ISSUE ITS BONDS TO
FINANCE THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE SAME FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY IN THE
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $380,000.
Said bonds when issued will mature in not to exceed fifteen (15) years
from the date of issue and will bear interest not exceeding 7% per annum on the
outstanding principal balance.
The
Contract will further provide that the City will lease said improvements and
site from the Building Authority and WILL PAY AS RENTAL TO THE BUILDING
AUTHORITY ALL SUMS NECESSARY TO RETIRE THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SAID
BONDS, TOGETHER WITH ALL COSTS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE FACILITIES AND
SITE of said improvements and site in connection therewith regardless of whether
the improvements and site are tenantable. The principal amount to be borrowed by the Building Authority
will be indebtedness of the City for purposes of constitutional, statutory and
charter debt limitations.
CITY’S CONTRACT OBLIGATION
BY
VIRTUE OF SAID PROPOSED CONTRACT AND SAID ACT, ALL OF THE CITY’S REQUIRED
PAYMENTS UNDER THE CONTRACT TO THE BUILDING AUTHORITY WILL BE A LIMITED TAX FULL
FAITH AND CREDIT GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE CITY PAYABLE FROM ANY AVAILABLE FUNDS
OF THE CITY, AND THE CITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO LEVY AD VALOREM TAXES ON ALL
TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO MAKE THE
PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO RETIRE THE BONDS AND INTEREST THEREON IF OTHER FUNDS FOR
THAT PURPOSE ARE NOT AVAILABLE, AND AS LIMITED BY LAW.
THE OBLIGATION TO LEVY TAXES IS LIMITED BY APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL,
STATUTORY AND CHARTER TAX RATE LIMITATIONS.
SAID
PROPOSED CONTRACT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE WITHOUT VOTE OF THE ELECTORS OF THE
CITY, AS PERMITTED BY LAW, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF 60 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE, UNLESS A PETITION REQUESTING AN ELECTION ON THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER SUCH CONTRACT SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE, SIGNED BY NOT LESS THAN
10% OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY, IS FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITHIN
45 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF SAID NOTICE.
If such petition is so filed, the Contract described in such petition
shall not be effective without an approving vote by a majority of electors of
the City voting on the question.
IN
THE EVENT THAT A VALID PETITION REQUIRING AN ELECTION WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONTRACT IS FILED AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, AND THE CONTRACT IS APPROVED BY VOTE OF
THE ELECTORS, THE OBLIGATION TO LEVY AD VALOREM TAXES TO PAY THE PART OF THE
CITY’S RENTAL OBLIGATION THAT WILL BE USED TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON THE BUILDING
AUTHORITY’S BONDS SHALL BE WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT.
This
Notice is given pursuant to the requirements of Section 8b of the aforesaid
Act 31, as amended. Further
information concerning the details of said Contract, the acquisition and
construction of the facilities being financed and the matters set out in this
Notice may be secured from the office of the City Clerk.
A copy of said Contract will be on file in the office of the City Clerk
for public inspection.
Limited Tax Full Faith
and credit General Obligation Contract of Lease
Motion by Dryer, supported by Crawford
To approve the Limited Tax Full Faith and Credit General Obligation
Contract of Lease
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED (1 opposed)
Tri-Party
Agreement 2005 – Proposed Use
City Manager Cook stated that you have a number of
suggestions by the Oakland County Road Commission for the use of our Tri-party
funds. Our allocation is $41,662.
Most of these projects are extremely costly.
We have done most of the smaller projects.
Keep in mind that $27,000+ will come from the County and the balance
would come from our 1/3 and everything we would have to pay including design
engineering. The County has
indicated that they do not have the ability to provide the engineering.
All of the money has to be spent within a County right-of-way or County
road. We looked at Eleven Mile and
connecting the passing lane from Evergreen and tie into the right hand turn lane
at the high school. We also looked
at widening the road south of McDonalds, however the benefit would be the
property on the east side of the street and would cost roughly $80,000.
We can also defer this and add this to the next year.
The question was asked if we risk losing the monies.
City Manager Cook stated that based on the information he has at this
point, we would not lose it. This
is a County Board and Road Commission participation.
City Manager Cook stated that you could look at widening Ten
Mile from Hagadorn to Dixboro Road, but you are talking about multiple thousands
of dollars. The question was asked
if Singh would be willing to participate. City Manager Cook stated that they are
not ready to start yet, and we do not have any idea at this time if they would
be willing to participate.
City Manager Cook reviewed the projects we have accomplished
with these funds. He stated that
Nine Mile from Dixboro to Rushton is going out for bid in May.
This is a $2.4 million project. The
Road Commission does have some obligation to maintain their roads, but then you
get into argument that we have been dealing with for 20+ years, which is that we
do not have the traffic volumes and they do not have the money.
Councilman Wallace stated that there is a need at Pontiac
Trail and the High School. They are
driving on the dirt now, and we should finish that sooner rather than later.
City Manager Cook stated that we would be looking at a project cost of
$110-120,000. Mayor Doyle stated that this is a self-inflicted problem done
by the School Board and needs to be switched back to how it used to be.
Chief Collins stated that the School Board did not do a traffic study
before they closed that driveway forcing all traffic to use one driveway.
They chose to do this on their own without consulting anyone.
According to the Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County, there
are a number of things done there that made traffic far worse than it was to
begin with. It was stated that the
new high school will be opening and relieving some of the traffic.
Councilman Dryer stated that he would also like to take a look at just
south of Nine Mile in front of Farmer Jack; between McDonalds and Nine Mile.
This traffic is only going to increase once Nine Mile is paved.
Discussion was held on possible joint project with Lyon
Township. City Manager Cook stated
that he did make contact with Chris Olson without a positive reaction other than
they would look at the estimate we have for the area south of town.
He feels that with the number of gravel roads they have, they would use
their funds to provide graveling for those roads.
City Manager Cook stated that the next item on the agenda is
Local Streets. We have been putting
a lot of our Capitol Improvement Funds in various projects so the balances now
available are getting smaller. From
his perspective, he would rather see us put our funds into our roads rather than
their roads.
Discussion was held on the amount available next year.
City Manager Cook stated that we would have $82,000.
He further stated that Council does not need to make a decision tonight.
In the past, we would have to advise them early for the engineering to
get started.
The consensus of Council was to defer these funds until next
year.
Street
Improvements, FY 2005-06 – Authorization of Design
City Manager Cook stated that at our prior meeting, it was
suggested that we look at Stryker Street. He
stated that he has outlined some proposals depending on what Council would
suggest. We have two options on
Stryker dealing with milling and sidewalk improvements.
Depending on which option Council chooses, it could be anywhere from
$732,000-999,000. However, he would
not expect to have the fund balance in the Capitol Improvement fund at the end
of the fiscal year. Water and Sewer are funded out of the respective funds and
road improvements out of Captiol Improvement.
If you look at Hagadorn, Lake to Liberty and milling and sidewalk
improvements on Stryker Street, you would be looking at $732,000.
This is just an estimate. We
would also have $100-200,000 for water and sewer improvements depending on which
options Council chooses.
Mayor Doyle stated that he would like some consideration
given to Stryker Street. He asked
how much sidewalk could be accomplished. City
Manager Cook stated that we would take it down the east side.
You could not put a 33 foot wide street here.
We would be looking at a 27 foot wide street.
Further discussion was held on the improvements to Stryker.
City Manager Cook stated that if we are going to mill it, there would be
very little base work; then we are talking about sidewalk on the east side from
South Street to the Cemetery.
City Manager Cook stated that this is a 2005-2006 proejct.
We need to initiate design so that we can get it bid and the work
scheduled.
Councilman Dryer asked how long simply milling the street
would last. City Manager Cook
stated that it should last 10 years or more.
We have had roads of lesser status that we capped in the 1980s and we
just capped it that year.
Discussion was held on Hagadorn improvements.
Discussion was held on the water and sewer improvements that will be
taking place. City Manager Cook
stated that the water and sewer work would be done before any resurfacing.
Councilman Schwarck asked if we simply do the capping of
Stryker, could we still do a second project.
City Manager Cook stated that if it gets too expensive and the bids come
in too high, you can always put a project on hold and re-bid.
The engineering plans are not going to get stale.
Mayor Doyle stated that he would be more comfortable scaling back.
We have done a lot over the last 6-7 years.
Councilman Dryer asked how Council felt about authorizing
engineering for Hagadorn from Ten Mile to N.
Ridge as a secondary project. City
Manager Cook stated that the sidewalk work under the Community Development Block
Grant will be done this spring. The transfer of the water service from the smaller main to
the 12 inch could also be done and we could overlay later this summer.
He stated that these are not as comprehensive engineering projects for
the infrastructure as the other projects.
CM 1-8-05 – 2005-06 LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Motion
by Wallace, supported by Schwarck
To
Authorize the City Manager to proceed with design engineering for milling,
overlay and sidewalk on
Stryker
Street
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CM 1-9-05 – 2005-06 LOCAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Motion
by Dryer, supported by Crawford
To authorize the City Manager to proceed with design engineering for the
overlay of Hagadorn from Ten
Mile to N. Ridge with the understanding that this would not take place
until sidewalk and water and sewer
work is done
City Manager Cook stated that it should be noted that there
was an area several years ago that we did resurface and came back half way
through the block, so this will not actually go all the way to N. Ridge, but
tied in with what we did three years ago.
Councilman Schwarck asked if an overlay on Hagadorn is
adequate given the amount of traffic on that street and the increase in traffic
after the Singh Development is complete or should we look at a reconstruction.
City Manager Cook stated that we do not have the funds to do that. We will get 5-10 years out of the street.
We may have to deal with it in the future.
Singh will still be here for the next 5-6 years.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Request
for Liquor License
Mr. Don Waldenmayer, applicant stated that he is here to ask
that a liquor license be awarded to them after completion of the renovations to
the South Lyon Theatre. They have
been in front of Council before to talk about this. They have the support of the
Chamber and the DDA, and were recently given an award for the historic
renovation of the Bistro and hope to do the same for the historic renovation of
the theatre. He stated that
they have invested about $750,000 in the renovation of the two buildings for the
Bistro 127, their taxes have increased by approximately 50% for 125 & 127 E.
Lake Street and have increased personal property taxes by about $3,300 per year.
They employ approximately 35 local residents with a payroll in excess of
$300,00 per year and provide full benefits.
For the past few years they have provided a casual dining option to the
community of South Lyon, and have paid $55,000 in sewer and water tap fees.
Their proposal is to renovate the theatre at 126 E. Lake Street at an
investment of $300-350,000 or more. They
will provide 10-15 additional jobs with payroll in excess of $150,000.
They will double the current property taxes and increase personal
property taxes and pay $133,500 in sewer and water tap fees.
When the project is complete they will have a facility to provide a wide
variety of entertainment to the community. If they have a liquor license, it
would add value to the property and add credibility to the banks.
Between the hours of 9 p.m. and midnight is when they would run their
dinner theatre on weekends. This
would increase their revenues by $24-25,000 per month, which is what they are
going to need keep the facility in the black.
Mr. Dave Falzette of 5205 Walnut Hill Drive, Brighton stated
that his role in working with the Bistro and the Theatre is to develop
excitement by providing entertainment for not only South Lyon residents but also
so that people from outside the community will come here for that reason.
He provided a copy of their up coming entertainment schedule.
He stated that he has also been asked to develop a children’s program
including a summer camp program including theatrical aspects, as well as musical
and comedy, etc. to keep with the family venues.
Their vision is to be like Andiamo’s in Warren, which is a first class
dining experience with first class entertainment. Mr. Bob Holland of 5004 Loore Road, Ann Arbor, stated that he
has been involved with the Theatre for approximately four years.
He stated that there are a wide variety of things that they have already
brought to town and people like it. There
is much more that can come to South Lyon. He
discussed the entertainment available in Ann Arbor and the use of local talent. The liquor license is a small part of what they want to do,
but will help pay the bills and make a profit.
He discussed their plans for children theatre. He stated that they want to give to the community and teach
the children. He discussed adult
community theatre that they would like to do.
He stated that he feels that they could be a first-class entertainment
destination.
Councilman Wallace stated that there are a lot of
establishments in Brighton that have liquor licenses. He stated that he would assume that they bought them, and
asked if this group has looked into purchasing a liquor license.
Mr. Waldenmayer stated that there are liquor licenses available in
Oakland County and range from $40-80,000. They
also have a sewer and water tap fee that they have to pay that they did not have
to pay when he renovated a building in Howell.
They feel that the liquor license off-sets the sewer and water fee. He stated that there is one available in the City.
The question was asked how often the license would be used.
Mr. Waldenmayer stated that they would use it as often as possible.
They are talking about live theatre on Friday and Saturday and comedy on
Thursday. Once they have a feel of
what the community is looking for, they will try and use it as many hours a day
as they can. They can use the
Theatre 18 hours a day. One of the
reasons there is a kitchen proposed is for their catering.
They have been renting a kitchen in Ann Arbor to keep pace.
This will take the place of that and lend itself to the dinner theatre in
the evening. Councilman Wallace
stated that a normal establishment serving alcohol would have 128 hours per
week.
Attorney Lee asked if this group has looked into the
possibility of a resort license rather than a regular liquor license.
Discussion was held on the process and investment required in order to
apply for a resort license. It was
stated that no other type of license can be pursued through the Liquor Control
Commission until the City has issued all of their licenses.
Mr. Holland stated that if they are not successful here, and they decided
to proceed, they would pursue purchasing a license.
Furthermore, Mr. Holland stated that if a restaurant were to come in and
invest $1.5 million, the State would give them a license.
It would take several million dollars to build a good sized
establishment. He stated that they
almost reach that threshold, but they have been doing it in pieces.
City Manger Cook stated that Mr. Waldenmayer indicated that
the cost of the tap fees off-set the purchase of a liquor license.
He stated that the tap fee buys into our system based on the change in
use of the facility, and is the cost of doing business.
The question was asked why there is such a difference in cost
of liquor licenses. It was
indicated that the cost could be between $40,000 and $80,000.
Mr. Waldenmayer stated that it is simply a matter of what is available
when you are looking.
Mayor Doyle stated that the risk that we take with any
establishment is that if the establishment fails, the license is gone and can be
taken out of the City. He stated
that he likes the project. The
biggest issue is the useage, but that does not mean he would not support their
efforts.
Councilman Crawford stated that a full-blown restaurant would
use the license much more. This
useage is much smaller. Mr.
Waldenmayer stated that with the restaurant, their primary useage is from 12:00
noon and 1:30 p.m. for lunch and 5:30-9:00 p.m. for dinner. This is true for most restaurants. They plan on using the license the same way with the theatre.
They would be using it after 9:00 p.m. for entertainment and during the
day for banquet and corporate functions.
Their feedback on this has been very positive because they will be using
the license to bring entertainment into the theatre.
This will not be like going to a bar for a lot of drinking, but rather to
support entertainment and art. They
are talking about a significant investment, they have proved themselves in the
past, and he is sure this will be a beautiful project when it is done.
Councilman Dryer stated that he thinks that they have done a great job with the Bistro. He too is concerned about under utilization of the license, primarily because it is our last one.