CORRECTED
CITY OF SOUTH LYON
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 13, 2006
Mayor Pro-tem Dryer called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
PRESENT:
Council Members: Dryer,
Kivell, Kopkowski, Maida and Wedell (1vacancy)
Attorney Lee
City Clerk/Treasurer Zemke
Department Heads: Collins, Martin & Renwick
ABSENT:
Mayor Doyle
City Manager Cook
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES:
CM
2-1-06- APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SPECIAL MEETING WITH LYON TWP. JANUARY 18, 2006
Motion by Maida, supported by Wedell
To approve the minutes of the special meeting with Lyon Township of
January 18, 2006 as written
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Council
Member Maida questioned the resolution on page 3 indicating that they had made
changes to that resolution. City
Clerk/Treasurer Zemke stated that the first motion was to adopt the resolution
as written and then two subsequent changes were made which are indicated in the
next two motions.
CM
2-2-06- APPROVAL OF MINUTES – JANUARY 23, 2006
Motion by Wedell, supported by Kopkowski
To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 23, 2006 as
written
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL
OF MONTHLY BILLS:
Council
Member Maida questioned the payment to DeMaria Building.
She asked why we are paying them when they owe us $60,000.
Attorney Lee stated that we wanted to deduct the $60,000, but the Sewer
Treatment Plant is a federally subsidized program, and it would bring them into
our dispute. We have to keep them
separate.
Council
Member Maida questioned why Tedd Wallace received council pay when he was not
here for the December and January meetings.
Attorney Lee stated that he was an official of the City and entitled to
his compensation until such time as he resigned. Even though you miss a meeting, you still get paid for that
meeting. The office carries with it
a salary. Council Member Maida
stated that the taxpayers were paying for him to be here and he was not here to
represent them. Attorney Lee stated
that it is an office, not “piece-meal” employment.
Discussion was held on Council receiving their pay on a monthly basis.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer asked about the pump repairs.
He asked if this includes power back-up on these units.
Superintendent Martin stated that on all of our lift stations, we have
the capacity for stand-by power, either mobile or on-site.
This was just for repair. Further
discussion was held on back-up power for the lift stations.
Superintendent Martin stated that this particular station at Colonial
Acres does not have on-site back-up, but it is in the plan to install generators
at all of the stations, one per year.
Council
Member Kopkowski questioned the payment for register tape network for the
Wellhead Protection Program. Superintendent
Martin stated that we have gone to Farmer Jack and Larry’s Foodland and have
placed an advertisement of our Wellhead Protection Program on the back of the
receipt tape. We have
paid
for it, but 80% of the fee is refunded through State of Michigan Wellhead
Protection Program. We have not had
a lot of response, but if we have one or two people get something from it, it is
worth it. This is just another form
of public education.
Council
Member Kopkowski asked about the Payment in Lieu of Taxes payments to the
County, Schools and State. City
Clerk/Treasurer Zemke stated that the South Lyon Housing Commission does not pay
property taxes, but make a yearly payment in lieu of taxes based a number of
calculations. This is simply a pass
through to the other jurisdictions for their portions.
Council
Member Kopkowski stated that January was a fairly slow snow month yet DPW has
123 hours overtime. Superintendent
Renwick stated that they get called out on a number of different issues, even
with the light snows we need to keep the roads in safe condition.
Also, this would include any water or sewer backups as well as weekend
cemetery work.
CM
2-3-06- APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS
Motion by Wedell, supported by Kivell
To approve the monthly bills as presented
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVAL
OF AGENDA
Councilman
Wedell stated that a copy of the Community Survey was in the packet and
questioned whether it should be on this agenda. It was stated that it has been indicated by the City Manager
that it would be on the next agenda.
CM
2-4-06 – APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski
To approve the agenda as presented
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CITIZENS
SUGGESTIONS:
Ms.
Laura Evans of 403 Whipple presented a petition of the Whipple Street residents
indicating their desire to be involved in the planning of the improvements on
their street. She stated that
speeding is a very big problem on their street.
She stated that some of the things they would like considered would be
speed tables, possibly a boulevard, someone suggested making this a one-way
street, additional signage, etc. She
stated that they are open to suggestions, but they would like to be part of the
solution.
Discussion
was held on this being a problem area in terms of speeding as well as people
running the stop sign.
Councilman
Kivell stated that it seems as though the first step would be to ask Chief
Collins to monitor the area. Ms.
Evans stated that they have done that, yet as soon as they leave, the speeding
continues. Councilman Kivell stated
that he is sympathetic, but at the same time, questions whether putting
something in the street may not cause an even greater hazard, especially on a
major throughfare. Ms. Evans stated
that speed tables are not meant to jar you, but rather cause you to slow down,
and every one she has ever seen also has signage indicating that they are there.
Further discussion was held on the concern of having someone hit one of
these and ending up in someone’s front yard.
Discussion
was held on monitoring the street to see how fast people are traveling.
Chief Collins stated that we do have the speed monitor in order to
observe speeds, but it does not keep record.
Council
Member Kopkowski asked Chief Collins what technique was used to slow traffic
down on Nine Mile. Chief Collins
stated that the difference on Nine Mile is the volume of traffic, which requires
more selective enforcement. He
stated that they do conduct selective enforcement on streets when they receive
complaints, and it does slow traffic while they are there and for a period of
time afterwards as a residule effect. People
know that the Police are going to be on a mile road more often than any given
subdivision street.
Mr.
Fred Thomas of 429 Whipple Street stated that he has been a resident on this
street for many years. He stated
that at one time they had additional stop signs that were put up during school
and taken down during the summer, which just caused confusion. He stated that now that there are a number of new
subdivisions being built, they will have additional traffic. People will travel Whipple to avoid Ten Mile.
There are children in the area, and it is very dangerous.
Mr.
John Galeas of 134 N. Warren stated that this road is very wide.
Some time ago, this was a boulevard, and it would seem that it would
warrant bringing that back. He stated that one would not believe the number of people
that go through that stop sign even though the police department is right next
door. This is a major accident
waiting to happen especially given the proximity of the school.
This is the time to address these issues.
Council
Member Kopkowski asked Chief Collins if we could get a counter out there so that
we could see how many cars we are dealing with. Chief Collins stated that the counter that we did have no
longer works. He stated that we
could get one from Oakland County or Traffic Improvement, however he would be
more interested in speed versus volume. There
is no question that they get a high volume of traffic. He stated that when they are out on selective enforcement,
they are not seeing the number of stop sign violators that the residents are
reporting. This is why on one
occasion, they had an officer out there with a radio and car out of sight.
He stated that he has run radar in this area himself, and again yes we
get the occasional speeder, but the range is 25-35 mph not in the 35-55 range.
Councilman
Kivell stated that he does not feel that anyone who comes through our town
particularly feels threatened that they are going to end up with a ticket; it
goes on endlessly. He would
appreciate it if we can come up with a solution that might end up with some
result rather than doing the same thing that has not produced a change.
What has been done has not been effective.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that the residents have brought up some great points.
We are going to do some work to the road and now is the time to do
something. Maybe we can find a way
to improve the situation.
Discussion
was held on possible problems with a boulevard. Councilman Dryer stated that the engineers are the ones to
come up with some creative solution.
Mr.
Frank Fogarty of 61349 Roaringbrook stated that they do not have the same
problems as these residents. However,
they cannot get down Brookfield Road because of the potholes. He stated that it has been this way for 17 years, and he
would like to know how to get on this list to get this paved.
Furthermore, he asked who is paying for the improvements on Whipple.
Discussion
was held on how the improvements to Whipple will be funded.
Mr.
Fogarty stated that every year, the City comes out and puts a little asphalt in
the holes and by noon it is already gone, so it is not very effective.
He stated that he understands the history of the development, but the
problem now is that it needs to be corrected.
Superintendent
Renwick stated that we have had a list of areas that is based on various tests
for structure, ride, etc. We are
working on that list based on the worst ones.
He further stated that in the spring we will be coming out and cleaning
the cracks and putting in hot material throughout this subdivision.
Mr. Fogarty stated that this has been done every year and has not been
helpful. Superintendent Renwick
stated that in the past they have used cold material.
The hot material will hold up much longer.
Mr.
Fogarty asked where this subdivision is on the list. Superintendent Renwick stated that he is not sure at this
time. Mr. Fogarty stated that the
condition of the road is affecting their home values.
Ms.
Susan Cummings of 10089 Longford stated that she is here to discuss an item that
was on the Council’s January 9th agenda. She stated that on January 3rd she presented Mr.
Cook with a request for the City’s support along with a petition containing
116 signatures. This petition
requested that the speed limit between Nine and Ten Mile Road be lowered from
its current unposted speed of 55 mph. If
she had known that the request was going to be on the agenda, she would have
been at that meeting to support the request.
She stated that she was neither informed that it would be on the agenda
or that the request had been denied. She
would like to take this opportunity to explain their request.
Last year she and her husband approached the Green Oak, Lyon Township and
the City of South Lyon regarding the condition of Dixboro Road.
Their objective was to improve the condition by increasing chloride
treatments and to establish a dialogue between the townships and the City
regarding the upkeep of the road. They
feel that it would benefit each of the three to provide a safer environment for
travel on Dixboro. The guidelines
for posting a speed limit on a gravel road are based on prima facia rules.
There needs to be a certain percentage of homes fronting the particular
stretch of the road in order for the speed limit to be posted.
Unfortunately, under these guidelines, Dixboro between Nine and Ten Mile
does not qualify for a posted speed limit.
She stated that a contact from the Oakland County Road Commission
indicated that if she could gain the support of the communities, it would go a
very long way in getting her request approved.
At the request of Chris Olson of Lyon Township, she collected signatures
on a petition. He wanted to ensure
that they had the support of the individuals who access the road directly.
These petitions were then given to the communities.
Chris Olson has submitted the petitions to the Oakland County Road
Commission, and Green Oak Township has written a resolution regarding this issue
and it is expected that it will be approved by the Township Board at their next
meeting then submit it to the Road Commission.
She stated that although she understands that the City of South Lyon does
not directly control or maintain the road, it does have the wastewater treatment
plant as well as the construction of the light industrial.
There is also the issue of the bike path that empties out onto the road.
Residents of the City as well as the residents of their subdivision use
this bike path on a regular basis. On
behalf of the 116 people who signed the petition, she would like to request that
Council reconsider their January 9th decision and support a reduction
of the speed limit on Dixboro Road.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that he would like to apologize that she did not receive
notification of both the meeting and the result. Ms. Cummings stated that she did not have the opportunity to
explain why they were making the request. They
do not have the support of the guidelines in place, therefore it is necessary to
get the support of the communities.
Council
Member Maida stated that she does not think that it was explained to them very
well. Councilman Kivell stated that
it was quite thorough in the packet. Council
Member Kopkowski also stated that it was very clear.
On a gravel road, you either have 55 or 25 miles per hour, and they did
not feel that it warranted a 25 mph zone. She
indicated to Ms. Cummings that they need to take another step to see what can be
done to get it somewhere between. Ms.
Cummings stated there is no in between; if it is un-posted, it is 55 mph and the
only other way to post a gravel road is 25 mph.
She stated that she does not feel that it should be 25, 35 is more
reasonable, but according to the Road Commission they would only post it 25.
She stated that at times there are tanker trucks coming to and from the
Wastewater Plant “barreling” down the road, which also causes a dust issue.
She stated that the other issue is the bike path.
She stated that she could not even get a sign posted indicating that the
bike path was there.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that the City and the Township did put in some money to
keep the dust down. Ms. Cummings
stated that she will be coming back in the spring in the hopes that Lyon
Township, Green Oak Township and the City can again work together to keep the
road maintained with chloride. Superintendent
Martin stated that they have also been doing a great job grading the road
recently.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer asked if there was any interest in putting this item on the next
agenda for reconsideration. Council
Member Maida stated that she would like the item back on next meeting’s
agenda.
OLD
BUSINESS:
Tri-Party Program –
FY 2006
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that we have 2004, 2005 & 2006 Tri-Party funds to
allocate to county roads. He stated
that we have previously discussed two projects. We have a downtown development streetscape to be expanded
toward McHattie Street. It has also
been suggested that we contribute $45,000 to the South Lyon Schools for
improvements to their new entrance. He
stated that he has had mixed feelings about putting the funds to the school’s
project. It is their project,
however we are talking about the safety of a lot of our residents.
It would be our way of putting funds toward improving the safety of our
residents that go through there.
Council
Member Maida stated that it makes sense for us to use the money that we have for
our own projects. They have their
own funding. Councilman Dryer
stated that the road in front of the high school is more commonly used by others
not necessarily going to the school, and it reasonable to put some funding
toward it. He stated that the total
project they are doing is $400-500,000.
Councilman
Kivell stated that the other issue is that this is something that cannot be
imposed upon the schools to complete. If
we put funding toward it then it would go along way in getting the schools to
take the extra step to get it accomplished, and it would dramatically benefit
our residents.
Council
Member Kopkowski stated that our budget is tight and theirs is also tight.
The grant came to us and she thinks that we should use it for what we
need, not to benefit the schools. She
stated that she has not seen any plans, but from what she has seen, she does not
think that it will help traffic that much.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that the part we are looking at is extending the right turn
lane for traffic turning right onto Eleven Mile connecting the passing lane in
front of Evergreen. Council Member
Kopkowski stated that if she does not see what we are putting the funds toward,
then her vote is not to do it.
Councilman
Wedell stated that we have discussed this before and it is a clear problem area.
He would prefer to spend the funds where the problems are, rather than
look for political or geographical designations or limitations.
Put the money where the problems are.
We have talked about intergovernmental cooperation during election time
so lets talk about it here. He
would agree with the City Manager’s proposal.
Mr.
Dick Selden of 62401-1 Raleigh Court stated that he objects to the spending of
the funds for the school’s project. He
does not think that another ingress onto Pontiac Trail is a good idea; it is a
terrible plan. We are trying to get
traffic to flow through the City, adding a new light does not help at all.
If they are talking about another access point, it should be for exiting
only. Further, he stated that when
the City wanted to create a resevoir on the east side of Pontiac Trail, the
schools did not want to participate at all and refused to help the City.
Mr.
William Rodman of 1176 Chestnut stated that the school district collects a lot
of funds throughout this area, and now they are coming to the City, almost
blackmailing the City, saying that we will do this for you if you pay half.
He feels that the funds from the County for road improvements should be
just that, for improvements, not solving a school district problem when they get
tax dollars from all of the communities around us.
Councilman
Kivell stated that he would like to point out that the City Manager extended the
offer to the schools, we are not being “browbeat” to do it.
Also, of that proposed $45,000, only $15,000 would be City funds.
Mr. Rodman stated that all of the other townships within the school
district can also put in their funds. He
does not see them stepping up to the plate and it is their school district too.
Their kids go to that school too. Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that he appreciates the comments, but the high school is
located within the City, which makes a difference.
Mr.
Dick Selden stated that he would also like to point out that the City had to
accept the sewer system through Colonial Acres in order to allow the high school
to be built. Councilman Kivell
stated that the City extended the sewer to their site.
They paid tap-in fees just like everyone else does.
They did buy into the infrastructure.
Ron
Morelli, Planning Commission Chairman stated that when they went to the Planning
Commission for preliminary site plan approval, we talked about the right-hand
turn lane all the way through. We
also had a memo from Chief Collins requesting it.
Just before that, there had been some talk about the City putting funds
toward that turn lane. The County does not require that, therefore because it is not
required, the schools are not going to do it.
Dr. Pearson’s words were “if the City wants it, the City can pay for
it”. The turn lane is not going
to go all the way through. It is
going to be extended a bit at Eleven Mile and where the condominium project is,
that extra lane will be the through lane because they have to put in a left-hand
turn lane, which is required by the County.
Why we would appropriate funds for something that is not going to go in.
Also, the crosswalk is going to go because it is required by the County.
Everything the City has requested is also being required by Oakland
County with the exception of that right-hand turn lane.
Currently that lane is not in the plan and it will not be in the plan
unless the City changes it and pays for it.
Council
Member Kopkowski asked if Council could see the plan. Mr. Morelli stated that they have not seen the plan.
They have to come back for final site plan, then they will see what it
is. What they brought was before
they received everything from the County.
The
question was asked if this needs to be acted on at this meeting.
Attorney Lee stated that there are time constraints.
He further stated that he is somewhat confused because the memo from the
City Manager indicates that the turn lane and the bypass lane were going to be
connected. Chairman Morelli stated
that it is going to be connected as roadway for northbound through traffic.
Discussion
was held on the confusion and the inability to act on something that they cannot
see. Attorney Lee stated that the
danger is if you have a deadline, you take the risk of losing the funds.
Discussion was held on allocating the entire amount to the Streetscape
Project.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that we could put all of the money toward the streetscape.
We were going to have to put additional funds into that project anyway if
we appropriated to the school project. If
we decide at a later date, we could shift those funds to the school project. He stated we do not know enough about it.
There seems to be too much confusion.
CM
2-5-06 – ALLOCATION OF TRI-PARTY PROGRAM – PROGRAM YEARS 2004, 2005 &
2006
Motion by Kopkowski, supported by Maida
To allocate$142,365 of 2004, 2005 & 2006 Tri-Party funds toward the
DDA Streetscape Phase II
project in conjunction with the Transportation Enhancement grant
Councilman
Kivell stated that he would like to comment that he does not have any misgivings
about appropriating funds towards the school plan in the event that it is
planned as they had understood. There
is simply too much confusion to act on it tonight.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Transportation
Enhancement Grant Program – Authorization to proceed with engineering
design
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that in order to get this project moving forward, we need
to proceed with engineering design. He
stated that this project will extend our streetscape project to the south to
McHattie Street.
Council
Member Maida stated she had thought that we were going out for bids for
engineering. We did get some rate comparisons, but no bids on what we are going
to be doing. She stated that we
receive bids for cars, furniture, etc. and here we have a rate sheet but only
one company bidding on it. Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that engineering is not a commodity item.
He stated that you also have to consider experience and relationship you
have with the group. They understand what you need.
It is much more complex and cannot be considered only on price.
Councilman Kivell stated that a satisfactory engineer is going to perform
much the same as another satisfactory engineer, yet there is a personal
relationship that you end up having with an institution who has dealt with a
community over a period of time and they will know how things got there and
where we are going.
Council
Member Kopkowski stated that she may be new to the Council but she does have a
background dealing with a lot of large engineering firms.
She looks at a lot of these bids from HRC and they are very vague.
There is no way to budget for this project and will be necessary to
provide for an amendment in the future. This project is for sidewalks, curbs and
gutters.
Jessee
VanDeCreek representing Hubbell, Roth and Clark stated that this is a
streetscape project, which does include replacement of sidewalk, extension of
brickscape, trees and lighting system as you see at the four corners of
downtown. He stated that his office
has dealt with the City’s DDA for the past three years to help develop the
first phase that they were able to complete on time and under budget. They do
plan to work with the DDA again to extend this project further to the south.
Much of what you see in the first phase is what you will see in phase 2
based on the decisions made by the DDA.
Council
Member Kopkowski stated that we are talking about existing sidewalk. Mr.
VanDeCreek stated that the challenge here is that we have to put in curbs where
there are none. In order to do that they need to re-profile the road with
both horizontal and vertical alignment. Council
Member Kopkowski stated that this bid is vague and should list the unforeseen
and provide an estimated cost. The
existing sidewalks is a “no brainer” and the challenge with the curbs has
already been identified. She stated
that this is why she has a problem with this proposal as well as some of the
others on the agenda tonight.
Mr.
VanDeCreek stated that what we are looking for tonight is approval of the
topographical survey and design services that are necessary to qualify and
receive the funds. When Mr. Cook
indicates coming back for future allocation, what he is talking about is
construction engineering, observation services, etc. Superintendent Renwick stated that all of this needs to take
place before we can come up with the answers that are being asked and a budget
figure. Council Member Kopkowski
stated that they should be able to give us an idea of what that number is going
to be. Mr. VanDeCreek stated that
they have provided what they feel the total project cost is going to be based on
their experience with Phase 1. The
preliminary engineering, design services and topographical survey is in direct
alignment with Phase 1. This will
be a straight forward topographical survey; the complexity comes with the
horizontal and vertical alignment. They
will have multiple meetings with the Oakland County Road Commission to get an
approvable plan. This is a
federally funded project, and they will have to go through a complete grade
inspection process using design guidelines set by The Michigan Department of
transportation. This is much
different than the Whipple Street project using City funds.
All that is before Council tonight is preliminary design.
Council
Member Kopkowski stated that she has no problem with the fact that HRC started
this project and would like to finish it. However,
there are companies out there comparable and we should find out if we are being
charged appropriately. And, if HRC
is running a good business, then they should not have a problem competing. She
stated that the City of Novi recently went through a similar situation with an
interesting resolution that we should consider.
Further
discussion was held on going out for bid on other projects.
Attorney
Lee stated that in order to get this project moving, we need a resolution
indicating that the City of South Lyon has sufficient Capital Improvement funds
to finance the match necessary for the project and indicate the City is willing
to commit these funds and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the MDOT
agreement.
CM
2-6-06 – RESOLUTION – TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT GRANT PROGRAM
Motion by Wedell, supported by Kivell
WHEREAS, the City of South Lyon has received a letter from the Michigan
Department of Transportation providing the City with a Conditional Commitment
for Phase II of the Downtown Streetscape Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of South Lyon has sufficient funds available through
its Capital Improvement fund to finance the match and other project costs; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that these funds are and will be committed to
Phase II Downtown Streetscape Project – Lafayette Street Improvement; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to
sign the MDOT agreement when it becomes available.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
CM
2-7-06 – AUTHORIZE PRELIMINARY DESIGN & SURVEY – PHASE II STREETSCAPE
PROJECT
Motion by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski
To authorize Hubbell, Roth and Clark to engage in the Preliminary
engineering, design services and
topographical survey for the Phase II Streetscape Project in an amount
not to exceed $60,700
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Resolution – Wireless
Oakland County
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that we have indicated an interest in becoming a pilot
community with the Wireless Oakland program.
By doing so we would offer certain facilities such as our water tower,
etc. in order to make that possible.
Councilman
Kivell stated that this is a very promising endeavor. He is disappointed that we could not be the first.
CM 2-8-06 -
RESOLUTION – WIRELESS OAKLAND
Motion
by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski
WHEREAS, Oakland County has
announced an initiative called “Wireless Oakland”; and
WHEREAS, the goals of this
initiative are to:
·
Blanket the County with wireless internet service and provide
free high speed internet access to every resident, business, and visitor
·
Provide low-cost or no cost PCs and technology training
·
Develop a telecommunication and technology planning tool kit
for local government; and
WHEREAS, the benefits for this
initiative will include:
·
Improving our ability to attract and retain businesses
throughout the City
·
Allow for the expansion of a mobile workforce
·
Elevate the technical knowledge of current and future
workforces
·
Provide a service to our residents that we would not
otherwise be prepared to offer
·
Support for the continued development of government
e-services and more efficient management into the future; and
WHEREAS, the County plans to select
several willing local communities as target for a high-speed wireless Internet
service pilot project
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that
the City of South Lyon hereby announces its support for this effort and its
desire to be selected as a pilot community individually or in cooperation with
Lyon Township; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the
City Manager is hereby authorized to commit those in-kind resources necessary to
facilitate the City of South Lyon’s participation as a pilot community in
addition to ensuring that there is access to those public assets that are
utilized under this program.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
It was stated that this would be with or without Lyon
Township. Councilman Kivell stated
that he would like the City Manager to diligently pursue packaging this together
with the Township. It would give us
a great deal more weight in the decision process.
Community Development
Block Grant Program – Sidewalk construction Orchard Ridge – Crest Lane
west to Center Ridge
Superintendent
Renwick stated that we are asking for approval to proceed with design
engineering for the Community Development Block Grant Program for the sidewalk
construction on Orchard Ridge. He
stated that we are attempting to get all of the engineering done now so that in
the spring we can get the best
possible
prices through the bid process. The
longer we wait, the more business the different companies will have which would
result in a higher price.
Council
Member Maida asked if this is another project that we do not have time to get
bids for the engineering. Attorney
Lee stated that if we want this project completed within this construction
season, we need to proceed.
CM
2-9-06 – AUTHORIZE DESIGN ENGINEERING – CDBG SIDEWALK PROJECT
Motion by Kivell, supported by Wedell
To authorize Hubbell, Roth and Clark to proceed with design engineering
for the Community
Development Block Grant sidewalk project in an amount not to exceed
$15,800
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Review of Applications
for vacant City Council seat of Tedd Wallace
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer asked how Council wished to proceed given that Mayor Doyle is not
present at this meeting. He further
stated that Mayor Doyle indicated in a memo in the packet that if Council was
inclined to appoint one specific individual then he would lend his support.
However, out of respect for the Mayor, it would be nice to have him here.
Mayor
Pro-tem stated that we have three individuals who have expressed interest in the
appointment. Mr. Richard Subotich
has a lot of experience dedicating his time to the City on both the Planning
Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission. We also have Dick Selden who has plenty of experience both on
City Council and other areas around town on Pumpkinfest and others.
His credentials speak for themselves.
Also, Ron Morelli has expressed interest.
He is the Chairman of the Planning Commission and a member of the Zoning
Board of Appeals. He also has been attending Council meetings over the last 15+
years
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that Mr. Morelli is currently on a Commission.
He asked if he would have to resign prior to appointment.
Attorney Lee stated that there is time between Council’s selection and
swearing in. Councilman Dryer
stated that he would like to make any appointment effective at the end of this
meeting or prior to the next meeting so that the new person would not be acting
on items without prior information. Attorney
Lee stated that the appointee would have to appear before the City Clerk to take
the oath of office and at that time simultaneously resign from any board or
commission. He stated that Council
could make the appointment effective tomorrow morning.
Council
Member Kopkowsi stated that given the letter from Mayor Doyle, she feels that we
could proceed with the appointment.
CM
2-10-06 – APPOINTMENT TO VACANT COUNCIL POSITION
Motion by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski
To appoint Mr. Ron Morelli to fill the vacancy on City Council left by
Tedd Wallace with the appointment
effective February 14, 2006
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that all three candidates are very qualified to fill the
vacancy and plenty of dedication. Appointing
one over the others is not intended as a slight at all.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Councilman
Kivell stated that he understands that Mr. Subotich has made application to the
Planning Commission as well as Mr. Rodman.
Given this appointment as well as the next item on the agenda, he would
hope that these two vacancies could be filled quickly.
Mr.
Ron Morelli thanked Council for the appointment.
Resignation – Michael
Pollock from the Planning Commission
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that Mr. Pollock’s letter indicates that he falls into
the “townie” category and feels that he is in the minority. He stated that
he appreciates everything that Mr. Pollock has done and does not feel that being
a “townie” is a bad thing. That
kind of input is very important and useful, and he is disappointed that he is
leaving based on that.
CM
2-11-06 – ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION – MICHAEL POLLOCK
Motion by Wedell, supported by Maida
To accept the letter of resignation from Mr. Michael Pollock from the
Planning Commission with thanks
for his service to the community
Councilman
Kivell stated that he when he read the letter he was somewhat disappointed that
he felt that he was out of step with the way the Planning Commission was moving.
The historical perspective is very valuable, and the traditional element
is an important aspect in reviewing various projects.
VOTE:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Second Reading –
Ordinance to Amend Chapter 102 Section 102-492
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that this is the tree ordinance. During the first reading, there was some confusion on whether
a homeowner could remove a tree from within their own yard. These concerns seem
to have been addressed. Attorney
Lee stated additional clarification has been made.
Discussion
was held on the changes from first reading to second reading.
Attorney Lee stated that Council can make any changes they see fit.
Upon approval of the second reading, the ordinance is as it exists in the
last copy.
Mayor
Pro-tem Dryer stated that the main reason for the change in the ordinance was to
put the responsibility of cataloging of trees, etc. on the developer.
It was stated that the concern was that there were exceptions for
homeowners that was somewhat disguised in the language.
A new subsection (8) was added which gives a lot more clarity.
A homeowner can still remove a tree from their yard without having to
pull a permit with the City.
Discussion
was held on permit fees. Attorney
Lee stated that all of the fees are set in another ordinance.
He further stated that it should be noted that we are repealing the old
ordinance and substituting this new ordinance.
Council
Member Kopkowski stated that she still feels that the disregard for landmark
trees is wrong. According to this
ordinance, one could remove up to eight landmark trees if they have an acre or
more. Councilman Kivell stated that
this would be for a residential property only.
Council Member Kopkowski stated that she does not believe that you should
be allowed to remove that many landmark trees because they are also an enjoyment
to others as well and adds value to property as well as the City.
The disregard for landmark trees is sad.
Councilman Kivell stated that he does not think that the City disregards
landmark trees at all. We are
mindful that individuals have property rights.
Mayor Pro-tem Dryer stated that a tree providing shade to an individual
could also end up having breaking limbs, etc.
There are positive and negatives in having very large landmark trees.
Planning
Commission Chairman Morelli stated that they had a difficult time when talking
about private property. There are
some communities that allow individuals to remove as many trees as they want but
they end up adding to the tree replacement bank, we do not have that
requirement. Further discussion was
held on personal preference on one’s own property. Councilman Kivell stated that he would hope that good
judgment drives the decision making process.
CM
2-12-06 – SECOND READING AND ADOPTION – AMENDMENT CHAPTER 102 SECTION
102-492