CITY OF SOUTH LYON

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

September 25, 2006

 

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:   

 

CM 9-1-06- APPROVAL OF MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2006

 

     Motion by Wedell, supported by Kivell

                       

     To approve the minutes of regular meeting of September 11, 2006 as written

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

Mayor Doyle asked if Council wished to add discussion of the Crest Lane overlay to the agenda.

 

CM 9-2-06 – APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

      Motion by Kivell, supported by Morelli

 

      To approve the agenda as amended by adding Old Business #7 for Crest Lane area overlay discussion

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

APPROVAL OF MONTHLY BILLS:  None

 

CITIZENS SUGGESTIONS: None

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

  1. Community Resolution to Manage Floodplain Development for the National Flood Insurance Program

 

City Manager Cook explained that the resolution follows the line of the ordinance that we adopted requiring floodplain management.  We need to send this is and coordinate with our ordinance in order to keep current with FEMA.

 

Council Member Maida questioned #6 referring to above ground, gas or liquid storage facilities.  City Manager Cook stated that this is the same issue as was brought up in discussing the building code.  You cannot have any of these items in the floodplain area.  He further stated that we are using their language.  We are currently using the intermediate map, we have not yet received the final map, but there should be no changes.  There is no building within the wetland areas.

 

Mayor Doyle asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the language.  Attorney Lee stated that he has reviewed it.  However, we do not have any control over it, we have to do it their way.

 

 

 

City Manager Cook stated that this will put us on the full program.  We have been on a temporary program which would allow only $30,000 for structure and $10,000 for contents.  You now can cover your entire facility and contents up to the maximum allowed by the program.

 

The question was asked if the insurance is through private vendors.  City Manager Cook stated that it is through private insurance companies.

 

CM 9-3-06 - COMMUNITY RESOLUTION TOMANAGE FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM

 

     Motion by Kivell, supported by Kopkowski

WHEREAS, the Community of the City of South Lyon  in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMAs) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by complying with the program’s applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for the purposes of significantly reducing flood hazards to persons, reducing property damage, and reducing public expenditures, and providing for the availability of flood insurance and federal funds or loans within its community, and

WHEREAS, the NFIP requires that floodplain management regulations must be present and enforced in participating communities, and utilize the following definitions which also apply for the purposes of this resolution:

1.      Flood or Flooding means:

a.      A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:  1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters, 2) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source, 3) mudflows, and

b.      The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding, as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this definition.

2.      Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) means an official map of a community, issued by the FEMA, where the boundaries of the flood, mudslide (i.e., mudflow) related erosion areas having special hazards have been designated as Zone A, M, and/or E. (This is to be included only if the FEMA has issued a FHBM for the community). 

3.      Floodplain means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of flooding).

4.      Floodplain management means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management regulations.

5.      Floodplain management regulations means zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as a floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance), and other applications of police power that provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. 

6.      Structure means a walled and roofed building that is principally above ground, gas or liquid storage facility, as well as a mobile home or manufactured unit.

 

WHEREAS, the Stille-Derossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act”, Act No. 230 of the Public Acts of 1972, as amended (construction code act), along with its authorization of  the state construction code composed of the Michigan Residential Code and the Michigan Building Code [and its Appendices (specifically Appendix G if adopted by the community)] contains floodplain development and management regulations that comply with the FEMA NFIP minimum floodplain management criteria for flood prone areas, as detailed in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Section 60.3, and

WHEREAS, by an ordinance adoption action dated August 14, 2006 , the community accepted the responsibility to administer, apply, and enforce the provisions of the construction code act and the state construction code, specifically the Michigan Residential Code and the Michigan Building Code, to all construction within its community boundaries, and [Community B has agreed to enforce those codes on behalf of Community A (if appropriate)]

NOW THEREFORE, to maintain eligibility and continued participation in the NFIP,

1.      The community directs its designated enforcing agent for the construction code act, the Building Department of the City of South Lyon , to administer, apply, and enforce the floodplain management regulations as contained in the state construction code (including Appendix G, if adopted) and to be consistent with those regulations by:

a.      Obtaining, reviewing, and reasonably utilizing flood elevation data available from federal, state, or other sources pending receipt of data from the FEMA to identify the flood hazard area and areas with potential flooding.

b.      Ensuring that all permits necessary for development in floodplain areas have been issued, including a floodplain permit, approval, or letter of no authority from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality under the floodplain regulatory provisions of Part 31, "Water Resources Protection,"  of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended.

c.      Reviewing all permit applications to determine whether the proposed building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding.  Where it is determined that a proposed building will be located in a flood hazard area or special flood hazard area, the construction code act enforcing agent shall implement the following applicable codes according to their terms:

1.      Floodplain management regulation portions and referenced codes and standards of the current Michigan Residential Code.

2.      Floodplain management regulation portions and referenced codes and standards of the current Michigan Building Code.

3.      Appendix G of the current Michigan Building Code, if adopted.

d. Reviewing all proposed subdivisions to determine whether such proposals are reasonably safe from flooding and to ensure compliance with all applicable floodplain management regulations.

e.      Assisting in the delineation of flood hazard areas; providing information concerning uses and occupancy of the floodplain or flood-related erosion areas, maintaining floodproofing and lowest floor construction records, cooperating with other officials, agencies, and persons for floodplain management.

f.      Advising FEMA of any changes in community boundaries, including appropriate maps.

g.      Maintaining records of new structures and substantially improved structures concerning any certificates of floodproofing, lowest floor elevation, basements, floodproofing, and elevations to which structures have been floodproofed.  

 

2.      The community assures the Federal Insurance Administrator (Administrator) that it intends to review, on an ongoing basis, all amended and revised FHBMs and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and related supporting data and revisions thereof and revisions of 44 CFR, Part 60, Criteria for Land Management and Use, and to make such revisions in its floodplain management regulations as may be necessary to continue to participate in the program.

3.      The community further assures the Administrator that it will adopt the current effective FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS), FHBMs, and/or the FIRMs by reference within its Floodplain Management Map Adoption Ordinance or similarly binding ordinance documentation.

VOTE:                                                                                                             MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

  1. Suspension of enforcement – Sign Ordinance related to Pumpkinfest Activities – September 29th to October 8th

 

Mayor Doyle stated that at the last Council meeting, a request was made to suspend enforcement of our sign ordinance as it relates to Pumpkinfest.

 

Councilman Kivell asked if this would allow them to place signs within the road easement in front of individual’s homes.  Mayor Doyle stated that the only question that has been raised is the size due to sight obstruction.  Councilman Kivell asked if it would require approval of the residents that those easements are attached to.  It was stated that it would not.  City Manager Cook stated that typically they have concentrated on the downtown area. Council Member Maida stated that it will be done tastefully.  Chief Collins stated that they have not had any problems in the past.

 

CM 9-4-06 – SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT – SIGN ORDINANCE – PUMPKINFEST

 

     Motion by Maida, supported by Wedell

 

     To suspend the enforcement of the City’s sign ordinance from September 29th through October 8th as it

     relates to the Pumpkinfest activities

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

  1. South Lyon (SLCTV) Recommendation from the City Attorney

 

Attorney Lee stated that Council had asked his office to draft a RFP for cable access management, which they have done and supplied to the City.  Since that time, AT&T has caused to be introduced in our legislature legislation that, if enacted, would terminate our franchise agreement.  Legally and Constituionally, he does not see how that can be done, but money does seem to talk these days in politics.  He is concerned about the one bill that would terminate our franchise agreement and turn licensing of franchise over to the State which was presented to the Michigan House last week.  Fortunately it did not pass, but it was not eliminated, but rather left in limbo.  The most dangerous legislative times is the time between the election and the time that the House adjourns in December.  Anything could happen, and he is very fearful that some changes in our powers to franchise, to receive fees and power to even require cable companies to provide us with access channels may not be here.  For that reason and for the fact that the person who triggered this discussion has withdrawn his application upon his discovery that he would have to invest $20-30,000 in equipment necessary to perform this function, it is there recommendation to let this matter lie and allow our current contract to be renewed while we wait to see what the legislature is going to do relative to franchising in general.  Current legislation pending before the House indicates that if you do not offer at least eight hours of programming a day, you lose it.  We do not want to be in a position to contract with someone if we cannot deliver our part.

 

It was stated that we have had more than one person interested in taking over that service.  Attorney Lee stated that we have only had one formal request.  He stated that people think that they can run that channel like a commercial channel, which you cannot.  You cannot sell advertisement.  You can take contributions and mention their names like public radio and television do, but you cannot take advertisement.

 

Councilman Wedell asked if we allow the contract to renew, what is the length of time of the renewal.  Attorney Lee stated that it would be one year.

 

Councilman Morelli stated that he understands that currently there are advertisements on the channel now and air time is being sold.  Attorney Lee stated that there is a fine line.  With public radio or television, there are companies that sponsor the programming for a period of time, and the channel indicates that programming has been brought to you by a contribution from that company.  Technically it is not a commercial station and cannot be run for profit.  Further, he stated that Mr. Heiple has indicated that in his 20 years of running this channel, they never have had a surplus of over $1,000.  It is more of a public service and people who dedicate themselves in helping the City.  It is a wonderful thing to have and he feels that people love the fact that they can watch their own high school football games on television.  Further, he stated that the station can accept contributions equal to the cost of putting on that particular programming, but you cannot run it as a commercial enterprise.

 

Councilman Morelli, since they started talking about this issue, the station has gotten much better with soccer games, basketball games, etc.  It is so much better than a few months ago.  He asked if this issue could be tabled until after the first of the year.  Attorney Lee stated that the problem you are going to have is that we are obligated to give notice to the current provider.

 

Councilman Kivell stated that he does not see an assigned cost for people to make a bid.  Attorney Lee stated that the cost would be to meet the requirements of the RFP as far as having the facility and equipment to perform the functions.

 

Councilman Wedell stated that it was his understanding that the current provider was put on notice that we were going to put this out for bid.  Attorney Lee stated that we did and we will have to rescind that action.  Councilman Kivell asked if we were to move forward with the RFP, is the short-coming that the existing situation would not be allowed to go forward or would not meet the criteria of the RFP.  Attorney Lee stated that it is his understanding that the current holder would not wish to participate due to the requirements of the RFP relating to the newness of the equipment, functions it provides, mandatory requirements for programming they do not wish to meet, etc.  Mr. Heiple has indicated that if it goes out for bid, he will not be a participant. 

 

Councilman Dryer stated that he feels that Council needs to get a handle on what is required now before we do anything.  Attorney Lee stated that if you were to move forward with the RFP, you would have to look at it in detail and see what the demands are and what you wish to demand.  We are such a small community, to demand much more than what we have been is difficult.  We do not have the economic size to support it.  Our cable system is only within the City.  As a result, many of the businesses that rest outside of the City are concerned that we only have a small portion, and if you can get on public television or public radio, you can touch many more people.  Councilman Dryer stated that he would also like to see what other public access channels do.  Attorney Lee stated that they run them as public television runs them.  They have sponsors for their programming.  Councilman Dryer stated that he is concerned that we would have no bidders if there is no chance for profit.  Councilman Morelli stated that “not for profit” is a broad term.  Detroit Public Television is a not for profit organization, but they sit in a $3 million building and pay hefty salaries.  Attorney Lee stated that our problem is the size of our operation.  In preparing the RFP, they talked with Birmingham, and they actually spend $120,000 per year of their franchise fees to promote programming and run their systems.

 

Council Member Kopkowski asked if the current provider would meet the criteria of the RFP.  Attorney Lee stated that they would have to provide us with a proposal with what they will provide and we would provide them the minimum requirements.  It is his understanding that if we go for the RFP, the current provider will not bid.

 

Councilman Morelli asked if South Lyon football games show on Lyon Township cable.  City Manager Cook stated that they only show in the City.  The other cable companies will not show them.

 

Mr. Tedd Wallace of 115 Elm Place stated that currently the football games are being shown on Comcast channel 25, which is a vast area that goes from Southfield, Beverly Hills, Franklin, Bloomfield, Brighton and Howell.  He is currently working on getting it in the Milford area, and if that happens, finally Lyon Township will be able to get it.  Two years ago, they were shut-off by Comcast.  He stated that he pays to have these games show out of their budget.  Their budget this year is 1/3 of what it was last year.  Times have been tough, but they are still getting them on the air.

 

Further discussion was held on how the programming gets to the other channels.  Mr. Wallace stated that part of Green Oak Township sees our games.  We have three different networks that cover our school system.  Salem actually gets Pinckney football games and never get the local programming.  He stated that he has tried, and he will try again.  He further discussed the efforts to get the programming to the entire school system.  Councilman Kivell stated that he does not understand their resistance to getting this programming to their residents.  Attorney Lee stated where he lives, they actually show Indiana high school football games.  He stated that this is a business to be able to put on a production.  Mr. Wallace stated that they currently have 3,500 subscribers and that number is declining due to satellite.  Many people who hang on to their cable do it because of this channel, to be able to see Council meetings and the football games and parades.

 

CM 9-5-06 – RESCIND REQUEST FOR RFP – CABLE ACCESS MANAGEMENT

 

     Motion by Kivell, supported by Maida

 

     To rescind the original request for RFP for cable access management and request the City Attorney to

     withdraw Notice of Termination to our current provider

 

Councilman Morelli stated that after a decision by the legislature, he would like this re-visited.

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

  1. Mileage Reimbursement for Census enumerators - .405 cent per mile

 

City Manager Cook stated that the Secretary of State requires a separate action by Council in order to reimburse census enumerators for their mileage.  The training will begin this week.

 

Mayor Doyle stated that the IRS regulation is now .48 cents.  City Manager Cook stated that we currently pay City employees .405 cents per mile.

 

CM 9-6-06 – AUTORIZE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT – CENSUS ENUMERATORS

 

     Motion by Morelli, supported by Dryer

 

     To authorize the reimbursement for Census Enumerators using their own vehicles for transportation in

     conjunction with the mid-decade census at a rate of .405 cents per mile

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

  1. Proposed increase in utility rates for Water and Sewer

 

City Manager Cook stated that enclosed in Council’s packet is a memorandum dealing with our water and sewer rates for the purpose of increasing the rates charged for useage.  We lost $258,000 last fiscal year according to our audit that will be presented at the next meeting.  The recommendation has been made by the auditors to look at increasing our rates.  At this point, he is not asking for action at this meeting, but simply notifying Council of the need to do so.  We are losing funds basically due to increases in electric and gas as well as other costs related to the new plant.  He stated that we have had so few increases over the years.  He further stated that he has provided a comparison of utility costs in other communities with their own systems.  We need to look at raising the rates to recoup those costs.  He is recommending an increase between 10-20% or we could spend $5-7,000 for a rates study that would probably identify the same thing.  He would rather save the money and make an increase based on our information.

 

Councilman Kivell asked if any of these other communities surveyed sell utilities outside their borders.  Superintendent Martin stated that they do not.

 

Councilman Kivell stated that with the $258,000 it would be an 18.2% increase and asked if we are trying to get ahead of the curve or simply recoup our costs.  City Manager Cook stated that the 20% would bring us back to recouping that $258,000, but it varies from year to year.  Last year we had a gain of $10,000.  In the last 10 years, we lost money in 5 of those years, but it is not consistent in any year.  This is the most significant amount that we have lost, and we have had those additional costs relating to the new plant.  We have had only 3 rate increases in 22 years.  He feels that we have fallen slightly behind in order for us to achieve an equal operation.  He further stated that this may be something we are going to have to look at every couple years, and we have talked about that in the past.  We are operating on reserves, but you can only do that for so long.

 

Council Member Kopkowski asked if this is not something that we should have looked at during budget.  City Manager Cook stated that we did not know at budget time, the audit has just been completed.

 

Councilman Dryer asked how much of the loss is due to cost increase and how much is due to the new sewer plant.  City Manager Cook stated that we do not have that breakdown at this point.  That is something that we can look at.

 

Councilman Wedell stated that he agrees that he would like to see this increase kept at the low side.  He stated that the range is fairly broad and asked if that will be refined before Council is asked to act.  City Manager Cook stated that he will be able to refine that number.  Councilman Wedell stated that the favorable revenue of $10,000 in one year and loss of $258,000 the next is a significant difference.  He asked if this is something that we will be better able to predict.  City Manager Cook stated that now that we are a community of over 10,000 we have different kinds of activities that we have to respond to that we did not have to deal with when we were a community under 10,000.  There is a whole different structure involved such as well-head protection, storm water issues and the new plant developed with the highest technology available.  We have DEQ requirements to make us in compliance with our permits.  There is some fluxuation, but now we have the higher cost in utility that had been pretty constant.  The biggest part of our budget is natural gas.

 

Council Member Maida stated that she feels that we should not spend the funds for the rate analysis.  She too would like to see us keep the increase as low as possible.  City Manager Cook stated that we can also look at staggering the increase with a smaller increase this year and another increase the next year.

 

Further discussion was held on the large difference in the last two years.  City Manager Cook stated that utilities is the biggest increase, but over the years we have also had collective bargaining increases and other operating costs.  He stated that in 22 years we have had only 3 increases.  You cannot go to another utility and have that few increases. Councilman Morelli asked when the last increase was.  City Manager Cook stated that it was in 1999.  Superintendent Martin stated that our water is so inexpensive that our residents do not realize, even with the increase.  We are giving residents high-quality, tested water delivered to the home.

 

Mayor Doyle stated that when we started the new plant, we knew that there was going to be an increase.  He asked if any of this is just a start-up cost where it will level off.  Superintendent Martin stated that they have compared the utility costs from prior to the new plant opening to what those costs are now.  Mayor Doyle asked if there is any way to purchase a fuel contract at some sort of fixed rate for future use.  City Manager Cook stated that the MML had a program called LEAP dealing with electrical provider that never went anywhere because nobody would provide a long-term quote and guarantee the price.  He is not aware of any company providing natural gas willing to do that.

 

Councilman Kivell stated that he would like to look at this increase over a 2-3 year period.

 

Discussion was held on the uncertainty of where the gas prices are going to go.

 

Councilman Morelli stated that he would like to know how much extra in utilities the new plant is costing.  Superintendent Martin stated that we have had Consumers Energy in to audit the plant to make sure that the plant was operating properly and it is the way it is supposed to be.

 

Mr. Tedd Wallace asked if we still have the program during the summer where residents pay less in sewer.  Superintendent Martin stated that we do.  Mr. Wallace stated that the community should remember that we do have sewage millage on our taxes for the sewer plant that they can write off versus the water bill.

 

  1. Water rate increase for Michigan Seamless Tube

 

Superintendent Martin stated that before Council is a request for increase in water rates for Michigan Seamless Tube.  What is driving this again is increases in Consumer and DTE.  This probably should have been addressed over the last four years, but with the slow down at the Mill, we wanted to give them time to get back on their feet.  The water that we send them does not go through the water plant, it is untreated water, which means we pump it from the ground straight to the mill with the two dedicated wells in the park.  These wells were installed in the early 1960s.  They were purchased by the mill, and we have maintained them ever since that time.  We recently put in a sizeable amount of money into those wells.  At $ .16 per 1000 gallons of water, they have had a good deal.

 

Councilman Kivell stated that he would like to see these pumps metered for electricity.  Superintendent Martin stated that they never have been.  They could be at a charge to the City for DTE to come in.  We currently receive one Consumers bill and one DTE bill for the Dorothy Street plant and these two wells are on that meter.  Also, outside the utility costs, they also get 24 hours a day, 7 days a week man-power.  If they go down at 2:00 a.m., we are out there.  If for some reason we cannot get these wells going, we put them on City water.  We make sure that the mill has cooling water at all times.

 

Discussion was held on this being a large increase.  Superintendent Martin stated that we are not trying to make a profit, we are simply trying to run the operation.

 

The question was asked how much water they use.  Superintendent Martin stated that they average 400,000 gallons per day.  He stated that 10-15 years ago, the revenue coming into the City was greater because the mill ran a 24-hour per day operation.  The question was asked how much water the City uses.  Superintendent Martin stated that it depends on the season.  In the spring and fall 1.2-1.5 million gallons, and during the summer 2.5-3 million gallons.

 

Council Member Maida stated that this is something that is due now that the mill is back on their feet and running.  The question was asked if they are aware that there will be an increase.  Superintendent Martin stated that he has had conversations with them.

 

Councilman Wedell asked that in the estimates are we going to be at a break-even point.  Attorney Lee stated that State Law mandates that we, as a utility, may not make a profit.  Revenues must approximate the expenditures.

 

9-7-06 – APPROVAL OF RATE INCREASE – MICHIGAN SEAMLESS TUBE

 

     Motion by Morelli, supported by Wedell

 

     To approve the rate increase in water rates for Michigan Seamless Tube as follows

 

            Beginning 12/2006 increase from $  .16 per 1000 gallons to $  .30 per 1000 gallons

            Beginning 12/2007 increase from $  .30 per 1000 gallons to $  .40 per 1000 gallons

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

  1. Crest Lane overlay – Discussion

 

City Manager Cook stated that we have a letter from HRC with three different alternatives to overlay the roads in the Crest Lane area.  The first option would be to do West Crest to Orchard Ridge.  Alternative #2 is to overlay North, East and West Crest to Orchard Ridge.  The third alternative would be to overlay all of them to Hargadorn.  Because of the nature of the project, a good portion is chargeable to the Water fund.  It would also require an amendment to the budget.  It is difficult to see the road at this point because they have not done the repair work yet.

 

Jesse VanDeCreek of HRC stated that there are three different alternatives to cap the road from the repair on.  This would all be additional work above and beyond the contract.  This is the opportunity to, while we are in there, finish the job.  HRC requested a quotation from DOC in three separate categories.  The first alternative is West Crest because that is the worst stretch.  That is the area that the watermain went on the east side and the west side is the one that got beat up due to the contractor’s equipment.   Many of the Crest Lane residents feel that we should look at the entire loop, which is why we looked at the other alternatives also considering the economy of scale.  The cost ranges from $14,000 to $28,000 to complete the entire loop and then the third alternative would cover the entire length of the project by adding Orchard Ridge.  What we are asking for approval for a contract change order to the DOC contract.  Since the last meeting, the work that has been done is the sidewalk work and some additional sprinkler repairs, etc.  The asphalt restoration has been delayed until we get through this process.

 

Councilman Wedell stated that at the last meeting, it was not clear how extensive the damage would be and how much restoration is going to be required.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that he feels that West Crest will only have approximately 10-12 foot road left from a 24 foot road. You would have two new ribbons on either side and old remaining asphalt down the middle.  As we work our way around the loop, it is mainly the edges where we have had some failure, and it is the same along Orchard Ridge.  On Orchard Ridge, the center of the road does not look too bad with longitude and latitude cracking, but the edges have alligator cracking on both sides.  These are not conditions that were created as a result of construction, but rather long-term deterioration.  The cost from DOC is a pretty good cost at $61 per ton, which is a competitive cost in today’s pricing.  The bid that we received for the Whipple project back in July was $55 per ton, and now we are at $61 several months later.

 

Councilman Kivell questioned throwing a cap over road failure being a temporary fix.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that they did have a lot of conversation about the type of cap, and they are suggesting a 2-inch cap.  They did request a quote for a complete removal an replacement for just the West Crest section, and just that 490 feet came in at $36,200.  The $42,000 alternative to cap with 2 inches, the alligator cracks will eminate up, but in a longer time period then they would if you put in only 1-1 ˝ inch cap.

 

The question was asked if this would create any problems with approaches.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that there will have to be some localized milling or removal, which is why the contractor has not proceeded in cutting all of those areas out.  We want to do all of this at one time so that we do not want them to come back and say that we need to remobilize the saw cutting.  We want him to come in and saw cut what he is responsible for and we also want him to saw cut the butt joints at the drives to make up for the two inch cap so that it can be feathered in nicely.

 

City Manager Cook stated that earlier in the mid 1980s we did some capping in that area at 1 ˝ inches and we did get a lot of years out of it because of the lack of volume of traffic.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that there is a decent base.  He stated that even on Orchard Ridge where you have longitude and latitude cracking, they are not moving so he feels that a 2 inch cap will provide a very significant life in the form of a maintenance project.

 

Councilman Dryer asked if we chose not to do any of these alternatives, what kind of condition the contractor would leave the road.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that he would come back and saw cut all of the areas where we had the removal adjacent to the road to put in the main and the opposite side where his equipment damaged the road.  You would have a fully restored road, but you would have a “quilt” road with new and existing asphalt, and the existing asphalt is cracked.  He has to do his part anyway.

 

Discussion was held on the sub-base preparation.  Mr. VanDeCreek explained the difference in preparation if we choose to recap in order to end up with a seamless product.  Councilman Dryer asked if half of the road is already going to be removed, why would we not go ahead and remove the rest of that portion.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that the cost to do that would be $36,200 versus paying only $14,227.

 

Councilman Morelli questioned the road being 2 inches taller and how that would affect the curb and driveways.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that there is no curb and gutter along these roads, it is all open swale.  Any time you put a cap on, the contractor has to create a butt joint in order to put the cap on.  We will have some milling that will occur in localized portions, and it will all be done at one time.  Councilman Morelli questioned the difference in the alternatives.  He stated that alternative one will be half done by the contractor already, yet that is the biggest portion.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that this will always be the case because of the amount of asphalt and there are still mobilization costs.

 

Councilman Morelli asked if these are roads that we would be considering doing in the future anyway.  City Manager Cook stated that they would wind their way through the process.

 

 

Council Member Kopkowski asked if we wait to see what it is going to look like after it is patched, the driveway approaches would be already finished.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that if we did nothing, all of this would have to be done again later.  If we do the overlay, we will be working more in the drives than if we do not.  All of this pricing goes away if we do not proceed, it would have to bid out as a full project.  Our goal is not to just go out and spend money, but rather do it in the most responsive way.  In this case, we now have the price to see what it will take to cap that area.

 

Ms. Maxine Harden of 675 W. Crest stated that she would like to encourage Council to proceed with alternative #3.  She discussed the cost difference between alternate #2 and alternate #3.  She stated that with the asphalt prices going up, Crest Lane is a very small street, however being that it is in the condition that it is, she would think that alternate #3, in the long run, is the best approach.  If you wait to see what the outcome is going to be and you are not satisfied, we will be back to square one.  She questioned the laying of the sod after the streets are completed and whether there will be additional dirt brought in before.  She stated that additional equipment will be brought in on the brand new streets.  She further questioned the sidewalk on Orchard Ridge further disrupting this project.  City Manager Cook stated that the sidewalk will be done this year and they will be coordinating the sod, etc.  They are estimating the sidewalk project to be done within 3 days, so it will move quickly and then the sod will be brought in.  Superintendent Renwick stated that construction of the sidewalks will be done in 1-2 weeks.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that they have communicated with DOC and they are not planning restoration on the north side until the sidewalk are in.

 

Council Member Maida stated that her preference is to move forward with alternative #3 and get the job done right the first time.

 

Councilman Morelli questioned why if we could get asphalt at $55 per ton for Whipple Street we would not get a price from that contractor.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that he would caution trying to coordinate and cross two contractors in the same area.  It creates a lot of finger pointing.  Right now you have one contractor responsible for everything.  Councilman Morelli questioned why if the one contractor can supply us with a lower price, why the other contractor could not do the same.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that we had a firm competitive contract back in July. The costs have gone up.

 

Councilman Kivell stated that it has been mentioned that the damage was not a result of being malicious.  However, he does not think that it is a far cry to say that there very easily could be negligence involved.  When you understand that you are parking heavy equipment on a thin asphalt road, you are going to end up creating failure.  He further questioned the mobilization costs that can be saved as a result of doing this in a timely manner.  They are going to have pavers out there to take care of 2/3 of West Crest so where is the additional mobilization costs.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that what he was indicating was that if were to not do this now and only do the repairs and ask him to come back at a later date, then we would see additional mobilization costs and probably would end up undoing things that had already been done.

 

Mayor Doyle polled the Council as to their feeling of which option.  Council Member Maida indicated that she is in favor of alternate #3.  Councilman Kivell indicated that he is mostly in favor of the alternative #1.  Councilman Dryer stated that his is in favor of #3. Councilman Wedell also in favor of #3 stated that the cost of asphalt is $20 per ton cheaper, which seems to be a reasonable savings and it gets the entire area done rather than piece meal.  Councilman Morelli stated that he is in favor of getting it done right, however if they would come back and say that they could do it at $55 per ton he would have a better feeling about doing it.  He further stated that asphalt prices cannot stay up with crude oil dropping.

 

Discussion was held on Council rules.  Attorney Lee stated that Council made the rules and they can suspend them.  City Manager Cook stated that he put it on the table and it is his understanding that in that event, then it is something that Council can take action on.  Attorney Lee stated that it seems that Council, by super-majority can put anything on the agenda for action.  It was stated that Council unanimously placed the item on the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.  It was further stated that it was added to the agenda as a discussion item.  Councilman Kivell stated that if it was important and timely enough, there was a letter in the packet and it could have been put on the agenda ahead of time.

 

 

 

 

 

CM 9-8-06 – ADDITION TO THE AGENDA

 

     Motion by Morelli, supported by Kivell

 

     To put the matter of Crest Lane area overlay on the agenda for action

 

VOTE:                                                                                      MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Council Member Kopkowski asked for the engineer’s professional opinion of these roads.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that all of the roads have varying degrees of longitude and lateral cracking.  The edge failure is obvious on the majority of all the roads and it varies all over.  The cracks are there and have been there for a long time.  In his professional opinion, without there being significant differential settlement in migration, it is very suitable for a cap-type project as long as you put the right amount of cap on it.  Councilman Kivell questioned what time frame would we be looking at these roads again if we did not do the capping.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that he would anticipate 1 year because there is failure there now.  The question was asked how long it should last with the cap.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that if done properly, 10-12 years but maybe as much as 15.  He stated that since they have been in South Lyon, they have not had an overlay that they have had to do again, and they have been here for 12 years.  The question was asked how long the failure has been there.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that it is progressive deterioration, no different than anywhere else in the City.

 

Discussion was held on what is under the roads.  Mr. VanDeCreek stated that with curb and gutter, there is not a lot of utility other than the watermain, which was just replaced.  There is open ditches and they have replaced the culverts and opened up those that were in poor shape.  Sanitary is stable, but we are starting just this year to do a sanitary sewer evaluation study and they will be starting in the northwest quadrant of the City.  He further stated that the Chester Street lift station was just decommissioned and have diverted all that flow through a new sanitary sewer constructed by the Singh Developers.

 

CM 9-9-06 – APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER – CREST LANE AREA OVERLAY