Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - PH 2016-02-10 - SAD - RICHFIELD ESTATES CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, February 10, 2016. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President Scott Bahr Maureen Miller Brosnan Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Jolly OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning Todd Zilincik, City Engineer Paul Bernier, Assistant City Attorney Bonnie J. Murphy, CER-2300, Certified Electronic Recorder This is a Public Hearing relative to a Proposed Special Assessment Street Lighting Project for Richfield Park Estates site condominiums located west of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southeast ¼ of Section 31 and this would establish an assessment roll. The City Clerk has mailed notices to those persons who own land in the Proposed Special Assessment District, and all other requirements of the code that pertains to Special Assessment Districts have been fulfilled. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Kathleen McIntyre presiding. There were six people in the audience. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state your name and address before making your comments. McIntyre: I don’t know if first, Mr. Zilincik, if you would like to make some comments on this item. Taormina: Sure. City Council, Madam President, I just want to make a couple quick background information for you and the audience. Again, as you alluded to there will be two streetlights installed that are on 14-foot fiberglass poles that will coincide with the existing lights that are out there and based on the information provided by DTE, the developer will pay, make a contribution payment for the installation of lights and then the electricity will be then billed to the property owners of which there is eight and the annual amount anticipated is $94.00 and then that may go down after the 2 first year itself, probably to $7.00 to $12.00 is what we’re estimating. And again in the future if it’s approved or whatever they can maybe approach City Council at a later date to maybe go LED at a later date like we had Sherwood Forest do previously. Hopefully that will give quick answers for the background and costs for the residents and what’s going to be installed there, so any further questions I’ll be happy to answer them to the audience or to Council. Thank you. McIntyre: Mr. Meakin. Meakin: So are these able to be retrofit with LEDs? Zilincik: Correct. Meakin: So they’re not going to replace the whole innards, they can just put an adapter in there? Zilincik: DTE should be able to retrofit them at a later date depending on when the entire subdivision may want to consider that. Meakin: Thank you. McIntyre: Council, are there other questions for Mr. Zilincik? Brosnan: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Ms. Brosnan. Brosnan: Through the Chair to Mr. Zilincik, in the Notice to the community, it mentioned colonial top posts; is that what you’re referring to when you say the fiberglass posts? When you say the fiberglass posts, I’m picturing just the long arching arm post. What is the colonial top post? Zilincik: At best it’s just basically a black post that comes with a lantern at the top that will coincide with the existing lights that are east of the development that was put in previously, so it will be harmonious with the existing site. Brosnan: Okay. And there is a picture in our file, thank you. That helps. It’s what I was hoping it would be so thank you. Zilincik: You’re welcome. McIntyre: Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Zilincik? If our Petitioner is here this evening? 3 Zilincik: It’s by Leo Soave, but he had put a deposit for the ultimate installation of lights so I don’t know if he would be here tonight but he knows he’s responsible for the portion for payment to install these lights. Meakin: And the eight residents whose taxes will be going up by $94.00 a year. Madam President, I’ll offer an approving resolution for the assessment. McIntyre: Okay. Brosnan: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Yes. Brosnan: Just for background information, we talked about these LED lights before and you mentioned that in the future they could be retrofitted to be LED. Why is it that we don’t start there now that we know this is better and more cost effective technology? Zilincik: Again, since there is existing high pressure sodium lights and then you have two that are LED lights, I think at the appropriate time it would be ideal to have it harmonious with the LED lights. There’s no record against doing the LED lights at this time but I believe when the developer paid the deposit, it was the impression that it would be high pressure sodium. Again, City Council has the authority if they so desire to in the future recommend a policy that we can move forward with any future development as an LED light for obviously making it more energy efficient and less greenhouse gasses but I believe we’re moving in that direction as you’re aware, so that’s not to say we can’t do it, I was just trying to be harmonious and fair to the subdivision and allow that to be done at the appropriate time. Brosnan: What’s the cost to retrofit? Zilincik: I’d have to get with DTE but I think, for instance, on the streetlights that we have out here, there are four hundred mercury vapor lights, typically those cost $600.00, I can’t imagine they would be more than a couple hundred dollars to retrofit the light itself. The key thing I think we’re having concerns with is when these two lights were going in to LED lights, there was an issue with the post, you would have a different post possibly than the existing ones that were there, you know, for the new retrofits. You know they test these different LED lights, whatever DTE does, but I know moving forward it’s something to consider, a policy that we can look at to make future lights for all new developments LED lights, if that’s something that the City Council desires. 4 Brosnan: And I think that for me anyways what’s important is the understanding what it means to retrofit. Now you just described to me that or maybe I misunderstood, that a retrofit would involve a new post. Is that correct? Zilincik: I think what the problem was when this was done in August, DTE was coming on line in January, they were hoping the posts for LED lights would become part of their stock, whatever, and it’s still in play right now. But basically all you’re doing is taking the light inside and retrofitting it with the driver that can handle basically a storm or lightning or something like that, it’s grounding them, just a matter of changing the guts and replacing that at a later date. Brosnan: So the architectural nature of the light itself doesn’t necessarily have to change, should a neighborhood decide that they want to retrofit and move to LED? Zilincik: Right. One of the other considerations we have to consider, too, is when you do LED lights, sometimes they don’t have illumination as the high pressure sodium so there may be additional lights that need to be put in. So the benefit is, yes, you’ll see the energy on the savings, but you may have to put one more light out there to cover the area as standards require, so that’s the downfall of LED lights in some instances where depending on what you’re trying to illuminate, there may be additional lights for the LEDs as the high pressure sodium may cover more ground. Brosnan: It’s not often that we have a chance these days given the stage of development of our community and the lack of development in new construction on houses and condominium developments and things like that, so it wouldn’t be often that we would have a chance to begin with LED but are communities around us doing that and putting programs in place where that is the request of developers when they first begin a project? Zilincik: I’d have to check with different communities itself, but I remember sitting on City Council about seven years ago we did one over on Taylor Boulevard, the first one in the city, and then we expounded since then on our city streetlights itself. But as far as development, I think it depends on what the policy is for street lighting requirements but I think it needs to be looked at again, the ordinance, as far as LED as maybe a requirement now that we can look at, upgrading that ordinance with the Law Department. Brosnan: Is this a thing, Mr. Zilincik, that your department is interested in taking on at this point? 5 Zilincik: Sure, we can. Again, anything to save energy and obviously to reduce greenhouse gasses, that’s I think what the City’s intent has been, and seeing as we’ve got new development coming in with new subdivisions that are taking fruition now. Brosnan: Okay. Madam Chair, then I’m going to offer, in addition to the approving resolution, a resolution requesting a report and recommendation from the Engineering Department for a review of our current light standards, especially as it relates to new developments. McIntyre: Okay, thank you. All right, so we have two resolutions, one from Councilman Meakin, an approving resolution for the creation of this Special Assessment Street Lighting Project in Richfield Park Estates, and a second resolution from Councilperson Brosnan asking for a report and recommendation from the Engineering Department about LED lights as the standard going forward, is that correct? Brosnan: Thank you, yes. McIntyre: Thank you. Any further discussion, questions? All right. We’ll move on to the second item. Zilincik: Madam President, I’m sorry to interrupt, I think there’s some audience members on the previous item that didn’t get a chance to speak, I’m sorry, I apologize, I wasn’t sure if they wanted to come to the podium or not. McIntyre: No, thank you. I’m sorry, please come to the podium. Thank you, Todd. Zilincik: I didn’t mean to interrupt you. McIntyre: No, no, no. Good evening. Tominac: Good evening. I’m Stephen Tominac at 37508 Quail Chase Drive in the new subdivision, Richfield Park Estates. Thank you, sorry, I didn’t know when to comment. McIntyre: No problem, I didn’t make it clear. That was my fault, not yours. Thank you for indicating you wanted to speak. Tominac: I also, along with my neighbor, were wondering about the LED lights. In our initial letter that we received in the mail about this project it stated LED lights so I myself was excited that we would get the new technology. But in the subsequent meeting it was changed to high pressure sodium. I do understand that the existing subdivision is high pressure sodium but with the new information today with it eventually possibly going to LED, my concern would be what additional costs would be imposed at a later date 6 compared to the additional costs today. I think the difference in the cost is $95.00 between the high pressure sodium and the LED today, it was mentioned that maybe a couple hundred dollars to retrofit to LED in the future. To me I think going to LED today for the two proposed lights and then possibly for the rest of the lights in the subdivision would be a good idea. McIntyre: Okay, thank you. Mr. Zilincik, did you want to, it was my understanding, again, maybe I don’t have this right, that the reason you’re going to the high pressure sodium is because the poles that are available to match the existing poles require the high sodium lights, is that correct? Zilincik: I think there was an issue with the stock. When we got the quote from DTE back in September, they would install two 53 watt LED lights but the problem was having that in stock. If it got hit, then it would have to be a cost to the residents to replace. They were in the transition of getting a stock pole for LED lights. That was the issue. So that’s why we’re again recommending the high pressure sodium to be harmonious with the existing stuff and as you know we had a development come in, or an existing subdivision, Sherwood Forest come in, they had to pay, I think there were I think twenty-seven folks on that, they wanted to retrofit it, to pay to upgrade those lights at that time. So, again, I’m just, this is only my opinion but the problem was if the light got hit and damaged, then it would have to be borne by the cost of the homeowner’s association because even though it’s a DTE light or whatever, they’d have it in stock at the time. Yes, the cost to install, I mean the operating cost would be less, $609.00 for annual operating costs compared to $752.00. Really the difference is $94.00 for high pressure sodium compared to $82.00 for LED lights. But the difference is replacing it if it got hit. McIntyre: And they might need an additional LED light? Zilincik: Correct. McIntyre: Okay. Meakin: Todd, since we have a motion on the floor, can we get the actual costs of what it would be for the LEDs at this time? Zilincik: We have it here, it’s just, again, it’s if they installed two high pressure sodium, the cost would be $609.00 for operating costs compared to $752.00. But again, I could check again with DTE to see if, you know, we could check with them regarding the stock of the LED lights so I will have to get back to you. Meakin: And then whether we’d have to put a third light in? 7 Zilincik: Correct. Meakin: Let’s have all that information for the next meeting and change it if we have to. Zilincik: Okay. Tominac: Yes, I would like to see the light differences on the output, if they have some sort of, not just lumens but the area of coverage between the two. Kritzman: Photometric. Zilincik: Photometric, yes. McIntyre: All right. Brosnan: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Ms. Brosnan. Brosnan: Just so that we’re prepared then for the next meeting in the event that we do opt to go with the LED lighting, perhaps it would be wise if we had the Law Department prepare both resolutions, one for the traditional sodium and the other with LED. Meakin: We might be rushing at the end to get the third light in if we had to, but they can still have it prepared. Brosnan: Right. Tominac: My concern would be if we do retrofit to LED at a later date that additional costs would be imposed to the residents when we could get you know some of that cost being covered by the developer at this point in time. And then secondly I had a separate thing. Back in the previous meetings there was ten lots that were in this new subdivision added onto the existing subdivision. Those two lots, those two lots out of the eight or out of the ten are not in this proposed lighting assessment and I was wondering if they will be in the existing neighborhood assessment area. McIntyre: Good question. Zilincik: I think actually we got the resolution was to include the eight at this time, even though there are two outlots there that could be considered through an SAD and those costs would provide, you know, obviously reduce the costs but that’s something that’s possible to consider to assess the other two lots for that assessment, that can be considered also. But it would 8 just reduce the costs down, but I mean you do benefit but they would need to be included through a public hearing of the roll through this again. So the direction I was given was to move forward with the eight lots that were out there for the two high pressure sodium lights based on the Council resolution that was approved. McIntyre: I think it would have been helpful if we had Mr. Soave here tonight. Brosnan: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Ms. Brosnan. Brosnan: Is there, Todd, a reason why those two lots wouldn’t be included, is it simply because they’re not developed yet or? Zilincik: They would benefit if they were developed, I think there’s a lot of choices. What happened at the last public hearing, you know, the first public hearing I was gone, the public hearing of necessity, there was a lot of options that were thrown out there, you know. I think we gave too much information at the first meeting where it kind of all it was a necessity for lights and I think we tried to, you know, obviously give you all information as far as eight lots, ten lots, LED lights, high pressure sodium, and I think it got condensed down to obviously moving forward as promptly as we could to get the street lighting out there using the eight folks with the two high pressure sodium lights. And that’s the direction that the Engineering Department took to move forward with this project itself. Again, there’s no reason why they can’t be included but I think they would have to be – the Assessor’s office would have to send a notification to them and have another public hearing to include them or do the eight now and then include the other two at a later date. So it depends on however the City Council desires to move forward with that, whether to redo another public hearing with all ten, or to do the eight and then include the two at a later date. Brosnan: And then through the Chair to the Law Department, should we determine based on discussion here this evening that we did wish to include the two additional lots as Mr. Zilincik indicated, he’s probably right, we would probably have to go back and determine the assessment, the need of the ten lots, and then would we also have to come back to this public hearing and redo this one again as well? Bernier: I believe we’re going to have to have to do it again. Because those lots, the people out there are entitled to have their voices heard. And they simply haven’t at this point, with what’s being proposed now. So I think if you wanted to go to the additional lots you would basically have to start all over again with a public hearing. 9 Brosnan: Yes. You know, I would hate for us to get so wrapped up in our process that we don’t do the job right. And I think this gentleman raises a very good point in terms of we might have gotten caught up in trying to move this along quickly and efficiently and lost sight of the fact that there was a little bit more equity that needed to be considered here. So I would as one person be in favor of going back and beginning the process again if that’s what’s necessary. Meakin: Let me follow up with that. Madam Chair, through the Chair to the Law Department, since it’s an undeveloped lot doesn’t it go back to the Petitioner then? Is it his decision whether to have a voice or not in the process? Bernier: You know, I’m going to punt on this to tell you the truth, I think I would have to look that up, but if it’s going to affect the property, the owner of the property has a right to be heard on this. Meakin: The owner of the property right now is the Petitioner. Bernier: The developer, I agree. Zilincik: Madam President, the two outlots have been developed and sold to their existing homeowners there. So this a unique situation. You have condos, two outlots, and then the condos. My intention was, I would assume the best easiest way to skin this cat would be to get the eight people done now because they’ve been heard and go back and get the other two at a later date with a separate public hearing and that will help reduce the costs if that was necessary for the existing eight that were part of this. McIntyre: Vice President Kritzman. Kritzman: Thank you. Todd, you just mentioned that – I’m glad you clarified the lots that we’re talking about to an extent because I was wondering what outlots we were talking about. So, where are these two, are they on the end cap? Zilincik: It’s Richfield Estates, there’s two outlots, one on the north, one on the south and then you continue on with the Quail Chase Drive, there’s several lots, there are eight lots that these homeowners are impacted. So it’s kind of a unique situation where you had a development condo association, two outlots, and then eight lots that were developed in that area. Kritzman: Which two are those? Zilincik: It would be 9285 and 9284, the two outlots that we’re talking about. 10 Kritzman: And they’re obviously benefitting from something, so to the gentleman’s point standing at the podium, if they’re not part of this one, they should be part of the other one. But just how we move forward with that, I don’t know, we’ll have to go back to the punter. Bernier: At least I’ll say what I don’t know. It’s always preliminary to give notice and everybody who is going to be affected heard. As Ms. Brosnan said, if you’re going to consider doing that, it’s better to slow it down and give everybody who’s going to be affected their opportunity to be heard. Unless you went the approach that Mr. Zilincik indicated, do the eight now and then come back later when the other two want to go up, when you put up the other one. Zilincik: There would only be two put up but the thing is they would help reduce the cost to the eight that would be impacted now. Bernier: Right. Zilincik: But it would be a hearing that would help because they would benefit by just a matter of help reducing the overall cost to the existing eight and then the two would have to participate then if that is the Council’s desire. Brosnan: Madam Chair, perhaps what we need to do then is to because we do have an item before us tonight and a decision to be made on this and whether we offer no further action on that or not is probably more relevant once we go through this process again. So I would ask that this item be placed into committee and have a separate resolution to begin the special assessment process once again for this neighborhood to include ten lots versus eight and if that means now beginning with another public hearing then we’ll have to get that scheduled. Meakin: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Yes. Meakin: May I ask my colleague what’s the point of going to committee then? Brosnan: The only point of going to committee, Councilman Meakin, is that if we decided that -- I guess I’m not assuming that we’ve got the votes to move forward with another beginning of the process again. This way we would have still not abandoned ship on this and we can still continue with the eight lights or the eight homes being assessed for two lights. But I mean if it’s the general consensus of the folks here this evening that we move forward then we can just not go that way then. 11 Meakin: As long as we’re voting it right, that’s the most important thing. Brosnan: Right. I think you and I are in agreement on that. I haven’t heard from everybody though. McIntyre: Council, anyone else? So right now we have an approving resolution, we have a resolution to get a report and recommendation from the Engineering Department on LEDs, we have a motion to begin the process over again with all ten and another motion to place into committee. Brosnan: And you have the approving resolution. McIntyre: I’m sorry, the approving resolution from Meakin and then the Engineering Department, the motion to start over again and then the other motion to place into committee Brosnan: I think if we had a sense of where everybody was going then maybe we could take some off the table tonight but that’s up to the rest of the Council. McIntyre: Well, would anyone like to withdraw the approving resolution? Does anybody else from the audience wish to comment? Withey: No, Steve covered my comments. McIntyre: Thank you. I didn’t want to miss somebody again. All right, if there’s nothing else then we will close this with four different motions. Tominac: I just had one more question, sorry. On the letter it says that I would need to, after this meeting then protest to the State Tax Tribunal, is that the case at this time or is that something that would be done at a future meeting, future time? McIntyre: Is what he stated correct, Mr. Bernier? Bernier: Yes, no decisions were made yet so there’s nothing to appeal. Tominac: Okay. McIntyre: Yes, there’s no decision. Tominac: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that, thank you. McIntyre: Thank you. No problem. Tominac: Thanks for hearing me. 12 McIntyre: No problem. Okay, anyone else? We will now close this item and move to the second item. As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:25 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK