Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 22, 2021 - 256th Regular Minutes signedMINUTES OF THE 256th REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA The 256 h Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia, Michigan, was called to order at 3:05 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2021, in the 5th floor Gallery of City Hall, Members Present: Omar Faris, Chair Jeremy Curtis, Vice Chair John Hiltz Betsy McCue Patrick Mies Members Absent: Maureen Miller Brosnan, Mayor Stephanie Roehl Blatt Susan Harvey Dan Laible Others Present: Mark Taormina, Economic Development &Planning Director Mike Slater, Director of Finance Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, Planning Jacob Uhazie, Planning & Economic Development Coordinator Doug Moore, City of Livonia DPW, Assistant Director Christopher Ozog, OHM Charlie Stanley, RAM Construction 1. Roll was called. A quorum was present. 2. Audience Communication. None 3. Adoption of the Minutes. On a motion made by Hiltz, seconded by Curtis, and unanimously adopted, it was #2021-04 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve the Minutes of the 255�h Regular Meeting held on March 31, 2021. Mr. Faris, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4. Financial Reports —February 2021 through June 2021. Mr. Slater went through all months of financials. He specifically explained the disbursements for each month. The February and March disbursements were not out of the norm. These are expected and are pretty consistent on July 2232021 2 a monthly basis. He explained that in April 2021, the expenses were to DTE and there was a $46,000 bill from the City of Livonia for professional services. This is a annual bill for services provided by the Planning, Finance, Assessor, and the Treasurer Departments. There was also the first irrigation bill from TechSeven. It was $33,692.00. In May, the total disbursements were $96,000, which included first payment to RAM construction was $10,575 and an even larger bill for TechSeven at $64,598.46. In June 2021, the bills were normal, but did include the OHM consulting fee of $9,395.50 and the irrigation was smaller at $1,039,70. Mr. Curtis inquired as to whether we are charged for water for the irrigation. Mr. Slater stated that there is one bill at the end of the year. There are temporary meters that are put in. They are installed in the spring and the usage is read all year. They then are removed at the end of the season. A read is then done, and the city is billed accordingly in December. Mr. Taormina wanted it noted that the water usage bills are relatively consistent yearly. He stated that the charges this year are more related to repair services that TechSeven has had to made to the system. On a motion made by McCue, seconded by Hiltz, and unanimously adopted, it was #2021-05 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby accept and approve the Financial Statements of the Authority's Special Revenue Fund for the months ending February 2021 through June 2021. Mr. Faris, Chairperson, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Irrigation System Update Mr. Taormina informed everyone that Doug Moore of the DPW is the point of contact regarding the irrigation system and its repair work. He stated there are some tracer lines for the primary lines and they could be staked, but considering so much damage to the secondary lines, which are not traced, it would be impossible to mark these properly. When any utility comes through and does work along the right-of-way it results in a disruption to the system. Mr. Moore explained that every time a hole is dug, it is a $5,000 repair. He calls Mike Molnar when he sees it happening. This year it is fiber optics going in on both sides and full lengths. He stated there were four spots where they had cut through the main lines. It resulted in a lot of work for them due to the damage done from the installation of the fiber optics. It is an MDOT road, so the permits go through MDOT. They don't care about the irrigation. If there was a tracer wire in the system when it was put in, it no longer exists due to degradation. Mr. Moore went on to explain how the repairs are made and that not all of the breaks are able to be located. Mr. Faris asked if there was any recourse and Mr. Moore stated that there is not. Mr. Slater told the story of Cadillac and a paving project and how there was significant damage. A lot of time, legal and otherwise, was spent trying to recover to no avail. Mr. Moore said that there are about July 22, 2021 3 three fiber optic companies currently installing line. Mr. Hiltz went on to tell more of the Cadillac story. He said that the state told them that if you want to put in irrigation in the right-of-way, you do it at your own risk. It isn't the state, but a private utility. Mr. Hiltz feels there should be at least a discussion with the utility. Mr. Moore said it could be asked about. Mr. Slater stated that he could send out the request, but he does not feel it would get any results. Mr. Taormina said they would probably say it wasn't staked or it wasn't them that did the damage. It was felt throughout the board that a valid response would not be given. Mr. Slater said that the City Engineering Department is constantly tried to speak with these companies. Mr. Taormina feels that these companies are doing this on an income basis, not as a long- term investment. Mr. Hiltz inquired if these companies have gone through the Miss Dig system. Mr. Moore said they should be, but he was unaware. He said that when companies do go through the system a notification is given to our water department. Mr. Hiltz feels that the PRDA should be aware it was at our own risk to install the system and to recognize that when the damages happen, it would be the Authority's responsibility. Mr. Faris wanted to know if TechSeven was fairly invoicing. Mr. Moore stated they are, and they are very responsive. It is usually a same day turn around for issues that arise. Mr. Faris stated he didn't want to give them any excuses, but it may be because of short staffing like everyone else. Mr. Moore explained that if there is dirt in a line, that is a problem which incurs a cost also. Mr. Faris asked if we could limit their working time. Mr. Moore said no. He said they dig all year long pretty much. They started in January and February. Mr. Slater said that due to the Telecommunications Act you cannot stop them from working. He said that the city does get paid per the Metro Act, $350,000 per year for use of our own right-of-way. The right-of- way we are discussing is the State's. Mr. Curtis stated he would like to know what the MDOT permits say on them regarding damages to other utilities. He believes it would say they are responsible. Mr. Hiltz said that they probably are as long as the utilities are properly located by Miss Dig, Mr. Curtis said that not all utilities are in Miss Dig. He said the MDOT ITS lines are not in Miss Dig. Just because they aren't in Miss Dig it shouldn't take them off the hook. He also wanted to know if they are in the Miss Dig system, do we have some sort of as-builts of that system that we could give them to help them locate the sprinkler heads. Mr. Moore said we do have plans from the original system, but it may not be accurate. Mr. Slater said that the request will be made to find the responsible party and see what can be done. Mr. Taormina suggested that the original plan be incorporated into GIS and then go back to TechSeven to find what they know about the changes, so we have some semblance of how it is mapped out. It could be a resource to be shared with other agencies and contractors to try and minimize the damage that happens. Update on Streetscape Asset Maintenance Program —Chris Ozog, OHM Mr. Taormina stated there will be an action item on this. He stated in October 2020, PRDA adopted resolution 2020-04 giving the Administration the authority to solicit proposals and enter into a contract with a qualified July 22, 2021 4 contractor to perform the maintenance repair program as was outlined by the Authority and OHM. An amount not to exceed $500,000 was approved for that purpose. The original quote was approximately $473,600. RAM has been working with OHM over the past several months on the project. Chris Ozog from OHM and Charlie Shipley from RAM were in attendance. Mr. Ozog proceeded to tell the latest updates regarding the project. The repainting of benches and fencing has been completed to date. Tuck pointing is at about 95% done. Wall recaulking is about 90% done of the budgeted, however, there is more needing to be done. Paver work is at about 35% done. The limestone caps on the brick piers are fabricated. They just need to be installed. The fence is being fabricated right now. The trash receptacles should be delivered soon. The project is anticipated to be completed by October. He feels progress has been good and the weather has been cooperating. They have Zoom progress meetings every couple of weeks, and then weekly OHM and RAM get together to go over the details. He feels it is a good working relationship with RAM. There are before and after pictures being taken along the way to help with quantities and the work that has been done. He then went on to talk about Change Order 2. There is quite a bit of buried fence line and had some of the dirt removed but led to a realization that some of the fence bases were corroded. The Change Order is for some of the corroding fences, some minor brick adjustments, and some additional post caps. The cost on that was about $21,000. The court had some probationers go out to remove some of the dirt. RAM followed behind them where the court couldn't get. There is a fee for that through RAM of $8,900. Mr. Ozog stated the original contract was for $473,600. He did state that they, OHM, were able to purchase the trash can receptacles directly at a better rate than RAM could, so the Change Order 1 included removing the fence purchase out of the RAM scope of work and it added additional quantities of sealant. There was a reduction to the original cost leaving it at $453,895 and then added the purchase of the trash receptacles back in for $17,117 (14 receptacles). He then went on to Change Order 2 pricing of $30,680. There were five things included in that figure. RAM will pick up the new trash receptacles and remove the old ones. The fee is estimated at $6,720, They have to look at the work to done to do this. There are four bolts on each one, but they are not sure of the labor involved. It is only an estimate for this work. Regarding the recalking, there are additional areas that the caulk has failed, and he wanted to know if we want them to go ahead and take care of it while the crews are out there. They did add additional costs for that. This additional work raised the cost to $501,692 which is above the original not to exceed number of the resolution. There is an additional $7,000 that will be coming. He wanted to know if there was anything else that should be added for future change orders. Mr. Faris asked to go over the change orders again and what they included. Mr. Ozog said that Change Order 1 removed the trash receptacles so there was a line item for trash lid replacement and trash replacement. He believed there were 12 trash receptacles for replacement at $1,500 each and five or six lid replacements at $500. It also included additional caulking that had failed and so they added 800 linear feet of caulking. Those were the big line items July 22, 2021 5 on it. The removal of the trash receptacles reduced the fee by $18,000. The one that RAM had on their quote was nothing like what is currently out there, and OHM found that it was three times the cost for a landscape form product. Mr. Ozog said that they had done some digging to find a product that was more in line with what is already out there. Mr. Faris stated he was pleased with RAM for making sure there are barricades at the dangerous areas. He said they are arranged properly, and he feels it looks good. Mr. Taormina clarified the caulking is on Change Order 2 also, but Mr. Ozog clarified that it was only on Change Order 1. Mr. Ozog went over Change Order 2. He explained that there were 14 posts that were rusted, and they are $850 each. That is $11,900. There are an additional seven fence replacements that dealt with 48 linear feet at $135 each, which total $6,480. There is an additional 51 square feet of brick at $50 per square foot totals $2,600. Mr. Mies questioned the $6,720 for the removal of the existing trash receptacles. He asked that the estimate be explained. He explained how it could go and how many hours it could take. He estimated 14 cans at six hours a piece at $80. Mr. Hiltz asked, because our contract is not to exceed $500,000 and you are putting in a cost estimate that is not a part of an existing change order, if he was looking for the Authority to consider a higher not to exceed figure that would allow a flexibility to work within, and that this was an estimate of where they feel it may end up. Mr. Ozag said that when Change Order 1 came around, he realized that there was no contingency on the job. At that time it was still under the $500,000 cap, but he wondered if there should have been $50,000 contingency plan. When the Change Order 2 came around it was at the $500,000 cap. He asked what type of contingency the Authority wanted on this project. He stated with the tuck pointing and caulking, did they want the flexibility over the next six weeks as they continued. The budget of not to exceed $500,000 was clarified by Mr. Slater and he understood that the new not to exceed should be higher. He said that if we have crews out there right now and the work is being done, we don't want to wait a year or two and say that tuck pointing and caulking needs to be done. It should be done now if we can. It was also mentioned by Mr. Curtis that we did have a hard time finding a company to do this project to begin with. Mr. Shipley said that everything is looking good. He walks it with Vince every week before they start any work. They get a plan in order. He said they are working the plan as they go. He feels it is working out well. He said that when the job is done, he doesn't want anyone saying, "why didn't you do this?". He is making sure everyone is aware of what needs to be fixed, whether it is now or later. Everyone is aware. Mr. Faris asked Mr. Shipley about things that might need to be fixed in addition to what was originally quoted. Mr. Shipley said the steel fence posts that are not being replaced will need to be eventually. He said that when the landscaping is being done to keep it off the fencing. It is going to corrode again just like it is now if they don't. He said that they cut back bushes. All the painting is done. They are currently waiting on the fencing, and he wants to be done with it before October. Mr. Ozag said if they could get some additional funding for tuck pointing and caulking while they are out there, it would be an easy thing to complete. The caulking is the number one failure July 22, 2021 6 that he finds in municipal projects. It causes most of the leaks. He said they tried to focus on the larger chunks at the main intersections and he doesn't want to miss any of the maintenance that might help it later. He inquired about the maintenance each year. If they are putting mulch on it year after year, that is going to cause the same rust issues. He inquired what the plan is for the future. Mr. Shipley said that they haven't touched the control joints for the caulking. He thinks that another 2000 feet of caulking to make sure all the walls get done. He said that is just a guess. He does feel there is an additional 35% of tuckpointing at $15 per linear foot. Mr. Hiltz asked that if we were to add the additional caulking to the contract, what would that bring the total to? Mr. Ozog said that if we were to add an additional 1000 feet of caulking at $28, maybe $15,000 for caulking and tuckpointing. Mr. Hiltz suggested a possible not to exceed of $520,000 and if they felt that would be enough. Mr. Taormina talked about the dirt being placed back under the fencing. He inquired if that is a cost that still needs to be considered. They spoke of the probationers doing it and whether it would be worth them finishing it or having RAM do it. Mr. Shipley said the court dug the dirt out and didn't do anything with it. When RAM did it, they hauled the dirt off. Mr. Taormina said the court could get them back out there again in three to four weeks. Mr. Slater said with everything being said, do they even want them to go back out there? Mr. Taormina said that it is a lot of the businesses over the years piling it up. It is years and years of mulch being added above the fence line and it causes a lot of the rust. Mr. Faris asked if rocks would solve that issue. They went on to discuss the overall project and what the overall not to exceed number should be. Mr. Slater said that OHM is overseeing the project and that the Authority will only pay for what is actually done and the materials used. He suggested budgeting over and then hopefully not needing it all. The figure of $550,000 was suggested and then Mr. Faris said he was thinking of $550,000 with a 5% contingency. Mr. Slater stated that the number is currently at $508,000 per OHM. Ms. McCue said we are already expecting an additional $15,000, She said $525,000 would tie their hands. Mr. Ozog was concerned that if the Authority said $525,000 and something else comes up and to do it right adds an additional $10,000, we are right back where are today. He said the Authority might consider the extra expense by having RAM remove and replace the dirt under the fences properly instead of the court who may not do it to expectation. Ms. McCue asked if someone should be hired to do that, and it was said that you won't find anyone to do that. RAM is already out there. Mr. Mies asked if there is a better product out there that would stand better against the dirt. His thought is that the product was made to be there, but is there a product out there for consideration in the future for replacement? He asked if there is a stronger material. Mr. Ozog said that anytime you put anything in soil and water, it is going to deteriorate. Even brick and concrete deteriorate. He explained that over the years they put mulch out there and didn't clean the beds out to reset it. Mr. Hiltz said that we are replacing the fence in kind and to clarify Mr. Mies comment, that we should look at different products in the future for ease in maintenance. Mr. Taormina clarified that the fence is being replaced with galvanized, but the fencing that July 22, 2021 7 is currently there is not galvanized. They are replacing with a better product. Or. Ozog re-emphasized that it is the dirt and water that is causing the corrosion. He went on to say that if a cap begins to rust, it should be noted and replaced as soon as possible because the water will go down into it and cause much more damage. Mr. Taormina said that a lot of this feeds into the next item. Mr. Faris asked that a number be considered, and Mr. Slater said $550,000. He also mentioned that he doesn't believe there will be time to schedule meetings and get back while they are finishing this project. He said he would err on the side of caution. Mr. Taormina agreed with that considering the discussion today and he agreed with the amount. Mr. Slater asked Mr. Ozog if he felt that $550,000 would be comfortable. Mr. Ozog said that it would leave about $25,000 to play with. Mr. Hiltz felt that from his disposition that the intent of the contract was to take care of the dangerous and critical damages but from the discussion if we can afford to start to be proactive and taking out moderate caulk and replace it, now would be the right time to do it. Mr. Ozog said that the critical items have been taken care of. He threw out the question of how much maintenance does the Authority want to do as part of this project? The safety pieces have been taken care of. A discussion regarding the amount of the revision took place. It was noted that if the time came and a vote was needed regarding any changes in the contract, before this project was completed, it would have to be in person and open to the public due to the Open Meetings Act. On a motion made by Hiltz, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #2021-06 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby accept and authorize the City Administration and the PRDA Chairman to revise the amount budgeted for the PRDA Streetscape Asset Maintenance Program contract to not exceed $550,000, and if over $550,000, the Executive Committee is authorized to approve up to $575,000. Mr. Faris, Chairperson, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Update on Plymouth Road Development Projects: Waiver Use Petition 2021-01-02-01 —The Space Shop Indoor Storage Facility, 31100 Plymouth Road, Mr. Taormina gave a brief description of the petition. He told them the Planning Commission approved it and then Council rejected it. Rezoning Petition 2020-08-01-06 — Wonderland Village C-2 to R-8, 29707 — 30273 Plymouth Road. Mr. Taormina told the Authority that this petition is back in front of the Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 271 2021. The concept plan has been changed substantially. They are proposing two building instead of five. They are positioned very similar to the Haggerty Square project. It is located between the Wal-Mart and L.A. Fitness. July 2232021 8 Waiver -Use Petition 202-11-02A0 — Shoppes of Livonia Chick-fil-A and Other Site/Building modifications, 29250-29350 Plymouth Road. Mr. Taormina described the petition. There is a grocer that the petitioner is working with. There are some traffic issues. There will probably be a new light on Middlebelt Road. MDOT will make that decision. Mr. Hiltz inquired if their stacking would remain on the site. Mr. Taormina explained to them that it is the intent. If it does go beyond their driving lane, they will make accommodations on their site to help with the traffic flow during the initial honeymoon phase. The petitioner is required to give a plan to the Livonia Police Department before opening. Rosedale Commons Alfred Noble Library, 32901 Plymouth Road, Shelden Park and Pool and Livonia Housing Commission, 10800 Farmington Road. Mr. Taormina stated that this is a work in progress. A survey has been done and the PRDA has already acted regarding the legal description. Estimates for the library are still ongoing versus building a new building versus another project of some sort. This is informational at this point and will come back to the Authority sometime in the future. Discussion on Future PRDA Projects/Initiatives This was a brainstorming session for the future of PRDA. The ideas will come back to the next meeting and a discussion about the wrap-up of the Streetscape Maintenance Program. Mr. Taormina: threw out the concept of where the Authority wants to spend time and effort and money. He asked if the Authority wants to get into mowing grass again, or do they want a fagade program? Ms. McCue mentioned the landscaping. She wasn't sure of monies and how much money would be needed. She did feel that a maintenance program of some sort will have to be created. Mr. Slater stated that the probationers work on the plazas each year. He did not know how much they do or can do. Mr. Taormina said he was out at a plaza and the mulch was not maintained and there were weeds already coming through. Mr. Uhazie stated that it is only like that in certain places. He believes it is the individual businesses putting the mulch out there, but over time it built up. Mr. Hiltz said that in the past the PRDA had a budget for capital improvements and maintenance. The Authority was able to set a priority of working from east to west. Where the improvements stopped is where the funds stopped. Then some of the taxable values were taken away. The PRDA is structured to be funded with 1994 taxable values. At that time, we had real property tax and the land tax. If Ford had an addition, the value of that addition allowed for a certain amount of tax capture. It is no longer taxable. When that was lost and the recession hit, the taxable values were below that and the city picked up the difference. At that time the court was used to help us when the contracts ended. The Authority used to do landscape, tree trimming, maintenance, pole painting, etc. Ove the course of time we gave the responsibility of the poles to DTE and so that is no longer ours. The Authority then just tried to maintain where they were. Now, the taxable values are coming up a bit and there is a bit of a purse. The priority was to make it safe and that is where the Streetscape Asset Maintenance program came from. Mr. Hiltz then said that this program is July 22, 2021 9 not just a one and done. It is an ongoing thing. He feels that the priority should always be maintenance. He asked if the Authority wanted to try and pick up where they left off with the pole masts at Wayne Road or Stark Road. Right now, the business owners are asked to maintain the corridor. He said with the investment that has been put into the corridor, it needs to be maintained. Mr. Mies said that what has been done along Plymouth Road is beautiful and it needs to be maintained. He said that when the probationers are out there working, they do it good enough. They don't have an investment in it. They are just filling time. He said that it holds true for some businesses also. He said one might look beautiful and the one next door looks horrible. He feels that maintaining the investment should be a priority also. Mr. Taormina spoke of the normal right-of-way boundaries and the landscape easements. He said that he feels the Authority has a responsibility to maintain them. He told of a contractor that the Authority used to have, and they used to mulch, fertilize, and plant flowers. They would weed it also. He said it was a significant cost. Mr. Faris said he felt that after the Streetscape Asset Maintenance Program is completed, a competent landscaper would be able to maintain it. He said it could be like how the Authority deals with TechSeven. A quarterly maintenance type thing. Mr. Taormina said it would have to be phased due to today's pricing. As. McCue said it doesn't all have to be done right now. She agreed with the phasing approach. Mr. Hiltz was remembering having public meetings with the business owners and residents along the corridor. It was then that the Authority informed the business owners that they would be responsible for the watering because the Authority could not afford it. It was done through a special assessment district. He said that if the Authority were to take the responsibility back for the fertilizing and maintenance, we would need to have communication with the owners, otherwise it may be done double. He said the vacant properties are a concern. He would like to have the Authority be responsible for those properties if it could afford to. As a business owner he does not mind maintaining the right-of-way. Ms. McCue said it depends on the business. She mentioned how OHM is always manicured. If there is a pride in ownership and what is on that corridor, it will be taken care of, but then there is the other 50%. Mr. Hiltz said it is then that the Authority would have to take a hard look and decide if it wanted to take it all on again or not. Mr. Slater said that this item was on the agenda to start a conversation and to begin thinking about what the Authority wants to accomplish in the future. Ms. Reece mentioned maybe incentivizing business owners to take better care of their property. Mr. Hiltz said it would be using the carrot instead of the stick approach. Mr. Taormina said that at the next meeting there should be some budget projections provided and that the Maintenance Program should be completed by then. He mentioned talking to landscape firms and see what it would take and pricing for it. He asked that everyone think about other things that might be important to the Authority in the future. Mr. Hiltz mentioned that maybe there can be a budget for the maintenance going forward. The Authority has not been able to do that in the recent past which led to the Streetscape Asset Maintenance Program that is currently going on. He re-emphasized that he believes that July 22, 2021 10 maintaining what is currently out there needs to be priority one and then a discussion should happen regarding what can be done in the future. Mr. Uhazie stated that he would like to get the members feedback on where they see the Authority going in the future and what they see the PRDA's role is in the future. He said after the maintenance program is complete, what does the PRDA see itself doing? Ms. McCue said it has changed so much, so many times. Mr. Hiltz considers the board as an economic engine. As the Authority invests in the corridor with the expectation that the businesses would also continue to invest in the corridor. He said that the Authority should be looking to see if what is happening is an improvement to the corridor and the needs of the corridor. That is how he has always viewed it. Or. Curtis asked if there was any way to poll the businesses and see what they want. What are they looking for? There might be something out there that would help them that the board didn't think of. He didn't know the easiest way to accomplish that. Mr. Uhazie said that he is trying to compile a list of parcels and trying to evaluate what is currently here. Mr. Taormina said there is a way to do that. He also stated a survey could be done. What questions would be on it would need to be discussed. He said if the survey is too long, people don't usually respond, and if they are too short, you don't get the information you are looking for. It can be brought into the next meeting. Mr. Hiltz said he thinks that it has been done before for some special reason. Ms. McCue said that the property owners were difficult to find. Mr. Hiltz said he did not want to ask any open-ended questions if a survey were presented. Comments and Motions from Board Members. None. Adjournment: On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 256fh Regular Meeting held by the Plymouth Road Development Authority on July 22, 2021, was adjourned at 4:58 p.m. Patrick Mies, SErecretary