Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 10, 2026 - 267th Regular Minutes signedMINUTES OF THE 267th REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA The 267th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia, Michigan, was called to order at 3:02 p.m., Wednesday, June 10, 2026, in the 5th-floor Gallery of City Hall. Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Maureen Miller Brosnan, Mayor Dan Laible, Chair Rhett Gronevelt, Vice Chair Patrick Mies, Secretary Omar Faris Stephanie Blatt Susan Harvey David Veselenak Mark Orosz Mark Taormina, Economic Development & Planning Director Jacob Uhazie, Assistant Planning Director Erika Goff, Planning Administrative Assistant Doug Moore, Acting Director of DPW Roberty Bywalec, D & B Landscaping Michael Molnar, Tech Seven Samantha Lewis, resident, 29815 Hoy Cindy Fleming, resident, 9025 Woodring Denise Mika, resident Jim Biga, resident Lynn Mills, resident 1. ROLL CALL A quorum was present. 2. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES On a motion made by Brosnan, seconded by Blatt, and unanimously adopted, it was: #2026-09 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority hereby approves the Minutes of the 266th Regular Meeting held on May 20, 2026. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 4. DISCUSSION ON FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS Mr. Laible explained that the board was meeting sooner after the last meeting than usual because some questions had been raised in June 10, 2026 2 the last meeting, and they were looking for some clarifications. There was a lower -than -anticipated fund balance, and the board also wanted clarity on future projections, given higher expenses, specifically the irrigation bill. They did not have an approved budget, but in the forecast used to decide their ability to support the bond in Shelden Park, there was a series of financials they were using to get comfortable with what sort of debt obligations they would be taking on with that, and there were some questions as to why that irrigation number came in so high. They had also had questions about whether it was a one-time event and whether the historical numbers they had seen and projected were closer to reality than the 2025 number, which was more than double the expected number. Mr. Laible expected clarity on that today and said they wanted to re -chalk the projections. When they signed up for the debt obligation to assist with Shelden Park, they did so without including potential TIF income, which is now a reality and has greatly improved their outlook. They also had questions about the budgeting process, what exactly they did, and what they could potentially do going forward. Benjamin Grier put together a revised format for the revenue and expenses. Since the last time, there were questions about how the irrigation expenses ended up so far over budget, and to prevent that from happening going forward, Mr. Grier has a new reporting package that will allow them to see, at each meeting, exactly where they stand in relation to the budget. It had to be searched for inside the old package and was in the budget performance report. He put together a revenue and expense statement, which he will present at every meeting, and it will clearly indicate the budget to date, so they can see that going forward. In the last meeting, the exact amount of the budget overage was questioned, and it was determined to be $418,000. It was attributable to a lot of utility work being done in the right-of-way. The other over -budget item was the $221,000 land improvement cost, but that amount included pre -construction work that had been advanced to the park's capital projects fund, bringing the total to almost $379,000. That amount had been repaid since the last meeting in May. The fund balance has another $379,000 that was advanced to the park's capital projects fund during the last fiscal year. Ms. Blatt asked what the $418,000 had to do with. Mr. Grier explained that there was extensive damage to the irrigation lines in the district because utilities were working in the right-of- way, which damaged the lines and required repairs by TechSeven. Ms. Blatt asked if Consumers was responsible, and Mr. Grier said yes. Ms. Blatt asked if the lines were marked. Mr. Grier understood that they were not marked. Ms. Blatt asked the city whether they had filed the damage claims, and Mr. Moore said they had tried, but Consumers informed them that they wanted photo evidence of the damage, which they do not have. Mr. Moore went on to explain that they didn't take pictures of the damage because that was not a requirement for TechSeven at any point, nor was video evidence or pictures showing damage being repaired. Ms. Blatt asked for clarification that it had already been redone and that there was no way to go back, and Mr. Moore said, "Yes, correct." He went on to say that he sent the invoices from TechSeven, and Consumers then told them they wanted to see pictures of the damage. Ms. Blatt said she would get June 10, 2026 3 wanted to see pictures of the damage. Ms. Blatt said she would get with him and talk about what she might be able to do. Mr. Laible agreed that he would like to have the claim chased down to determine whether it can be pursued. He understands that the money has already been spent on repairs. Ms. Harvey asked whether there is any other utility work underway that the board can learn from, and said she is hopeful that the standard operating procedures have been changed. Mr. Veselenak asked whether there is any way the situation could serve as a lesson to always document with photos, so this doesn't happen again, given the substantial amount of money involved. Mr. Laible said he understands that there is no obligation from Consumers to pay for damage done in the right-of-way and that the city does bear the risk when they put items in the right-of-way, but he does also understand that they have a process where they may reimburse, and that the city needs to chase that down. He said it happens every year, but hopes that this is an outlier. He asked Doug to document things as part of the course of business and told Mr. Molnar that, to the extent he understands the situation, he asked him to put the city in the best position to recoup funds by taking pictures going forward. Mr. Mies noted that this issue comes up every year, and there have been conversations about the lines not having a metal insert that would allow utility companies to know where the lines are. He wanted to know if anyone saw value in determining a way to identify where they are, and felt that while that may have a cost, it would be best to be able to mark and identify them so the utilities can work around them when possible. Mr. Molnar gave a brief description of what transpired with them and Consumers. He also said that the main line is the most critical part of the system, and when it is hit, it causes many issues. Mr. Taormina asked Mr. Molnar if what he was speaking about would involve putting a tracer wire through the main lines, so that the city could retain a company to mark the lines via a Miss Dig request prior to any permit or any construction activity. Mr. Molnar said correct. Ms. Harvey asked is Consumers would then have a duty to avoid them. Ms. Blatt said that if the lines are not marked, the liability is then not on the utility company but on the owner of the lines. Ms. Blatt said a conversation can be had, and then see if there is any way that Consumers and the city can partner in this situation. Mr. Laible said that he feels safe saying that the board would entertain any possible solutions to prevent and be proactive in the future with marking of the lines, and that they would consider marking the lines as a potential capital improvement project for future expenditures, and wanted to know if a quote could be gathered for that. Mr. Bywalec said that the main line can be tracked, but time is the issue, and the utility just goes out there and starts. He said it would be good if TechSeven could get out there a few days before the project starts to mark the lines. Mr. Taormina believes that a third party is used to doing the marking and that it wouldn't necessarily be TechSeven doing it. Ms. Blatt confirmed that, three days before the work is done, the utility is obligated to notify Ms. Dig. She said the flags are good for two weeks and the project has to be done within two weeks, and if not, it has to be marked again. Mr. Moore said that Plymouth Road is a state trunk line and that anyone digging on Plymouth Road is working under the state June 10, 2026 4 permit, and notification will go to the state, not necessarily the city. Mr. Gronevelt asked if the same thing would happen tomorrow. What is the process to try to avoid it? He said that Ms. Dig should be coming to the city and that the city should be out there flagging. He said that would be the time to catch the mistake and ensure that PRDA can decide whether to spend the money to flag the assets or to deal with the potential damage if they aren't flagged. He also said he would be willing to step in to help the city and the board gain an understanding of what the process will look like and how to mitigate issues. Mr. Laible said thank you for volunteering, and if anyone wanted to volunteer to help Rhett, it would be appreciated to help recoup the old claim that was denied, as well as best practices moving forward to prevent this in the future. He also said maybe a capital improvement project could be to put in trace reliance if the board deems it to be something that actually will be preventative. Mr. Grier said that he feels the budget process needs to be formalized to ensure formal approval of the budget by the board. Mr. Taormina explained that he went back through the history of the PRDA and, from what he can tell, the board did approve a budget up until 2010/2011. The budget was presented by the Finance Director. In most cases, it was accepted and adopted by the board before being submitted to the mayor for reporting to the City Council. He said the board usually reviewed it in August or September. The process stopped when the board's revenues no longer existed. He said that when the TIF dollars dried up and the board was operating for a couple of years on just the fund balance, a special assessment district was established for a couple of years to address irrigation specifically, and then the 2 mills were levied. The special assessment district went away, and the two mills were approved by the City Council. He said that was enough to pay for water and maintenance for the irrigation system. He went on to say that the budget had not been presented to the board for about the last 15-16 years and had been on autopilot. It was something the Finance Director submitted to the City Council. He said that as they discuss the forecast and revenue for the coming years, the process should change and go back to this body for review or a preliminary budget recommendation, which is then passed on to the mayor. Mr. Taormina went on to say that this is the process the city plans on for the 2027 budget cycle. He will be able to plug in numbers and, with the board's approval, present the budget, including several general ledger account lines that have not been included in the budget for many years. He went on to explain some of the line items used in the past that were pertinent to the PRDA's mission. He said that line items can be added back to the preliminary budget, and then the board can discuss which accounts to fund and where the priorities lie. He said that it is his recommendation, and that a meeting in August would present the preliminary budget and discuss future projects and where the money should be spent. He presented a chart in which Ms. Lichtenberg presented the 2025 budget, the conversation about Sheldon Park, and a five-year forecast at that time. He said that was before the changes to the Development Plan and Tax Increment Plan. He showed the forecast projections with the additional revenue that will be generated through the TIF plan. He explained that he June 10, 2026 5 entered numbers into the forecast to show possible projects that would be considered later in the meeting and to show the net effect. He spoke about a couple of items approved at the last meeting, including landscaping and parking lots. He said there is a commitment to the Sheldon Park project to cover construction administration costs, and he showed the impact of these items. He then discussed the revenue portion. He said the $890,652 is the amount expected to be generated by the two -mill levy. He explained that the summer collection includes the Schoolcraft College and Wayne County operation millages. The winter collection includes the other Wayne County millages for parks, jail, and another operating component, plus the HCMA (Huron -Clinton Metropolitan Authority). The winter taxes are collected in 2027, so those monies cannot be accounted for in the 2026 budget. In the 2027 forecast, both summer and winter collections are shown. He said the numbers gradually increase based on assumptions in the TIF plan, which is a 1% annual increase in the district's taxable value. This number is conservative. He said the revenue column is $378,324, which will be reimbursed to the PRDA fund for expenses related to the architecture and engineering for Sheldon Park. The estimated ending fund balance is $1,288,520. He told the board to review the 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030 forecasts and note the increases. He said that does not include any additional expenses at that point or capital projects, and he feels those are the numbers the board should think about when formulating its upcoming budget. Ms. Harvey wanted to clarify that next year the PRDA will have a more formal budget agreement before it moves to the council. The mayor agreed. Mr. Taormina said to the Mayor and Mr. Grier that it would be helpful to have that before the next meeting. The mayor said the board would be safe if they could get the budget recommendations done by August, since they have to be submitted to the council by October. Ms. Harvey questioned the 1% increase over 2027, 2028, and 2029 being more than 1%. Mr. Taormina explained that 1% is added to the taxable value, not the revenue. He said that as the taxable value increases, the difference between the base increases even more. Mr. Veselenak asked if the controller boxes and the Sesquicentennial Park were factored into the bottom line. Mr. Taormina said that it is factored in. Mr. Veselenak understands that even after those project figures were taken into account, the fund balance would be ahead by almost $300,000. Mr. Gronevelt inquired whether the figures for Accounting, Planning, Assessing, and Treasurer were actual hard costs, and whether they are, for the time being, departmental costs being put into preparation and such. Mr. Grier did say that it is to cover the costs of the work being done by the departments related to PRDA. Mr. Gronevelt asked whether there would be an opportunity to gather ideas prior to the budget meeting in August to get thoughts down on paper. Mr. Laible said he was envisioning some type of fund for upcoming projects, yet to be defined, but throughout the year, there can be bids or investigations for them, and then a vote can be held as they come up. Mr. Gronevelt asked whether the things that used to be done and haven't been done for a while, due to lack of funds, would be a precursor to prompting the board about what the priorities would be. Mr. Taormina said he plans to include the account line items back in the June 10, 2026 6 preliminary budget so the board can see what they are and decide whether to fund any of them. The mayor had asked about the five-year plan that was submitted, and Mr. Taormina explained that it was for the development plan and that in the tax increment finance plan, several projects were identified so that they can be potentially undertaken over the course of the next 30 years. The mayor then clarified that the board would not be starting from scratch, but that the body had already considered some of the top projects, so the board would put those back on the table and move on from there. She is glad that they are not starting from scratch, that there is a long-term plan, and that there will be funding for it. Mr. Taormina spoke about the board having a conversation a few years back about prioritization and how maintaining the assets and the irrigation has been an investment. He said RAM construction was hired and that the process time is coming up again. He said he thought that about five years ago, it was discussed reactivating that asset management plan and engaging OHM again to review it, since the board had already retained them to provide some of the services. 5. CONSIDERATION OF QUOTE FROM TECHSEVEN CO. TO REPLACE PROTECTIVE ELECTRICAL CABINET ENCLOSURES FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM. Mr. Taormina started the conversation with a recap of what was needed to make a decision on this: a competitive cost comparison and an assessment of whether it could be phased over a couple of years. He said Mr. Molnar provided the board with a breakdown of his recommendations. He said he believes it would be phased over two years. He said the forecast for that is $45,832 this year, and $41,832 next year. He said Mr. Moore reviewed some of the costs associated with the boxes and, factoring in labor, believes this is a solid quote and not out of bounds. Mr. Moore explained that he had visited the NEMA website and compared its costs to TechSeven's. He also explained that the city cannot buy them and supply them to the vendor without the vendor paying a use tax on them. He said the state looks at that as a way around paying sales tax. He said there are other companies that can provide the boxes, but he doesn't know anything about them. He said this is apples -to -apples, and he figured that is what the board would want to see. He said you can always buy cheaper and that China makes everything. Ms. Harvey asked what the markup by TechSeven is. Mr. Molnar said about 7%. Ms. Harvey asked what percent of the $40,000 is the physical box and how much labor is. Mr. Molnar said the labor is specified at six hours, $600 per box. He also said that there are eight for replacement, six west of Middle Belt and two east of Middle Belt. Six of them are pedestals, and two are wall - mounted. Mr. Veselenak asked about life expectancy. Mr. Molnar said they are stainless steel and he expects them to last maybe 20-30 years unless a car takes one out. Mr. Laible asked for the total scope of the project, how many remain to be replaced after this, and what the total cost the board would be looking to approve. Mr. Molnar said that he is recommending that eight be replaced this year and eight next year. He recommends replacing the pedestal -style boxes first because they are deteriorating faster and they are closer to where the salt erosion has taken June 10, 2026 7 its toll. Mr. Laible asked to confirm the amount of the quote. Mr. Taormina and Ms. Harvey said the amount is $45,832. Ms. Harvey asked what the warranty on the boxes is. Mr. Molnar said it is one year. On a motion made by Gronevelt, seconded by Harvey, and unanimously adopted, it was: #2026-10 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority hereby approves the purchase of eight replacement electrical cabinet enclosures in the amount of $45,832 to be performed by TechSeven for the irrigation system along Plymouth Road. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 6. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT PROPOSAL BY D & B LANDSCAPING, INC. FOR STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT TO SESQUICENTENNIAL PARK. Mr. Bywalek gave a brief history of their involvement with the PRDA and explained that Sesquicentennial Park is essentially the city's eastern entrance and needs an upgrade. He is proposing a redo very similar to what has been done on the plazas at Farmington Road, Merriman Road, and Middle Belt Roads. He said they are basically using the same plant material along with benches, brick pavers, and a new brick wall. He said Mark had asked him how they arrived at the cost. Mr. Bywalek passed out a spreadsheet and explained it. He did say that they put a 40% markup on the plant material because they have to warranty it; if something dies, they replace it. That figure also includes miscellaneous overhead. He said that the spreadsheet explained other costs, such as debris, trucking, and supervision. He said there is also the maintenance for the remainder of 2026. He said their profit is 11.8%. Ms. Harvey asked about the warranty period. Mr. Bywalek explained that the warranty is as long as they maintain it. He said all the plants are one year. He said he is very proud of the city, and if there is an issue with a plant here or there, he will replace it. Ms. Blatt said he has been doing a great job. Mr. Bywalek said that while work was being done on the plaza upgrades, the workers were given water and food by the businesses and thanked for it. He said he does not normally share the spreadsheet, but he understands it is business. He explained again that the plants come with a warranty, which is a big reason for the 40% markup. Mr. Taormina asked Mr. Moore to give some of his experience with landscapers. Mr. Moore said that before the city, he worked for Carolina Grounds Operations, which was contracted to care for Ford properties in Dearborn. He said their markup was 100% across the board. He said it covered the warranty, the overhead, and the maintenance. He said the landscape industry is as cutthroat a business as you can possibly be. He said there will be a company that will underbid him to get the job, but you get what you pay for. He said the city works with D & B because they know what they are getting with them: a reputable company that June 10, 2026 8 stands behind its work and is a great corporate partner. He also said they do a lot of pro bono work for the city, including work on Nehasil Park with LPD, and don't charge for it. He really appreciates the work that D & B does. On a motion made by Brosnan, seconded by Blatt, and unanimously adopted, it was: #2026-11 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority hereby approves the contract proposal by D & B Landscaping, Inc. for streetscape and landscape improvements to Sesquicentennial Park in the amount of $288,239.00. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 7. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. Ms. Harvey asked whether, on future agendas, any approved funds will be listed, and whether the amount is within the budget approved earlier. She said something like, "It is 4% over budget or 20% under budget." She feels it would be easier to reference. 8. AJOURNMENT On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 267th Regular Meeting held by the Plymouth Road Development Authority on June 10, 2026, was adjourned at 4:02 p.m. a.)/o 42. Patrick Mies, Secretary