Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - PH 2016-10-10 - AMRHEIN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, October 10, 2106 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, October 10, 2016. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President Jim Jolly Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: Maureen Miller Brosnan Scott Bahr OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Wright Todd Zilincik, City Engineer Mark Taormina, City Planner Don Knapp, City Attorney Helen Mininni, Public Hearing Recorder This is a Public Hearing on the proposed Reconstruction Project of Amrhein Road (Eckles Road to a point 3,500 feet east of Eckles Road) in order to meet the requirements of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) LAP Program, scheduled for the 2017 Construction Season. The City Clerk has served a true copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to those persons in the area affected, and also by way of notice in the Livonia Observer and Eccentric Newspaper. There were six persons present in the audience. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Kathleen E. McIntyre presiding. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state clearly your name and address before making your comments. McIntyre: Good evening. With us this evening is from the City is Todd Zilincik, our City Engineer, MarkTaormina, our Planning Economic and Development Director, Helen Mininni, our court reporter, Don Knapp, our City Attorney. We have Mayor Wright here with us. Vice-President Brian Kritzman. Council member Cathy White is coming in. Council member 2 Meakin, Councilman Jolly. We are missing this evening not being able to be here Council member Scott Bahr and Councilwoman Maureen Miller Brosnan. Mr. Zilincik. ZILINCIK: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you everyone. This evening we are talking about Amrhein Road basically from Eckles. If you will look at the screen there from the far left hand side that’s the intersection of Eckles and Amrhein. As we head east, we go towards the -- just before FedEx, On the north side we have Racer property at 12950 Eckles and the majority of the property remaining property is 13000 Eckles that’s on the north side of Amrhein. On the south side, we have approximately four businesses. Starting from the intersection at Eckles, we have the Polish Legion Post 166. Then we have Brazen Greer that location and that’s at 39201 Amrhein. As we head further east, that’s Hercules Drawn Steele at 38901 and finally the FedEx portion is at 38401. So, basically there’s four businesses on the south side being impacted by the reconstruction and then on the north side the old GM Bumper Plant. This road was constructed back in 1966, so it’s obviously 50 years old. The current cross-section of this pavement consists of one lane eastbound 17 ft. wide and two lanes westbound 11 ft. wide. So, the total cross section is 40 ft. back-to-back and this goes for approximately 2000 ft. east of Eckles Road and then transitions to the current cross-section of 34 ft. which is existing on to Newburg which is 17 ft. lanes one lane in each direction. As you are aware, the City received Federal funding back in December of 2015 in the amount of 1,302,761.00 from the Federal Aid Committee. That includes also the CE portion of funding. We have to provide design for this project out-of-pocket cost. We also provide 18.85 percent out-of-pocket for the remaining construction cost and a portion of CE, which we will get with 81.85 percent reimbursed. We set budget for this project at 1.26 million in an effort to complete it. We knew that there wasn’t enough money to begin with to do this project and our goal is to reduce the road cross- section to 34 ft. wide at this time. With that I want to give a little background information. We did hold a meeting back on August 3, 2016 at Brazen Greer. I do want to thank them for allowing us to use their facility. We invited all businesses to discuss the upcoming reconstruction project. In addition, we also held a separate meeting at Hercules Drawn Steele to discuss our concerns with the road project to give them some information to help address some of the concerns they have maybe with circulation inside their facility. In addition, we had representatives from Federal Express and other businesses along there to again try and give them as much information as we can of the project. With that, our goal is we have to have this project allocated so we don’t lose the Federal Funds. th Our goal is to complete the project by November 18. We have already had a utility coronation meeting which was held on October 6th, which was last Thursday, which Consumer’s Energy will be cleaning up some of their existing gas mains that are out there mostly on the north side, in which 3 gas mains will be abandoned and new ones put in hopefully. There is a th Public Hearing obviously today October 10. We have grade inspection th set for October 19 at 10 o’clock to discuss these plans with the MDOT folks to make sure that we move forward to get the funding. And the final plan submittal will be November 18, 2016, in which we can then let the project - be February 3, 2017. That will give us the best opportunity to get -- construction in April. If we delay any portion of this, then that may delay the construction of the road project and most likely delay or we may not get the project obligated. So, we have a very tight timeframe to get the plans in basically before Thanksgiving. In the meantime, there’s development going on on the north side of Amrhein that’s in flux with this project. So with that we want to construct a two-lane road basically 70 ft. lanes from Eckles heading east to a termination point at 13,000 at Eckles Road just before the Federal Express building on the south side. As I said before, the first 2,000 ft. east of Eckles Road has that extra additional lane and then tapers back down to a two-lane cross section. We will still maintain with this proposed project a dedicated right-turn lane for northbound traffic on to Eckles and obviously have a left dedicated turn lane as it currently exists today. However, our goal is to totally remove the existing concrete pavement, put down new 8” bases, new 9” pavement, and then facilitate the reconstruction maintaining one lane going westbound at all times. But again in order for us to do this project, we felt it beneficial to do - the way the traffic volumes are at today to maintain a two-lane cross-section, which is typical of all our industrial roads 34’ ft. wide unless there is something that comes from the development to the north which will be able to dictate either additional funding to help keep the cross-section – a 40 ft. wide cross-section or the ability to add on at a later date depending on where these driveways or entrances may be located to facilitate the necessity of trips that are generated from a traffic site from the development that may occur. With that I will open up any questions, but hopefully that gives you a detailed background of what we are proposing to do. Again, it’s going to be a fast-moving project, but again we don’t want to lose the funding to make sure that we get this road reconstructed. Thank you. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Zilincik. Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Okay, Todd. So where’s the shortfall coming from? Zilincik: Shortfall? Meakin: The project costs three million and we have two million. Zilincik: Well, the project is probably about 1.5, 1.6, but that’s just the original estimate at this time, but again we’re 85 - 18.15 percent reimbursed by the – paid by the Federal Government and we have to pay approximately the 4 remaining 18 percent. But we paid for the design, which I believe we hired HRC and I think the cost was $110,800.00 out of our pocket we paid for the design cost of this project. Meakin: And 1.2 that is our portion we’re going to pay that out of our road millage? Zilincik: No, this is Federal Funds. Meakin: Our portion. Zilincik: Our portion will be a little over $200,000. We will have to pay the 18.85 percent. So, you’ll anticipate construction costs about 1.3, 1.26 and then the bids. If the bids come in high, we’ll have to rebid it. If we have a good set of plans and we bid it at the appropriate time in which we can get a good contractor on board with cost. Obviously, the earlier we get these in the better off a contractor’s price. Meakin: Are we working with the potential developer on the north side so that we’re doing the same curb cuts and stuff? Zilincik: At this time, part of the project requirements are only go to the (unaudible) some of the drive approaches are on private property and some are located within the right of way. The City would then soft cut at the (inaudible) line, remove the portion of driveway that is located in our right of way and then the portion behind that would have to be taken care as far as engineering review plans that get approved to have those removed a little later date. Meakin: At present, I will offer an approving resolution. McIntyre: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Kritzman: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Yes. Kritzman: Just a quick question because I’m afraid we may have made a mistake in our previous resolution and I don’t want it to be repeated again. We’re talking about Federal funding of 81.85 percent and the remaining cost of 18.85 percent, which doesn’t really add up to a hundred. So, we just want to make sure that we’re -- McIntyre: So, 81.85, Todd, is the Federal? Zilincik: What happens is we get a total lump sum from the Federal Government. 5 McIntyre: Right. Zilincik: So, here’s 1.2 million dollars. We can either spend it towards construction costs of 81.85 percent and a portion of CE costs. Typically CE costs, construction engineering, is 15 percent of total final construction costs or whatever that may be. Most likely, it’s about 1.5 – we don’t know that yet. But they’re going to cover a portion of the construction costs. We have to pay out-of-pocket probably a little over $200,000.00 out-of-pocket from our initial MDOT funds or Wayne County, you know, improvement funds and then they pay on top of that which we get reimbursed at a later date. McIntyre: Right. I think what Vice-President Kritzman is saying is if we take 81.85 and 18.85 that gives us more than 100%. Kritzman: It’s 100.7. Zilincik: 81.15 and 18.85, excuse me. McIntyre: Okay. So, the Federal Government pays 81.15 and we pay 18.85. Zilincik: Correct. McIntyre: Thank you. Zilincik: Sorry about that. Kritzman: It’s almost nonsensical when you’re talking about it in these terms. I just wanted to make sure that as we captured it properly in our resolution that we didn’t have anything that conflicted down the road that legal would have to deal with. McIntyre: Or that our accountants would have to deal with. Kritzman: Right. McIntyre: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Would anyone from the audience have any comments on this item? Guzman: Good evening. My name is David Guzberg. I’m from Hercules Drawn Steele. I am the Vice-President of the Company. I have been associated with Hercules for about 40 years and we have had a great relationship with the City of Livonia. We appreciate everything that the City of Livonia has done to work with us to help us develop our business and to be as successful as we are today and that we hope to be in the future. We have done various expansions of the plant over the years and the City has been very helpful and cooperative with us. And with that being said, we are 6 here to express some concerns for the record. We have, as in the past expanded our plant. We are currently going through an internal expansion adding machinery and equipment to increase our capacity even doing so in this down steel market, but we have faith in the future and planning for the future. We also have a plan to do a substantial building expansion to add on a sizeable bay and add production wise in the Hercules plant. We are stalled at this point temporarily until the steel market makes a turn. We plan to move ahead in the near future. We also need to know how we are going to deal with the service of our building and that takes us to our concern. We service our building with 48 ft. 8 axle trucks that haul a hundred thousand pounds of steel as we are allowed to do. We are looking at an expansion right now over the next three to five years of approximately 50%, which would ostensibly increase our truck traffic on that road by 40 to 50%. Obviously, everything comes in and goes out off of Amrhein Road. We’re concerned because the reduction of the lane size from 40 to 34 ft. and from three lanes to two makes it very, very difficult for our trucks to service our plant. The road and our ingress and egress and our trucking operations have all been designed around that 40 ft. wide access, which we’ve had for the years. We’ve been at that plant which is over 50 years, as I am sure you all know and have developed the business based upon in part upon our ingress and egress and our ability to service the plant. When we put that together with the development that’s going across the street on the north side, which we anticipate and we have been told we will have a development that will generate approximately 1,000 jobs or more. What we fear is, we really fear the operations of the road and the safety, potential safety hazards there by a huge increase in the traffic volume and by ingress and egress on both sides of the street going in to the proposed development. The truck traffic and car traffic that will go in there and the inability of our trucks to make our turns properly, which will be more restricted on a 34 ft. wide road than on a 40 ft. wide road and with two lanes more restricted than three. So, what we are really looking for is we think that the road should maintain its 40 ft. width and we should have three lanes. I’m not a road expert. I don’t have a study that tells us whether three lanes is safer than two, but I think common sense would tell us that three lanes ostensibly is going to be able to handle what will be a vastly increased traffic flow down that road better than two. For purposes of maintaining the road, which was one of the reasons we were told that the lane structure is being reduced – if you’re putting a truck out there to move the snow you’re basically talking about the truck passing three times instead of two and three lanes and doing what they’re doing now. So, if you have a truck out there anywhere, you’re making another swipe of the road for five or six hundred feet, it looks to me will take like a minute or two to drive from one end to the other to move the snow. So, we don’t really see where the big issue is with respect to maintaining the snow clearance because you’re going to be out there any way. But we are concerned with the safety of the road. We 7 haven’t seen the study that has shown the increase in traffic and how that affects the truck traffic – specifically our truck traffic. We are a substantial taxpayer and have been in this city for 50 plus years. We are proud and happy to be part of the Livonia community, but we would like you to consider our concerns and to visit the question where we can maintain the access to our plant and to help us plan our roads in the future. We are looking at adding jobs. We are a well-paying unionized plant, you know, one that supports the UAW workforce and we have been there 60 years or so. We want to grow. We are optimistic about our growth in the Livonia community and what we are going to be able to do. So, we don’t want that hampered in any way and we would like to be able to continue to service our clients as we have done in the past. We would respectfully ask you to consider our concern to keep this road at its 40 ft. width as it has been and as we have been able to use it and have three lanes. Thank you very much. McIntyre: Thank you, sir. Would you like to respond, Mr. Zilincik? Zilincik: Again, we can’t plan the future. We do know things might take place. We just had a session with obviously Hercules. We appreciate their presence in Livonia. We did give them a couple suggestions that maybe they can look at internally circulating their trucks to their facility. Again, we don’t think it’s a problem for them because they have a large area they have to draw the steel down and place it in their yard. But we gave them some suggestions. Some of the concerns that we have is if and when they come on line, which could be a year or two years down the road, then that is something that City Council will look at to help out. What impact that may be as far as the study or on the north side. Maybe the north side will come after this project to help answer some of the concerns they have with some of the plans (inaudible) but north side which may help assist them. What we look at is if the lane was supposed to remain the same cross-section we had to obviously add on six additional feet probably a cost of somewhere over $150,000 to $200,000 to maintain the existing cross-section. Now again, if that was the case I wouldn’t stripe it as a two-lane road going westbound, I would keep it most likely one lane in each direction with a center turn lane to facilitate potential development in the future for that facility to the north or for Hercules, but again, as we all know money is hard to come by. We have enough money and I don’t want to stop short and I don’t want leave the road in this condition. They deserve a good road. It’s been there for 50 years. We want to do that for and put the businesses along that corridor. What comes first? We can build the road and as things come on line or studies come about what needs to be addressed there we can add those portions on or upgrade an signal at Eckles or Newburg, but at this time again, the volume at this point is not reflected. We have FedEx on the east side. It has numerous trucks coming in and out of its facility day in and day out going down 8 Newburg Road or going to Amrhein. I just wanted to let you know, you know, a lot of our UPS on Middlebelt has numerous trucks going in and out and on Schoolcraft come out and we have dealt with. When we did the project back then, this two-lane roadway being17 ft. We are appreciative of Hercules and businesses along that corridor and our typical cross-section that we have in our set of plans should accommodate this, but again the future and the north development and will help us assist in that assessment in the future of where we want to go. Mark, do you want to add some more information or detail to that? McIntyre: Mr. Taormina. Taormina: Well, I can add this. I did meet with representatives of Hercules Steele regarding specifically what their problem is with the reduction in the cross- section of the road from 40 ft. down to 34 ft. and it basically boils down to their ability to stage the trucks in a way that they can enter their shipping docks because when those docks are occupied there’s no place else for those trucks to go. So, what they do is they sit out on the additional lane that is currently available on Amrhein Road. They stage those vehicles until one of the docks opens up. So, it raises an issue as it is related to design and how you best handle that. Can that be done internally? So, we are examining different options with Hercules on how they might be able to stage those trucks in a way that facilitates their shipping and receiving operations, but nonetheless, the way it sits today is the way it has been for many years. And I think the main concern is that a reduction immediately would impact principally their shipping operations, which occurs at the west end of the facility. We are exploring options with Wayne County potentially. We are in discussions with actually Capitol, the owner of the property to the north. But nothing has been resolved relative to the solution that provides that additional funding as Todd indicated the $150 to $200,000.00 that will enable a 40 ft. cross-section to be repaved. There is a funding gap, I guess, is really what exists currently. So, we are seeking ways in which to provide that and Todd has pointed out come some time in the future. McIntyre: Okay. So, just to make sure that I understand the numbers. If we were to keep the 40 ft. and three lane, we would have a deficit in our funds available of about $150 to $200,000.00; is that correct? Zilincik: That’s correct. Or we would have to add it on and consider it not participating from a developer or somebody else would have to provide that additional payment. Again, these projects are done (inaudible) so it is a little extra cost for them. We want to try to design as much as we can now without losing the funding, but not lose the ability to add on a lane in the future to the north or kind of coordinate where we think it is going to go and then the driveway moves because of something else – a utility 9 conflict. So, we are trying to do the best we can as far, yes, we’d like to see the cross-section of 34 ft. however, will development take a year, will it take two years? We don’t really know, but our goal would be to try to – if there’s a possibility to do it we have - 150 to $200,000.00 that would have to be a non-participating item added to the project by a developer or see if we can find some additional funding to accommodate that deficit. McIntyre: Thank you very much. Vice-President Kritzman. Krtizman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions to Todd. One, if we proceed with the 34 ft. cross-section when what is desired by Hercules and potentially others in the area with actually Capital development is the 40 ft. – is the 34 ft. designed in such a way that it’s able to expand to the 40 ft. without major reconfiguration? Zilincik: Again, our goal is design the storm-lateral crossings to make them a little deeper so if they ever want to tie in, they can do that. But the goal is to try to accommodate the best that we can. Additional lane and/or excel diesel lanes on the north side. Kritzman: So, the 34 ft. cross-section that we are proposing to build is that in the same spot that it would be in a 40 ft. wide design? That’s the base question there. Zilincik: Correct. But as you go further east -- Kritzman: It’s a yes or no. Zilincik: Yes, but as you go further east there’s topography issues that you have to deal with if you wanted to widen it further. So, as I told you the first 2,000 ft. is 40 ft. then it transitions the last 1,000 ft. to the existing cross-section. So, if you want to try to maintain an additional wide - location further down, you are going run into topography issues as the grade goes higher between the existing drive on the east end up to the major approaches that went into the facility. Kritzman: And really what I’m getting at is if we build the 34 ft. cross-section now are we doing anything that we would have to undo to expand it to the 40 ft. later? Zilincik: No. Kritzman: That is the important question. Additionally, if we were to not build this at all at this time, is another project that is lined up to take these funds in the timeframe that is allowed? 10 Zilincik: I would go back to Wayne County and mostly the funds could be lost unless they found a project that could be designed and obligated in a timeframe to utilize the funding, but most likely I would say it’s very difficult. Kritzman: Isn’t the funding lined up to be – I mean it’s recorded to be authorized by November of 2016? Zilincik: We try to get it early. We don’t know if the funding may run out. The goal is always -- Kritzman: The HRC letter references November. Zilincik: Right. Kritzman: Is that a deadline there? Zilincik: That’s the date of the plans to be in by. Typically, there’s a set schedule by MDOT/LAP program and based on when the program application was th submitted, there’s a GI submittal that is required and November 18 is that deadline. We are anticipating that if you wait longer than that you may not get your project obligated for the Federal funds. Kritzman: Thank you. Zilincik: You’re welcome. McIntyre: Thank you. Guzberg: Madam President. McIntyre: Yes, sir. Guzberg: I have a comment. McIntyre: Please do come back to the podium. Guzberg: Thank you. Respectfully, we have a different kind of trucking problem than FedEx and the other companies that were reviewed because we have particularly large trucks and the road needs to accommodate a large truck with a lot of weight. We would just like to register a view with all due respect for the cost that is involved preparing the road now. In the long term, I believe it would be cheaper than building the road and then in a year or two when the development happens having to come back and start over, to do it over again because it is going to be cheaper today when they’re out there building the road to keep the road the way it is 11 rather than going back doing a redesign, having to bring a new company in to start over again. Just in my experience in business when you’re out there already and you can add on and make the construction work now it will be cheaper for you than to do it part way now and then have to do it again shortly thereafter. So, building it today would probably be cheaper in the long run. Also, it will create a more attractive environment. Road access ingress and egress for the developers on the north side as well as for us who are already there. Thank you very much. McIntyre: I don’t know if Vice-President Kritzman has a question or comment, but I just wanted to clarify in moving to the 34 ft. road now and the elimination of the lane that’s going to cause you problems, if I understood Mr. Taormina correctly, with how you stage vehicles today, trucks arriving today to support your business. Guzberg: Well in part, but we also think it’s going to cause us problems with the trucks turning because these are long trucks. They have a wider turning radius. We will then be forced, you know, if there’s a potential for blocking the street, having to back trucks in, blocking up the traffic, it’s a potential safety hazard and we may end with a turning radius having curb issues. There’s a lot of ingress and egress issues as far as moving these trucks around on a narrower street. McIntyre: Thank you. Vice-President Kritzman. Kritzman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Guzberg, just a clarification. I want to make sure I heard everything correctly. My understanding is that you’re staging trucks on Amrhein Road at this time. Guzberg: There are trucks parked on Amrhein Road now. Kritzman: Okay. Guzberg: Yes. Kritzman: And in defense of our Engineering Department and what’s going on here, let me ask you if Hercules Drawn Steel putting any money towards this project? Guzberg: Towards the road? Kritzman: Yes. Guzman: Not that I am aware of, no. 12 Kritzman: And I have to appreciate what Mr. Zilincik if trying to do in trying to accommodate everybody’s needs, but a resident on the other side of the city should not be subsidizing you and your business making money off staging trucks on a city street. Guzman: Well, we are looking at alternatives either way. Kritzman: I understand, but you understand my point as well? Somebody who is scraping to make ends meet and get their bills paid is not going to be a huge proponent of spending an extra couple thousand dollars on a road for the benefit of your company. And so I appreciate the job that the Engineering Department is doing. I don’t want our Engineering Department to think that I am questioning their intention as far as going with this smaller profile. There is a lot to consider here. I certainly think we should be looking at what actually Capitol is doing and hopefully Mr. Taormina and Mr. Zilincik know more than we do about that particular development at this time. I am certain we their past history that they wouldn’t be headed down a road where they’re recommending a 34 ft. wide profile if they know darn well that something bigger would be needed. So, I appreciate your sharing your concerns with us this evening. Guzman: Thank you. Again, we appreciate the communication from the Engineering Department. We are not here disparaging them in any way. Kritzman: No, no. Guzman: Don’t take it that way. It’s not intended. We have great respect for all of these processes and we are here just to express out concerns and try to plan for the future. McIntyre: I just want to say we appreciate it because so many times, as you know, we are legally obligated to do notifications or public notice and so many times we go to all of that and we’re legally obligated but it’s also the right thing to do. And you have a public hearing and absolutely no one shows up and so, I would just like to say thank you. First of all, thank you for being a great Livonia business and thank you for taking the time to come here tonight and offer your comments. I felt it was in no way an attack on our Engineering Department. It is your job representing your business. So, thank you. Guzman: Thank you all. McIntyre: I do have a question for Mr. Zilincik. Todd, is there software that you can model. Some kind of traffic software that you can model, turning radi? 13 Zilincik: There is software out there for it. There are ones that we have to get with traffic engineers or again when actually Capitol came in and were they looking to expanding we can look at that. And to go back as Councilman Kritzman said, we all want to find a happy medium here. I think maybe some of the development on the north side may shake out to figure out where the approaches finally end up at if they develop that property. In conjunction, if Hercules would at lining up with their facility maybe doing some internal queing of their trucks inside their facility or looking at once these approaches are determined exactly on the north side there could be some alignments there and hopefully we could do a left turn or add a lane on to make it safe for all parties involved, but at this time we have to go with the information we have at a hand. I’d love to build obviously a 40 ft. lane road lane, but the only other option is only building half the road and then once that is done the other half is all beat up and then it looks even worse. So, our goal is to try and complete the road section connected to the existing - lanes the best job we can with the funds we have and hope that we can solidify the development on the north side or whatever transpires with the businesses involved. We hope that they are successful again and things that are coordinated with that. McIntyre: I think Mr. Kritzman made an excellent point about we don’t object, right, to Amrhein being used for staging, but it does create an issue of allocation and resources and whose paying for what. But I would be concerned or want to be sure that we are not creating problems with the turning radi for trucks into the business because that can create I think an impediment to the business that we are creating for doing this. So, if there is some software or something that we can take a look at that? Zilincik: I think part of the issue is when Hercules trucks come in, they come in straight to their facility to unload and then they have to back up and head out. What we would look at obviously the designer HRC would look at the turning radius. It is going to be a challenge first of all to construct the road and maintain the turning radius as we did on Industrial. We know that we want to maintain their facility at all times so they can unload and maintain a business. But we will look at that and see if there is any challenges that may come about. Ultimately, we want to make sure it’s safe because we have to design to accurate standards when we get the funding to begin with. McIntyre: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you again, Mr. Guzberg. We appreciate your time and your comments. We will place this on the agenda for Monday, October 17, 2016 and we will confirm that will your office, Mr. Guzberg. At this time, we will close this Public Hearing. 14 As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:35 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Monday, October 10, 2106 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Monday, October 10, 2016. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kathleen E. McIntyre, President Brandon M. Kritzman, Vice President Jim Jolly Brian Meakin Cathy K. White MEMBERS ABSENT: Maureen Miller Brosnan Scott Bahr OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Wright Todd Zilincik, City Engineer Mark Taormina, City Planner Don Knapp, City Attorney Helen Mininni, Public Hearing Recorder This is a Public Hearing on the proposed Reconstruction Project of Amrhein Road (Eckles Road to a point 3,500 feet east of Eckles Road) in order to meet the requirements of the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) LAP Program, scheduled for the 2017 Construction Season. The City Clerk has served a true copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to those persons in the area affected, and also by way of notice in the Livonia Observer and Eccentric Newspaper. There were six persons present in the audience. The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with President Kathleen E. McIntyre presiding. The Public Hearing is now open for comments. Please state clearly your name and address before making your comments. McIntyre: Good evening. With us this evening is from the City is Todd Zilincik, our City Engineer, MarkTaormina, our Planning Economic and Development Director, Helen Mininni, our court reporter, Don Knapp, our City Attorney. We have Mayor Wright here with us. Vice-President Brian Kritzman. Council member Cathy White is coming in. Council member 2 Meakin, Councilman Jolly. We are missing this evening not being able to be here Council member Scott Bahr and Councilwoman Maureen Miller Brosnan. Mr. Zilincik. ZILINCIK: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you everyone. This evening we are talking about Amrhein Road basically from Eckles. If you will look at the screen there from the far left hand side that’s the intersection of Eckles and Amrhein. As we head east, we go towards the -- just before FedEx, On the north side we have Racer property at 12950 Eckles and the majority of the property remaining property is 13000 Eckles that’s on the north side of Amrhein. On the south side, we have approximately four businesses. Starting from the intersection at Eckles, we have the Polish Legion Post 166. Then we have Brazen Greer that location and that’s at 39201 Amrhein. As we head further east, that’s Hercules Drawn Steele at 38901 and finally the FedEx portion is at 38401. So, basically there’s four businesses on the south side being impacted by the reconstruction and then on the north side the old GM Bumper Plant. This road was constructed back in 1966, so it’s obviously 50 years old. The current cross-section of this pavement consists of one lane eastbound 17 ft. wide and two lanes westbound 11 ft. wide. So, the total cross section is 40 ft. back-to-back and this goes for approximately 2000 ft. east of Eckles Road and then transitions to the current cross-section of 34 ft. which is existing on to Newburg which is 17 ft. lanes one lane in each direction. As you are aware, the City received Federal funding back in December of 2015 in the amount of 1,302,761.00 from the Federal Aid Committee. That includes also the CE portion of funding. We have to provide design for this project out-of-pocket cost. We also provide 18.85 percent out-of-pocket for the remaining construction cost and a portion of CE, which we will get with 81.85 percent reimbursed. We set budget for this project at 1.26 million in an effort to complete it. We knew that there wasn’t enough money to begin with to do this project and our goal is to reduce the road cross- section to 34 ft. wide at this time. With that I want to give a little background information. We did hold a meeting back on August 3, 2016 at Brazen Greer. I do want to thank them for allowing us to use their facility. We invited all businesses to discuss the upcoming reconstruction project. In addition, we also held a separate meeting at Hercules Drawn Steele to discuss our concerns with the road project to give them some information to help address some of the concerns they have maybe with circulation inside their facility. In addition, we had representatives from Federal Express and other businesses along there to again try and give them as much information as we can of the project. With that, our goal is we have to have this project allocated so we don’t lose the Federal Funds. th Our goal is to complete the project by November 18. We have already had a utility coronation meeting which was held on October 6th, which was last Thursday, which Consumer’s Energy will be cleaning up some of their existing gas mains that are out there mostly on the north side, in which 3 gas mains will be abandoned and new ones put in hopefully. There is a th Public Hearing obviously today October 10. We have grade inspection th set for October 19 at 10 o’clock to discuss these plans with the MDOT folks to make sure that we move forward to get the funding. And the final plan submittal will be November 18, 2016, in which we can then let the project - be February 3, 2017. That will give us the best opportunity to get -- construction in April. If we delay any portion of this, then that may delay the construction of the road project and most likely delay or we may not get the project obligated. So, we have a very tight timeframe to get the plans in basically before Thanksgiving. In the meantime, there’s development going on on the north side of Amrhein that’s in flux with this project. So with that we want to construct a two-lane road basically 70 ft. lanes from Eckles heading east to a termination point at 13,000 at Eckles Road just before the Federal Express building on the south side. As I said before, the first 2,000 ft. east of Eckles Road has that extra additional lane and then tapers back down to a two-lane cross section. We will still maintain with this proposed project a dedicated right-turn lane for northbound traffic on to Eckles and obviously have a left dedicated turn lane as it currently exists today. However, our goal is to totally remove the existing concrete pavement, put down new 8” bases, new 9” pavement, and then facilitate the reconstruction maintaining one lane going westbound at all times. But again in order for us to do this project, we felt it beneficial to do - the way the traffic volumes are at today to maintain a two-lane cross-section, which is typical of all our industrial roads 34’ ft. wide unless there is something that comes from the development to the north which will be able to dictate either additional funding to help keep the cross-section – a 40 ft. wide cross-section or the ability to add on at a later date depending on where these driveways or entrances may be located to facilitate the necessity of trips that are generated from a traffic site from the development that may occur. With that I will open up any questions, but hopefully that gives you a detailed background of what we are proposing to do. Again, it’s going to be a fast-moving project, but again we don’t want to lose the funding to make sure that we get this road reconstructed. Thank you. McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Zilincik. Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Okay, Todd. So where’s the shortfall coming from? Zilincik: Shortfall? Meakin: The project costs three million and we have two million. Zilincik: Well, the project is probably about 1.5, 1.6, but that’s just the original estimate at this time, but again we’re 85 - 18.15 percent reimbursed by the – paid by the Federal Government and we have to pay approximately the 4 remaining 18 percent. But we paid for the design, which I believe we hired HRC and I think the cost was $110,800.00 out of our pocket we paid for the design cost of this project. Meakin: And 1.2 that is our portion we’re going to pay that out of our road millage? Zilincik: No, this is Federal Funds. Meakin: Our portion. Zilincik: Our portion will be a little over $200,000. We will have to pay the 18.85 percent. So, you’ll anticipate construction costs about 1.3, 1.26 and then the bids. If the bids come in high, we’ll have to rebid it. If we have a good set of plans and we bid it at the appropriate time in which we can get a good contractor on board with cost. Obviously, the earlier we get these in the better off a contractor’s price. Meakin: Are we working with the potential developer on the north side so that we’re doing the same curb cuts and stuff? Zilincik: At this time, part of the project requirements are only go to the (unaudible) some of the drive approaches are on private property and some are located within the right of way. The City would then soft cut at the (inaudible) line, remove the portion of driveway that is located in our right of way and then the portion behind that would have to be taken care as far as engineering review plans that get approved to have those removed a little later date. Meakin: At present, I will offer an approving resolution. McIntyre: Thank you. Any questions from Council? Kritzman: Madam Chair. McIntyre: Yes. Kritzman: Just a quick question because I’m afraid we may have made a mistake in our previous resolution and I don’t want it to be repeated again. We’re talking about Federal funding of 81.85 percent and the remaining cost of 18.85 percent, which doesn’t really add up to a hundred. So, we just want to make sure that we’re -- McIntyre: So, 81.85, Todd, is the Federal? Zilincik: What happens is we get a total lump sum from the Federal Government. 5 McIntyre: Right. Zilincik: So, here’s 1.2 million dollars. We can either spend it towards construction costs of 81.85 percent and a portion of CE costs. Typically CE costs, construction engineering, is 15 percent of total final construction costs or whatever that may be. Most likely, it’s about 1.5 – we don’t know that yet. But they’re going to cover a portion of the construction costs. We have to pay out-of-pocket probably a little over $200,000.00 out-of-pocket from our initial MDOT funds or Wayne County, you know, improvement funds and then they pay on top of that which we get reimbursed at a later date. McIntyre: Right. I think what Vice-President Kritzman is saying is if we take 81.85 and 18.85 that gives us more than 100%. Kritzman: It’s 100.7. Zilincik: 81.15 and 18.85, excuse me. McIntyre: Okay. So, the Federal Government pays 81.15 and we pay 18.85. Zilincik: Correct. McIntyre: Thank you. Zilincik: Sorry about that. Kritzman: It’s almost nonsensical when you’re talking about it in these terms. I just wanted to make sure that as we captured it properly in our resolution that we didn’t have anything that conflicted down the road that legal would have to deal with. McIntyre: Or that our accountants would have to deal with. Kritzman: Right. McIntyre: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Would anyone from the audience have any comments on this item? Guzman: Good evening. My name is David Guzberg. I’m from Hercules Drawn Steele. I am the Vice-President of the Company. I have been associated with Hercules for about 40 years and we have had a great relationship with the City of Livonia. We appreciate everything that the City of Livonia has done to work with us to help us develop our business and to be as successful as we are today and that we hope to be in the future. We have done various expansions of the plant over the years and the City has been very helpful and cooperative with us. And with that being said, we are 6 here to express some concerns for the record. We have, as in the past expanded our plant. We are currently going through an internal expansion adding machinery and equipment to increase our capacity even doing so in this down steel market, but we have faith in the future and planning for the future. We also have a plan to do a substantial building expansion to add on a sizeable bay and add production wise in the Hercules plant. We are stalled at this point temporarily until the steel market makes a turn. We plan to move ahead in the near future. We also need to know how we are going to deal with the service of our building and that takes us to our concern. We service our building with 48 ft. 8 axle trucks that haul a hundred thousand pounds of steel as we are allowed to do. We are looking at an expansion right now over the next three to five years of approximately 50%, which would ostensibly increase our truck traffic on that road by 40 to 50%. Obviously, everything comes in and goes out off of Amrhein Road. We’re concerned because the reduction of the lane size from 40 to 34 ft. and from three lanes to two makes it very, very difficult for our trucks to service our plant. The road and our ingress and egress and our trucking operations have all been designed around that 40 ft. wide access, which we’ve had for the years. We’ve been at that plant which is over 50 years, as I am sure you all know and have developed the business based upon in part upon our ingress and egress and our ability to service the plant. When we put that together with the development that’s going across the street on the north side, which we anticipate and we have been told we will have a development that will generate approximately 1,000 jobs or more. What we fear is, we really fear the operations of the road and the safety, potential safety hazards there by a huge increase in the traffic volume and by ingress and egress on both sides of the street going in to the proposed development. The truck traffic and car traffic that will go in there and the inability of our trucks to make our turns properly, which will be more restricted on a 34 ft. wide road than on a 40 ft. wide road and with two lanes more restricted than three. So, what we are really looking for is we think that the road should maintain its 40 ft. width and we should have three lanes. I’m not a road expert. I don’t have a study that tells us whether three lanes is safer than two, but I think common sense would tell us that three lanes ostensibly is going to be able to handle what will be a vastly increased traffic flow down that road better than two. For purposes of maintaining the road, which was one of the reasons we were told that the lane structure is being reduced – if you’re putting a truck out there to move the snow you’re basically talking about the truck passing three times instead of two and three lanes and doing what they’re doing now. So, if you have a truck out there anywhere, you’re making another swipe of the road for five or six hundred feet, it looks to me will take like a minute or two to drive from one end to the other to move the snow. So, we don’t really see where the big issue is with respect to maintaining the snow clearance because you’re going to be out there any way. But we are concerned with the safety of the road. We 7 haven’t seen the study that has shown the increase in traffic and how that affects the truck traffic – specifically our truck traffic. We are a substantial taxpayer and have been in this city for 50 plus years. We are proud and happy to be part of the Livonia community, but we would like you to consider our concerns and to visit the question where we can maintain the access to our plant and to help us plan our roads in the future. We are looking at adding jobs. We are a well-paying unionized plant, you know, one that supports the UAW workforce and we have been there 60 years or so. We want to grow. We are optimistic about our growth in the Livonia community and what we are going to be able to do. So, we don’t want that hampered in any way and we would like to be able to continue to service our clients as we have done in the past. We would respectfully ask you to consider our concern to keep this road at its 40 ft. width as it has been and as we have been able to use it and have three lanes. Thank you very much. McIntyre: Thank you, sir. Would you like to respond, Mr. Zilincik? Zilincik: Again, we can’t plan the future. We do know things might take place. We just had a session with obviously Hercules. We appreciate their presence in Livonia. We did give them a couple suggestions that maybe they can look at internally circulating their trucks to their facility. Again, we don’t think it’s a problem for them because they have a large area they have to draw the steel down and place it in their yard. But we gave them some suggestions. Some of the concerns that we have is if and when they come on line, which could be a year or two years down the road, then that is something that City Council will look at to help out. What impact that may be as far as the study or on the north side. Maybe the north side will come after this project to help answer some of the concerns they have with some of the plans (inaudible) but north side which may help assist them. What we look at is if the lane was supposed to remain the same cross-section we had to obviously add on six additional feet probably a cost of somewhere over $150,000 to $200,000 to maintain the existing cross-section. Now again, if that was the case I wouldn’t stripe it as a two-lane road going westbound, I would keep it most likely one lane in each direction with a center turn lane to facilitate potential development in the future for that facility to the north or for Hercules, but again, as we all know money is hard to come by. We have enough money and I don’t want to stop short and I don’t want leave the road in this condition. They deserve a good road. It’s been there for 50 years. We want to do that for and put the businesses along that corridor. What comes first? We can build the road and as things come on line or studies come about what needs to be addressed there we can add those portions on or upgrade an signal at Eckles or Newburg, but at this time again, the volume at this point is not reflected. We have FedEx on the east side. It has numerous trucks coming in and out of its facility day in and day out going down 8 Newburg Road or going to Amrhein. I just wanted to let you know, you know, a lot of our UPS on Middlebelt has numerous trucks going in and out and on Schoolcraft come out and we have dealt with. When we did the project back then, this two-lane roadway being17 ft. We are appreciative of Hercules and businesses along that corridor and our typical cross-section that we have in our set of plans should accommodate this, but again the future and the north development and will help us assist in that assessment in the future of where we want to go. Mark, do you want to add some more information or detail to that? McIntyre: Mr. Taormina. Taormina: Well, I can add this. I did meet with representatives of Hercules Steele regarding specifically what their problem is with the reduction in the cross- section of the road from 40 ft. down to 34 ft. and it basically boils down to their ability to stage the trucks in a way that they can enter their shipping docks because when those docks are occupied there’s no place else for those trucks to go. So, what they do is they sit out on the additional lane that is currently available on Amrhein Road. They stage those vehicles until one of the docks opens up. So, it raises an issue as it is related to design and how you best handle that. Can that be done internally? So, we are examining different options with Hercules on how they might be able to stage those trucks in a way that facilitates their shipping and receiving operations, but nonetheless, the way it sits today is the way it has been for many years. And I think the main concern is that a reduction immediately would impact principally their shipping operations, which occurs at the west end of the facility. We are exploring options with Wayne County potentially. We are in discussions with actually Capitol, the owner of the property to the north. But nothing has been resolved relative to the solution that provides that additional funding as Todd indicated the $150 to $200,000.00 that will enable a 40 ft. cross-section to be repaved. There is a funding gap, I guess, is really what exists currently. So, we are seeking ways in which to provide that and Todd has pointed out come some time in the future. McIntyre: Okay. So, just to make sure that I understand the numbers. If we were to keep the 40 ft. and three lane, we would have a deficit in our funds available of about $150 to $200,000.00; is that correct? Zilincik: That’s correct. Or we would have to add it on and consider it not participating from a developer or somebody else would have to provide that additional payment. Again, these projects are done (inaudible) so it is a little extra cost for them. We want to try to design as much as we can now without losing the funding, but not lose the ability to add on a lane in the future to the north or kind of coordinate where we think it is going to go and then the driveway moves because of something else – a utility 9 conflict. So, we are trying to do the best we can as far, yes, we’d like to see the cross-section of 34 ft. however, will development take a year, will it take two years? We don’t really know, but our goal would be to try to – if there’s a possibility to do it we have - 150 to $200,000.00 that would have to be a non-participating item added to the project by a developer or see if we can find some additional funding to accommodate that deficit. McIntyre: Thank you very much. Vice-President Kritzman. Krtizman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple questions to Todd. One, if we proceed with the 34 ft. cross-section when what is desired by Hercules and potentially others in the area with actually Capital development is the 40 ft. – is the 34 ft. designed in such a way that it’s able to expand to the 40 ft. without major reconfiguration? Zilincik: Again, our goal is design the storm-lateral crossings to make them a little deeper so if they ever want to tie in, they can do that. But the goal is to try to accommodate the best that we can. Additional lane and/or excel diesel lanes on the north side. Kritzman: So, the 34 ft. cross-section that we are proposing to build is that in the same spot that it would be in a 40 ft. wide design? That’s the base question there. Zilincik: Correct. But as you go further east -- Kritzman: It’s a yes or no. Zilincik: Yes, but as you go further east there’s topography issues that you have to deal with if you wanted to widen it further. So, as I told you the first 2,000 ft. is 40 ft. then it transitions the last 1,000 ft. to the existing cross-section. So, if you want to try to maintain an additional wide - location further down, you are going run into topography issues as the grade goes higher between the existing drive on the east end up to the major approaches that went into the facility. Kritzman: And really what I’m getting at is if we build the 34 ft. cross-section now are we doing anything that we would have to undo to expand it to the 40 ft. later? Zilincik: No. Kritzman: That is the important question. Additionally, if we were to not build this at all at this time, is another project that is lined up to take these funds in the timeframe that is allowed? 10 Zilincik: I would go back to Wayne County and mostly the funds could be lost unless they found a project that could be designed and obligated in a timeframe to utilize the funding, but most likely I would say it’s very difficult. Kritzman: Isn’t the funding lined up to be – I mean it’s recorded to be authorized by November of 2016? Zilincik: We try to get it early. We don’t know if the funding may run out. The goal is always -- Kritzman: The HRC letter references November. Zilincik: Right. Kritzman: Is that a deadline there? Zilincik: That’s the date of the plans to be in by. Typically, there’s a set schedule by MDOT/LAP program and based on when the program application was th submitted, there’s a GI submittal that is required and November 18 is that deadline. We are anticipating that if you wait longer than that you may not get your project obligated for the Federal funds. Kritzman: Thank you. Zilincik: You’re welcome. McIntyre: Thank you. Guzberg: Madam President. McIntyre: Yes, sir. Guzberg: I have a comment. McIntyre: Please do come back to the podium. Guzberg: Thank you. Respectfully, we have a different kind of trucking problem than FedEx and the other companies that were reviewed because we have particularly large trucks and the road needs to accommodate a large truck with a lot of weight. We would just like to register a view with all due respect for the cost that is involved preparing the road now. In the long term, I believe it would be cheaper than building the road and then in a year or two when the development happens having to come back and start over, to do it over again because it is going to be cheaper today when they’re out there building the road to keep the road the way it is 11 rather than going back doing a redesign, having to bring a new company in to start over again. Just in my experience in business when you’re out there already and you can add on and make the construction work now it will be cheaper for you than to do it part way now and then have to do it again shortly thereafter. So, building it today would probably be cheaper in the long run. Also, it will create a more attractive environment. Road access ingress and egress for the developers on the north side as well as for us who are already there. Thank you very much. McIntyre: I don’t know if Vice-President Kritzman has a question or comment, but I just wanted to clarify in moving to the 34 ft. road now and the elimination of the lane that’s going to cause you problems, if I understood Mr. Taormina correctly, with how you stage vehicles today, trucks arriving today to support your business. Guzberg: Well in part, but we also think it’s going to cause us problems with the trucks turning because these are long trucks. They have a wider turning radius. We will then be forced, you know, if there’s a potential for blocking the street, having to back trucks in, blocking up the traffic, it’s a potential safety hazard and we may end with a turning radius having curb issues. There’s a lot of ingress and egress issues as far as moving these trucks around on a narrower street. McIntyre: Thank you. Vice-President Kritzman. Kritzman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Guzberg, just a clarification. I want to make sure I heard everything correctly. My understanding is that you’re staging trucks on Amrhein Road at this time. Guzberg: There are trucks parked on Amrhein Road now. Kritzman: Okay. Guzberg: Yes. Kritzman: And in defense of our Engineering Department and what’s going on here, let me ask you if Hercules Drawn Steel putting any money towards this project? Guzberg: Towards the road? Kritzman: Yes. Guzman: Not that I am aware of, no. 12 Kritzman: And I have to appreciate what Mr. Zilincik if trying to do in trying to accommodate everybody’s needs, but a resident on the other side of the city should not be subsidizing you and your business making money off staging trucks on a city street. Guzman: Well, we are looking at alternatives either way. Kritzman: I understand, but you understand my point as well? Somebody who is scraping to make ends meet and get their bills paid is not going to be a huge proponent of spending an extra couple thousand dollars on a road for the benefit of your company. And so I appreciate the job that the Engineering Department is doing. I don’t want our Engineering Department to think that I am questioning their intention as far as going with this smaller profile. There is a lot to consider here. I certainly think we should be looking at what actually Capitol is doing and hopefully Mr. Taormina and Mr. Zilincik know more than we do about that particular development at this time. I am certain we their past history that they wouldn’t be headed down a road where they’re recommending a 34 ft. wide profile if they know darn well that something bigger would be needed. So, I appreciate your sharing your concerns with us this evening. Guzman: Thank you. Again, we appreciate the communication from the Engineering Department. We are not here disparaging them in any way. Kritzman: No, no. Guzman: Don’t take it that way. It’s not intended. We have great respect for all of these processes and we are here just to express out concerns and try to plan for the future. McIntyre: I just want to say we appreciate it because so many times, as you know, we are legally obligated to do notifications or public notice and so many times we go to all of that and we’re legally obligated but it’s also the right thing to do. And you have a public hearing and absolutely no one shows up and so, I would just like to say thank you. First of all, thank you for being a great Livonia business and thank you for taking the time to come here tonight and offer your comments. I felt it was in no way an attack on our Engineering Department. It is your job representing your business. So, thank you. Guzman: Thank you all. McIntyre: I do have a question for Mr. Zilincik. Todd, is there software that you can model. Some kind of traffic software that you can model, turning radi? 13 Zilincik: There is software out there for it. There are ones that we have to get with traffic engineers or again when actually Capitol came in and were they looking to expanding we can look at that. And to go back as Councilman Kritzman said, we all want to find a happy medium here. I think maybe some of the development on the north side may shake out to figure out where the approaches finally end up at if they develop that property. In conjunction, if Hercules would at lining up with their facility maybe doing some internal queing of their trucks inside their facility or looking at once these approaches are determined exactly on the north side there could be some alignments there and hopefully we could do a left turn or add a lane on to make it safe for all parties involved, but at this time we have to go with the information we have at a hand. I’d love to build obviously a 40 ft. lane road lane, but the only other option is only building half the road and then once that is done the other half is all beat up and then it looks even worse. So, our goal is to try and complete the road section connected to the existing - lanes the best job we can with the funds we have and hope that we can solidify the development on the north side or whatever transpires with the businesses involved. We hope that they are successful again and things that are coordinated with that. McIntyre: I think Mr. Kritzman made an excellent point about we don’t object, right, to Amrhein being used for staging, but it does create an issue of allocation and resources and whose paying for what. But I would be concerned or want to be sure that we are not creating problems with the turning radi for trucks into the business because that can create I think an impediment to the business that we are creating for doing this. So, if there is some software or something that we can take a look at that? Zilincik: I think part of the issue is when Hercules trucks come in, they come in straight to their facility to unload and then they have to back up and head out. What we would look at obviously the designer HRC would look at the turning radius. It is going to be a challenge first of all to construct the road and maintain the turning radius as we did on Industrial. We know that we want to maintain their facility at all times so they can unload and maintain a business. But we will look at that and see if there is any challenges that may come about. Ultimately, we want to make sure it’s safe because we have to design to accurate standards when we get the funding to begin with. McIntyre: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you again, Mr. Guzberg. We appreciate your time and your comments. We will place this on the agenda for Monday, October 17, 2016 and we will confirm that will your office, Mr. Guzberg. At this time, we will close this Public Hearing. 14 As there were no further questions or comments, the Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:35 p.m. SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK