Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-02 CITY OF LIVONIA — CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD DECEMBER 2, 2020 Meeting was called to order via Zoom remote technology at 8:03 p.m. by Vice President Scott Bahr. Present: Laura Toy (Livonia, Michigan), Scott Bahr (Livonia, Michigan), Cathy White (Lehigh Acres, Florida), Brandon McCullough (Livonia, Michigan), Rob Donovic (Deployed), Jim Jolly (Livonia, Michigan) and President Kathleen McIntyre (Arrived 8:04 p.m.) (Livonia, Michigan). Absent: None Councilmember Toy led the meeting in the Invocation. Elected and appointed officials present: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Dave Lear, Assistant City Engineer; Paul Bernier, City Attorney; Susan Nash, City Clerk; Mike Slater, Director of Finance; Dave Heavener, Fire Chief; Casey O'Neil, Director of Information Systems; Don Rohraff, Director of Public Works; and Jacob Rushlow, Superintendent of Public Service. Councilmember Jolly encouraged Council and meeting attendees to dress in Holiday clothes for the December 14, 2020 meeting. Councilmember Toy stated that the pharmacy at Eight Mile and Farmington is doing free Covid tests and also delivering PPE supplies to seniors. She urged everyone to support the small businesses in the community. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None heard. NEW BUSINESS 1) REQUEST TO ABANDON AND VACATE PORTIONS OF THE LIVONIA (COUNTY) DRAIN #1, EXTENSION & BRANCHES: Theresa Cauzillo and William Phillips, 11850 Mayfield, LLC, re: for drain on property located on the east side of Mayfield Avenue, north of Plymouth Road (11850 and 11870 Mayfield) in the southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Dave Lear, Assistant City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated the property owners came across an old easement on their title work that really is not used for anything anymore. It was originally an open drain that ran across the property before the subdivision was platted there. Once the industrial subdivision was platted they relocated the drain and piped it in but the old drain easement is still on record. They're trying to sell the property and need to get that cleaned off the title work. So we're trying to have the Council approve the Quit Claim Deed in cooperation with Wayne County Drain District to vacate and turn the old easement over to the property owner so they can get that off of their title work. The new drain easement won't be affected, it's just the old outdated one that isn't being used right now. 2 Councilmember Donovic offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 2) REQUEST TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) PIERCE ENFORCER FIRE ENGINE THROUGH THE HOUSTON GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL (HGAC-BUY) COOPERATIVE PURCHASING CONSORTIUM: Livonia Fire and Rescue, re: to replace a current fire engine, (CR 61-17) Dave Heavener, Fire Chief, presented this request to Council. He stated he is request approval to purchase a new Pierce Fire Engine with 2020 budgeted funds. This was a holdover from the previous year that was delayed due to Covid. We were able to make those funds available moving into 2021, so it would be a carry- over purchase through a previously budgeted fund. Again, this will be purchased through the Houston Galveston Cooperative Purchasing Consortium. That is the same entity that we purchased previous vehicles from, we have a good standing relationship with that entity. The engine will be used as a front line fire engine and currently we have it planned to be housed at Station 5 to replace that fire engine. And ultimately that current fire engine at Station 5 will be bumped into a reserve status and we will be decommissioning a 19-year old fire truck. The National Fire Protection Association's standard is to replace these vehicles after 15 years, so we're well beyond that with this purchase and the replacement of the current reserve vehicle. The purchase will increase safety for all of the existing operations and both crews and citizens alike and it will also provide us with compatible equipment that we currently use. So, all of our vehicles on the Fire Engine Fleet side, except for Tower 1 which is housed at Station 3 are Pierce vehicles, so this will be a consistent vehicle for our fleet. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 3) REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE: Public Service Division, re: to enable payment to Allied Distributors for the emergency repair of hoists #3 and #4 at the Equipment Maintenance Garage, from budgeted funds. Don Rohraff, Director of Public Works, presented this request to Council. He stated this item is before Council tonight for the emergency repair of the hoists at the Fleet Maintenance Building. We have, obviously with the leaf season coming to a close and the winter operations happening and the crossover of all of that at the same time, it's absolutely imperative that all of our lifts and hoists that we have in the garage are functional for snow and ice, changing over of the blades, repairing the salt truck and actually switching over the leaf equipment to the snow and ice program. We had two of the hoists go down and we had to get these hoists repaired ASAP for the purposes that I just described. This originally went out to bid in 2016 and it was awarded to a vendor at that time that was totally 3 nonresponsive and we've been back and forth with this company for the last years, we actually got into some litigation that Paul did, but we could not wait any longer to get these repaired. So before you tonight is the costs of the repairs for those two hoists, #3 and #4, for a cost of$55,468.00 and it is the recommendation of the Department that Council approve this payment to Allied, Inc. and also authorize an expenditure from the budgeted funds in the amount of$55,468.00 for this purpose. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Councilmember McCullough said in looking through the documents, did you purchase three lifts and it showed that expenditure of$50,000.00 but I know that it also showed a Capital Outlay request in budgeted fund money. I just want to make sure you did get the third lift in order, too? Rohraff replied that all three are in order, that's correct. McCullough then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Toy thanked Director Rohraff and his staff for the excellent job they did in the bulk leaf pick-up and keeping up with it all. Rohraff stated that he would let his crews know and that Mother Nature was cooperative in keeping them on schedule. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 4) REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION THE ABILITY TO SET CERTAIN FEES AND CHARGES: Department of Parks & Recreation, re: at the Livonia Senior Citizen Center, Greenmead, league athletic play, and outdoor activities and rentals. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated the Parks and Recreation Commission is asking Council for the authority to set fees. Currently the Parks and Recreation Commission has the authority to establish fees for programs and rentals at the Jack E. Kirksey Recreation Center. This was done by Council Resolution 492-02. We are asking that, again, with the addition of Senior Center and Greenmead under Parks and Recreation, that they be allowed to establish all fees with the exception of membership and entrance fees for the Jack E. Kirksey Recreation Center. If you'll notice on the information that was sent with this, several neighboring communities operate in a very similar manner to what we're asking for; Novi, Southfield, Canton and West Bloomfield all do very similar either have administrative or non-Council oversight for most of their fees. There's only two committees that I'm aware of that currently operate the way Livonia does and then Dearborn and Detroit, to the best of my knowledge. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions Council might have on this subject. 4 Councilmember Jolly thanked Davis for the opportunity of speaking with him this morning in regard to this. I think there is a compelling reason to allow the Parks and Rec Commission to do this. Of the comparables that you mentioned there, I think West Bloomfield, they have an elected Parks and Rec Commission, is that correct? Davis replied that is correct. Out of all of them, they are the only ones that do have a Parks and Recreation Commission that they elect. Jolly said he was going to ask if the other two were set up similarly or in the way that we are here in Livonia. This is one of these things that I don't necessarily think that we need to have a committee meeting on, but it is something that I would like to think about for the next two weeks, so I'll offer an approving and a denying in hopes that if any of us have any questions in regard to this, we can reach out to Mr. Davis or the Administration and just to give us time to think about it as well. Councilmember Toy stated for the many years of service that I've been in, one of our major charges as a City Council is to approve budgets and finances for this community. I appreciate some of the things that we are doing and coming forward in a changing environment. But I also appreciate of this City Council and I need to understand this, as Mr. Jolly said. I am also, if I may, Madam Chair, because I think we need Committee of the Whole on this and can we ask our Mayor to come in as well and ask a few others in their department that may have some of the same concerns. I'm a little reluctant to give up Council authority, if you will, over financing and fees, particularly in this community. I have voted for and against these in my career here in the City and elsewhere and a fee is a tax, if you will. It increases obviously the amount of money that somebody is spending to use our services„ depending on what service it is. It helps to get a deeper understanding of that and we have a fiduciary responsibility in that regard and so I would ask for Committee of the Whole. Thank you for your indulgence, I appreciate it. Councilmember McCullough stated his two cents on this matter, having been on the other side of things, financial oversight, a lot of these decisions from a lower level streamline a whole of efficiencies with staff, it's kind of nice and this is something I'll be in support of. I definitely would like to see an oversight from Council, some of these decisions are made on the fly and on the season and even from the programming. A lot of the staff, just going to the Parks and Rec Commission which is a great step. Administratively down the line I think that would be appropriate to do it at some point just to give that. And I hate to give those fees totally away on that, but obviously if there's like I said the different opportunity programs and stuff, I think it's a great idea. I've seen it work very well from an administrative standpoint and streamlining services, so I'll be in support of this. DIRECTION: 1)APPROVING 2) DENYING 3) COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 5 5) REQUEST TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION (QBS) PROCESS WITH DETROIT ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, DLZ MICHIGAN, INC., HUBBELL, ROTH & CLARK, INC., AND OHM ADVISORS: Finance Department, re: to provide as-needed architectural services. Mike Slater, Director of Finance, presented this request to Council. He stated this letter is coming from the Finance Department but it did have input from a number of different sources in coming to the recommendation that we are proposing tonight to you. The goal of this request is to streamline the process of obtaining architects to provide special services for building projects. In order to accomplish this, the City is proposing a proposal for obtaining services on an as-needed basis. A total of thirteen responses were received. An internal review committee consisting of myself, Don Rohraff, Jacob Rushlow, Sammy Lovin and Enna Bachelor evaluated those proposals, our Quality Based Selection Process or (QBS) was used to perform the evaluations. Members of the review committee initially performed the evaluations and firm's qualifications without regard to price. From that process, the top seven rated firms were selected to proceed with interviews. Those seven firms were then interviewed and rated on their interview performance. They scores from the qualifications, review and the interview they did were then totaled to come up with the four highest rated firms which we're recommending to you tonight. Those firms as we indicated are Detroit Architectural Group, ELV of Michigan, Hubbell, Roth and Clark, and OHM Advisors. The committee then proceeded to review the pricing proposals of these four firms. In our RFP we had requested that the firm provide fee schedules for both hourly rates and as a percentage of the construction cost of the project. During our interview process it became apparent that using a percentage of construction cost to determine the fees to complete the project was not going to be the best methodology to award work to these firms. Almost all of the firms indicated that the construction cost of the project is not necessarily indicative of the architect's time needed for design and construction oversight. For example, the construction cost to replace a large HVAC unit is much higher than a small HVAC unit but the architect's time needed for both projects would be similar so it would not make sense to base their time on the actual construction cost. So, instead of using that method to determine architects' fees, we're instead proposing the methodology which is outlined in your communication. Under this methodology the City would first choose one of the four firms to prepare a scope of work for each project. They would be paid their hourly rate for that task and that task would be rotated among the firms as new projects arise. That scope of work would then be sent out to all four firms to obtain a not-to-exceed quote for the design, bid and construction engineering services. The Administration would award the work to the firm that submits the low qualified quote, taking into consideration the firm's ability to meet deadlines and in some cases specialty capabilities that they might have for certain projects. That selected firm would then proceed to design and bid, preparation with the project, construction bids would come back to Council for acceptance prior to any construction work being performed. So, it is our recommendation and the recommendation of the committee that City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into 6 agreements with those four firms to authorize fees to prepare the scope of work for each project based on the firm's hourly rates, to authorize Administration to award design, bid and construction services to the firm that is the low qualified not- to-exceed quote and then authorizing to provide ad hoc services to the Capital Planning Budget prioritizations based on analysis or other miscellaneous projects that might not necessarily tied to a construction project but would be beneficial to the City's building repair, maintenance and other building related issues. In attendance tonight on this call is Jacob Rushlow who is one of the persons highly involved in this and also representatives from each of the four recommended firms should you have any questions for them. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Councilmember McCullough stated this process is something he's very familiar with, actually I just had an RFP back in my timeframe to do the same. Having projects like this, whether it's an HVAC project, a roofing project, a lot of times you need an architect/engineer to develop the proper scope and a lot of times you need a stamp or a seal to even have bidding done. So having the rotation of engineers and architects on file or in the Request For Proposal, is something that is really good. I absolutely love the idea that the four firms would develop the scope, you would rotate the firm and the obviously that scope would go out to the rest of the firms that are on rotation. One thing that I would recommend is maybe including in that original scope that is being created, a construction estimate cost just to make sure that the numbers are coinciding with the budgeted funds that we have available. But other than that I believe this is very good for the City, especially with some of the capital projects that are coming up, and I'd be happy to offer an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda if there are no objections. Vice President Bahr asked Slater if this is the first time we're doing something like this for this purpose and Slater replied for architects. Slater said as you know, the City does use a similar process for engineering projects, for road projects, and water and sewer projects but in that case it's a little bit different because those are all fairly consistent in terms of the effort required for those. So, those are based upon a flat percentage of construction costs. But again, as recently described we don't believe that pricing methodology works for architectural projects. But we have never had a "preapproved" list. Instead we had to, every time we had a project where an architect was needed to the extent we'd have to go through this whole RFP process to select an architect which was very cumbersome. So, as I indicated I think this will certainly be much more efficient to us to complete the projects. Bahr then asked you said the scope of work would then be sent to all four firms to obtain a not-to-exceed quote for design and construction engineering services and then the Administration will award the work; I assume that those will frequently be above our $15,000.00 threshold. Even not-to-exceed quotes, isn't that something that typically comes before Council or no? 7 Slater replied yes, but we're hoping again to streamline this. The circumstances with architectural scope of work, it's actually designing the scope of work, which is probably not going to be very expensive. Then there is the putting together the bid documents which is a little bit more work. And then there's the construction oversight that they just won. Where they would come to Council would be at the point it went out to bid and we've gotten bids back from contractors, so they would not have performed the construction oversight at that point. Again, our hope is to streamline this and not have another Council step every time we want it to apply. Bahr then asked as you're rotating the firms, what's your methodology for who goes first or who takes what? There's going to be different sizes to each of these projects, I assume, so some are going to be better for those firms than others. I also just did a quick scan of the rates that they provided and there's a fair amount of variability among the rates that we would be paying among these firms. So I'm just curious what the intended methodology is for deciding which firm gets what project. Slater replied to be ones they have not really put together any formal process to that. In some cases as time goes on we might find somebody does abetter job at a certain type of project, maybe there's somebody who is better at roofs than another firm, or HVAC would be a specialty in one firm, or historic buildings might be a specialty for another firm. So I guess time will tell but there's enough projects initially that everybody is going to get some work out of this initially. Bahr asked if the City is contractually obligated in some way to divvy it out evenly or can we choose, if we decide over time that we like using a particular firm for this type of project, can we just choose to use them regardless of how many previous jobs they've gotten for that scope preparation? Slater replied yes, we can do that. And so, right, if someone is consistently the lowest cost, we might use them more often. And by the way, we're not contractually obligated to exclude other architects if in fact we had a major building project where we wanted to expand the field to include potentially other architects in that. Councilmember Toy asked if there was a cap on the amount, on those amounts when you bid through that or not? Slater replied if we were building a 29 million dollar building, my guess is we would have pre-approval before we proceeded with that. Almost all of the things we're looking at here, roofs, HVACS, electrical, more instead of brand new facilities, they're more repairs and maintenance type things. Like for instance the DPW building that's under construction now, I don't see us where we would just pick somebody without input on something like that. 8 Toy stated she would like to see some type of format of a cap or something on those costs, especially once again when the Council and I appreciate and realize your talent and others in the City, but I also realize that this Council is responsible to the taxpayers for the dollars we spend and what we approve, etc., etc. So, therefore I would like to see this on the Regular, I'd like to see some thought put into it in regard to the caps we're going to put on certain projects like a roof, if you will, or some type of repair. At one point didn't we talk about a project manager that we were looking at perhaps employing or getting, I think when Kritzman or Meakin were on Council back then we were talking about someone like that, that we might have a better control of that, if you will. I don't know if that's been talked about again or if that even enters into something like this, but I know a lot of the repairs as you've mentioned, were talked about at that time with all of our properties and buildings, etc., because they're aging and I can appreciate that we want to get them done quickly. So, I'd like to see this placed on Regular, Madam Chair, and maybe of a few of those questions will be forthcoming before our next meeting. Slater stated that in this process just be aware that we did not take competition out of this process, in fact, every one of these are going to have competition in terms of the four firms providing not to exceed costs. And our goal is to go with the lowest priced quote, again, considering their ability to do the work timely and those type of things. Secondly, regarding the facility manager which we discussed a year ago in the budget process, Sammy Lovin, who is part of the review committee, has been brought on board, that is the goal that he is fulfilling. But the facility manager is not the same as an architect, and Mr. McCullough can speak to this, but Sammy will have quite extensive dealings, he'll probably be the primary person dealing with the architectural firm. But having him on board would not preclude us from having to also enlist the assistance of a professional architect. McCullough stated that he dove into this packet and to clarify for his colleagues, this is for the design services So, if we use a roof as an example, so we have a roof that needs to be spec'd out and say it was an estimated $25,000.00 that it's going to cost. There needs to be specifications and design, prints that are made and it needs an RFP process. If I'm right, this new design services that we brought in, we'd hire one of the rotation of firms, create the scope based on the kind of materials that they listed under their proposal and from there we can bid it to the rotating four companies to create the specifications. Obviously if we go out to bid, if everything goes over the $15,000.00 then it's got to come back to Council for approval for the roof, or an HVAC boiler, or an air handler, or whatever thing we're talking about. So I look at it as this helped me out on my personal job because you need a lot of things that need stamps and I would always call the facilities position a jack of all trades, a master of none. So you rely on a lot of the support from architects to create the proper scope. So this, I love the idea, rather than the percentage that was originally stated by picking four firms, having them use the kind of materials in a rotating fashion, to create the scope and then send it out to the rest of the firms for a competitive bid process. I think if anything it has 9 a more competitive nature in a procurement, this is it. So kudos to the staff. I'll support obviously getting some questions answered but I hope I kind of cleared some of those in the interim. Toy thanked McCullough for the explanation. DIRECTION: APPROVING REGULAR 6) REQUEST TO APPROVE NOTICE OF INTENT RESOLUTION TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $6,000,000.00 AND DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE: Department of Finance, re: to construct, furnish and equip improvements to the water supply system of the City's existing Water Supply and Sewage Disposal System through the approved Drinkina Water State Revolvina Fund (DWSRF) loan to be closed on June 7,2021. Mike Slater, Director of Finance, presented this request to Council. He stated this item is a necessary process to proceed with the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan process. At your last meeting you approved the engineering for this process to continue with OHM. As part of the state law, we need to publish certain information in the newspaper and that's what the proposed resolution that was drafted by our bond Counsel. So, we're requesting that City Council approve the Notice of Intent and that will be the next step in this process. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7) REQUEST TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A REQUEST FOR ,TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP) GRANT: Engineering Division, re: for funding, to designate an agent, attest to the existence of funds and commit to ,implementing a maintenance program for the Stark Road bike lanes from Hines Drive to North ,of 1-96. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, presented this request to Council. He stated they are asking that Council approve the grant request for a Transportation Alternatives Grant. This is administered through SEMCOG. This plan to connect down Stark Road from 1-96 to Hines, this was part of our bike/walk plan which Council had approved previously. We do have some significant additional funding attached to this. we received a $50,000.00 grant from the Ralph Singleton, Jr. Foundation, and we received a $50,000.00 grant from Healthy Livonia to assist with this project. So all we're asking Council for right now is to approve OHM's request for a TAP Grant through SEMCOG. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. 10 Vice President Bahr asked Davis where the $90,000.00 cost to the City, what budget is that coming out of. Davis replied that's probably going to come out of a paving account. We do have some sidewalk funds; Dave could probably speak more intelligently on this subject than I can. Dave Lear, Assistant City Engineer, stated he believes that Todd had mentioned there is funding in the 2021 Budget for the additional monies that are going to be needed for this project, the exact fund I'm not sure, but there is other funding out there that we'd be able to cover it with, that's already in the works. Bahr asked if that was included in the 2021 Budget and Lear replied yes, it's one of the many funds they've got for some paving improvements and they would borrow from one of those. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Jolly stated he loves being a cheerleader of all that we do in Livonia, I love being congratulatory in regard to things we accomplish, but I want to put on the record right now that this project needs to be a whole lot better than the shoulder expansion that occurred on Hubbard Road between Six Mile and Five Mile Road. That project absolutely makes me sick to my stomach every time I drive down the road there because absolutely nothing was accomplished, nothing at all. We as a City added several feet of the shoulder expansion that is absolutely unacceptable in terms of its potential use and it's accomplished nothing. If this project turns out to be in a similar vein to that, I think we shouldn't even proceed with it. If we need to do this the right way and spend the money to do it the right way with appropriate markers and actually segment it off as a pedestrian walkway as opposed to just a widening of the roadway that nobody in their right mind would take their children on or even ride a bike themselves on. I'll just put this out there. That was a poor project and we need to do better. Thank you. Davis stated that he can address that. You and I spoke previously about Hubbard Road and our dissatisfaction with that. That is exactly why we are asking for a TAP Grant on this project. $100,000.00 we could have honestly; we could have done exactly what we did on Hubbard Road with that down Stark Road. It wouldn't have gotten us nowhere as we know. That's why we're asking for approval to go over a TAP Grant, to give us sufficient funds to do this project correctly. Is it going to be a separated out curbed bike lane? No. But it will be a real bike lane with the appropriate markings, it will be something you will feel safe to use. Jolly stated he can appreciate that and he doesn't intend to place blame, but he holds himself accountable for championing that project and not realizing what it was going to turn out to be. I want us to do better and I hope we go into this with a mindset that we will do better and do something that's much more efficient and 11 safer and usable for the residents. I appreciate everything you've done and the Engineering Department, but listen, I'll take responsibility for voting yes and not understanding the full scope of what happened on Hubbard, so we need to do better. Thank you. Vice President Bahr asked Davis to elaborate a little bit more as to how this will be different; is it just the fact that we're putting road markings on it or how will Stark Road be different from Hubbard? Davis replied that Hubbard, first off, is not a bike lane by any stretch of the imagination. There are requirements that you need to have as far as widths are concerned to qualify as a bike lane. Hubbard Road is really just a paved shoulder is what it is. We're asking, you cannot receive a TAP Grant if you're not going by industry's best practices regarding a bike lane. So it's going t be significantly different than what Hubbard Road is just because we wouldn't be able to apply or receive that grant if it wasn't. Bahr asked Davis to elaborate on what those significant differences are. Davis replied the width of it, the markings. Dave, am I missing anything on this? Lear replied if Council looks at their packet they actually have a couple of the proposed cross sections in here for the different stretches of the roadway. The section from 96 down to Plymouth Road is actually doing a road diet where they're reducing Stark Road from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction with a dedicated center turn lane and then 5.5 foot bike lanes on each edge with the appropriate markings. Much like it is north of 1-96 in front of the YMCA and the Ford Field area. South of Plymouth Road down to Hines, it is using portions of the road, the road moves in and out where it's various widths so they're going to be adding additional widths, putting 4-feet on each side of the pavement for bikes on each side with the appropriate markings through that area. As Ted mentioned, we couldn't really do an official bike lane type of work on Hubbard because of the requirements where we would have had to do it on both sides of the road. We didn't have the funding or the ability to upgrade all of the ditches, redo all the storm sewers. So, that's more or less, it's just an emergency get off the road if you're walking along the road type of thing, it's not actually signed for biking. This one will be put in with the appropriate signage, striping, width and things of that nature. But they have included preliminary kind of overview plans with cross sections that you can see the existing and the proposed in the packet if you want to see a visual on it. Bahr asked if the road is being widened or are we just getting the width we need from the reduction of lanes? Lear replied there's two different sections, the section from 1-96 down to Plymouth Road is not getting widened, we're just losing one travel lane to accommodate the 12 bike lanes on each side. The section in itself of Plymouth Road, there are areas that are going to be widened out. Some of them already have wider pavement that accommodates the new striping scheme with some of the accel and de-cel lanes and turn-ins down there. But there are areas that would be widened out to get the needed width. Bahr asked if there is any kind of traffic data to be comfortable with that going to two lanes on Stark? Lear stated they are working on getting updated traffic counts, especially in the bridge area because you've got where you have more or less conflicting left turns and not a wide area between east and west Schoolcraft. So, we're working on getting updated traffic counts to make sure the left-turn movements will work without having issues on that. Some of that is a little tough right now because of the reduced traffic with Covid, I mean it actually works out better for a traffic study but I don't think it's going to give a real kind of idea of what's going on when things are really working out there. But that is something in progress of trying to get that worked out for the final engineering. Bahr stated he's very interested to see how this turns out, that this project is going to be very indicative as to the usage of this once it's in there will be very indicative as to what the promise is to do these projects in other areas of the City. I love the idea and I hope we see a steady stream with a ton of bikers connecting to Hines Park down there, I think this is a really cool place to do it and kudos to you guys for finding the grant money. I hear what Councilman Jolly is saying and he's right about Hubbard. I'll let you off a little bit and say I've ridden on that a number of times, I do appreciate the wider shoulder over there as our bike circuit often ends up at Handi-Dip so I've been down there several times, so I wouldn't say that it's worthless but would certainly hope this is more substantial than that and it looks like it will be. Lear replied it's not what they would have liked but it was kind of the best that we could do under the circumstances and hopefully if we ever get to a full reconstruct of the road, we'll be able to expand it out to do it correctly. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8) REQUEST TO AMEND THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION (QBS) PROCESS WITH OHM ADVISORS FOR THE DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2021 ASPHALT ROAD PROGRAM (CONTRACT 21-A): Engineering Division, re: same (CR 365-16) Dave Lear, Assistant City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is one of their yearly paving contracts. We actually in the previous meeting did the engineering agreements for the Concrete Road and the Concrete Maintenance, so this is for our asphalt portion of the projects. We're recommending the City Council approve the contract with OHM Advisors in the 13 amount of$172,000.00 budgeted in the Roads, Sidewalk and Tree Fund, to cover engineering services for the 2021 Asphalt Paving Program. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 9) WAIVER PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2020-10-02-09 submitted by Little Caesars/Bent On L.L.C., to add drive-up window facilities to an existing carry-out restaurant (Little Caesars) located on the east side of Ann Arbor Road between West Chicago Boulevard and Ann Arbor Trail (38141 Ann Arbor Road) in the Northeast '/4 of Section 31. Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated as you can see from the aerial photograph, this is a three building commercial complex located on Ann Arbor Road. The area that we'll be focusing on this evening is this building here, and even more closely, the unit where the drive-up window operation is proposed is located on the east end of the multi-tenant retail building. This has some similarity to the petition you reviewed a few weeks ago involving the Biggby Coffee at Plymouth and Middlebelt. I say that because what the Petitioner intends to do here like the Biggby is utilize the space behind the commercial building to serve as the route for access to the pick-up window. And sufficient space is available here along the south side of the building, more so than what we looked at previously, a little bit better situation as it exists here. This does not involve an order spacing, it simply serves as a pick-up window for pre-orders and possibly items that could be served on demand. The Planning Commission did review this in rather significant detail especially as it related to the safety aspects. One of the issues was the protection of the area around the building, bobbles will be placed in those areas. Some of the parking will be eliminated in order to make the room available for the stacking lanes. Those spaces will be relocated elsewhere on the site, so there will be no net loss in parking. And lastly with respect to the curb area adjacent to the pick-up window, some modifications would be made there so there will be no interference with the existing sidewalk and barrier free spaces that are in that area. The other issue involves directional signage which is included in the application and really no other modifications to the building other than the addition of the pick-up window itself on that side of the building and a small awning above that pick-up widow. But other than that the Planning Commission is recommending approval of the Petition as submitted. Councilmember McCullough asked Taormina with the slide that is up on the screen now, the adjoining shopping center complex, 38047, there are parking spots that are basically right as people are coming out of the drive-thru and you've got the directional arrow kind of facing the back parking lot; I guess my concern is that the building that would be to the east of the drive-thru window, is there any impact or any concern with people grabbing a pizza and kind of getting back out in the lot, is there any impact there that shows any concern? 14 Taormina replied let me try and understand your concern and question. And that is as the vehicles exit the area where the window is located being able to make the turn into the drive aisle, is that your concern? McCullough replied yes, to the east of that. Taormina stated that's an extra wide aisle, let's see if we have the dimension, I believe the architect is on the phone this evening and could speak to that. But I believe there is sufficient width provided in that aisle so as not to create any interference and I'll allow her to tell us what that dimension is. Typically we look for at least 22-feet for a vehicle to safely back up from a 90 degree parking stall. And I believe we'll have that even with the drive-thru lane in this case. McCullough replied more and more with the pandemic and having to alter the type of services that our businesses and small business around the City are dealing with, I think we're going to see more and more of this type of planning and innovation to change the way that our consumer needs are trending, so looking at everything, everything else looks good. Another good thing that I'm seeing with these site plans is a lot of the site itself and the civil aspects of the lot is to be modified and used, that's kind of another silver lining. Chris Ciccone, 10704 Ludlow Avenue, Huntington Woods, architect for the project, stated there is 35-feet from a car at the window to the back of another car. Councilmember Donovic asked Taormina to clarify if a normal drive-thru with an intercom system where a customer can drive up and place a new order or are they only to be used with orders that have already been called in and scheduled for pick-up? The architect replied that if you're familiar with the Little Caesar's Hot `n Ready, they have standard items where you can drive up and if you want a pepperoni and cheese or a breadstick, they'll give it to you. That's the only way that you order or you can order ahead of time and pick up through the window, so there's no intercom system. Donovic stated that is my only question, I do think this is a great idea, I would really love a Little Caesar's Hot `n Ready pizza right about now but I think this is going to be a great addition to the area and I'm looking forward to this hopefully becoming a new addition to this building. I know they just invested quite a lot of money into these buildings in the last five years so I'm looking forward to this development as well. Councilmember Toy stated that whatever we can do to help out these small businesses I our City and if they're providing safety with what they're doing and they have the vision, as Councilmember McCullough said, we just need to help them. Let's do it, Council, we've got to be aware of these things, you're trying to make a buck, you know, I've got fifteen employees that I've got to help them out 15 week after week. So it's important we can do as a City to not put him through a lot of red tape, but to know that they're doing good things out there and providing good service to our residents, especially the food, I'd like to offer an approving if it hasn't already been offered, Madam Chair, and go on Consent if there's no objection. Let's help out these small businesses and hats off to Mark Taormina and his crew for all that they do to help out, just oodles of good comments, Mark, about when anybody comes to you you're right there for them and helping to provide good thoughts and good plans. Thank you again. The franchise owner of Biggby's thanked Taormina for his hard work over the past couple years in how to get this project through the City. He thanked Council speaking on behalf of small business owners for helping them through the pandemic, that the impact hit everyone in a different way. He stated they were bringing in approximately 50% of what they normally do for over sixteen weeks and it was a scary time for himself and his staff, that he has 45 employees at the three different locations in the area and they went down to 17 and that's what started to turn their wheels with this pick-up window and that he is very grateful for Council looking out for small businesses and hopefully things will start moving in the right direction and slow the spread of this virus but this will help us. If anything happens we can shut the lobby down and just have minimal interactions for our employees, keep them safe and keep the customers safe. So for what it's worth I appreciate all of the hard work that Council does and it's nice to know that people are on our side as business owners. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10) VACATING PETITION: Planning Commission, re: Petition 2020-09-03-04 submitted by Group 10 Management, on behalf of Laurel Investment L.L.C. to determine whether or not to vacate the existing public utility easement located on the west side of North Laurel Park Drive, between Six Mile Road and University Park Drive (17117 and 17123 North Laurel Park Drive, Holiday Inn) in the Southeast '/4 of Section 7. (CR268-20) Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated what you're looking at is the aerial photograph of the old Holiday Inn and you can see how it's positioned. This is the configuration of the easements that they requested to be vacated, so you can that it's designed specifically for the building. These are no longer necessary on these, utilities and easements have been established to service the new Holiday Inn so the request in front of you is simply to vacate the old easements which are no longer needed. Vice President Bahr offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None heard. 16 Councilmember Toy thanked Councilmember Donovic for his service and he thanked Council for their support during his deployment. As there were no further questions or comments, President McIntyre adjourned the Study Session at 9:16 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2, 2020. For the 1,911t" Regular Meeting of December 14, 2020 DATED: December 8, 2020 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK