Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 17, 2022 - 258th Regular Minutes signedMINUTES OF THE 258th REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA The 258th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia, Michigan, was called to order at 3:05 p.m., Thursday, November 17, 2022, in the 5th floor Gallery of City Hall. Members Present: Maureen Miller Brosnan, Mayor Omar Faris, Chair Dan Laible Patrick Mies Stephanie Roehl Blatt (via phone) John Hiltz Members Absent: Jeremy Curtis, Vice Chair Susan Harvey Others Present: Mark Taormina, Economic Development & Planning Director Mike Slater, Director of Finance Stephanie Reece, Program Supervisor, Planning Jacob Uhazie, Planning & Economic Development Coordinator Doug Moore, City of Livonia DPW, Assistant Director Christopher Ozog, OHM Rhett Gronevelt, OHM Robert Bywalec, D & B Landscaping 1. Roll was called. A quorum was present. 2. Audience Communication. None 3. Adoption of the Minutes. On a motion made by Liable, seconded by Hiltz, and unanimously adopted, it was #2022-04 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve the Minutes of the 257th Regular Meeting held on May 19, 2022. Mr. Fairs, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4. Financial Reports — April 2022 through September 2022. Mr. Slater went through all months of financials. He specifically explained the disbursements for each month. For April 2022 he stated the balance sheet shows total assets of just over $887,000 and liabilities of just under $100,000, for a net November 17, 2022 2 fund balance of $790,000. There were no disbursements in the month of April. He explained it's just the timing of processing payments. There may be more in one month and less in some months, such as this. In May, the balance sheet shows total assets of around $888,000 and liabilities around $50,000 for a fund balance of $838,000. Disbursements for the month of May, with a lot of recurring things such as street lighting costs with DTE. Also included are payments to RAM Construction Services for the streetscape repair program, reimbursement for city services related to the administration of the PRDA, and to Tech Seven which is the irrigation contractor. Mr. Hiltz asked Mr. Slater to explain about the metered expenses. Mr. Slater explained a bit about what is entailed in the metered expenses. Mr. Faris inquired about the Tech Seven bill and why it is as large as it is. Mr. Slater explained that we encounter this nearly every year. Doug Moore explained about how communication companies or DTE will excavate which in turn cost a large amount of money for us to fix. Mr. Faris asked if there was anything that could be done about this. Mr. Moore explained that if it is on a weekend, we wouldn't know about it until the leak happens. Mr. Slater stated that we have had this problem of not being reimbursed for years. He said that it was brought to the Law Department and there really isn't anything that can be done. Mr. Faris wanted to know if the $65,000 is from other people causing the damage and Mr. Slater informed him that probably half of the costs were related to annual start-up of the system. Usually, it is at the beginning of the season when the issues are detected and that is where the fees come from. The Mayor said that she has had this frustration for many years and explained that it is contractors operating in the right-of-way and not respecting it as they should. She inquired as to whether or not there is a way that if we can't do this on a per use basis, is there's just a flat rate service charge that we can put to anybody to do work in the right-of-way. Mr. Slater said that they will not take responsibility for the damage and the fact that the lines are not energized, and Miss Dig comes out, they cannot see the lines and they say it is not their fault because they weren't marked. This has been a frustration for a long time. The Mayor made a suggestion that maybe if someone is doing work in the right-of-way, they should be escorted by someone from the city and there would be a fee for that. Mr. Slater said that because the Engineering Department is responsible for permitting the underground work. The Mayor said it ends up being a taxpayer burden when it really isn't a taxpayer problem. Mr. Hiltz said that the right-of-way is not under the city's jurisdiction, it is the states. He feels the state has said that we can put the water system and streetscaping in but do it at your own risk. He brought up the idea of franchisee permits and if that is something the city has, then something may be addressed. Mr. Slater said that the city does get money from the Metro Act that is based on the number of lines and does not include any reimbursement fees. If there was one item or 100, the fee received would be the same. Mr. Slater went on to explain that some of the damage and fees are from normal wear and tear and if there weren't companies causing the damages, there would still be items to be repaired and in turn fees to be paid. Mr. Slater went on to June and spoke of the assets and expenses for that month. The total assets were $839,000 and November 17, 2022 3 the liabilities were about $50,000. The total fund balance was $789,000. The disbursements for the month of June, again, were typical, including OHM for their assistance on the streetscape project and the irrigation costs were much lower this month. On to July, the total assets jumped up to just under 1.6 million. July is when we receive the property taxes. July 1 it is credited as revenue to the PRDA and that is the two mills that are levied on the properties within the district. The liabilities were $50,000 and the total fund balance was a little over $1,500,000. There were no disbursements for the month of July. In August, total assets $1,467,000 and liabilities were down to $6,500. The total fund balance is $1,460,000 and disbursements made in August totaled $125,000. The biggest one to Ram Construction for the streetscape repair and then the typical street lighting and irrigation costs. The month of September balance sheet shows total assets of $1,438,000. The Liabilities again were $6,500 and the total fund balance was $1,432,000. Disbursements for the month of September totaled around $30,000. It was mentioned that the beginning of the year bills from Tech Seven always seem to be the highest. Mr. Slater agreed because that is when the breaks are found. Mr. Faris said that he is bothered by the extra money that we have to spend due to other companies causing the problems that the city has to get fixed. He said he is going to work on that issue before the next meeting. Mr. Slater said we can bring in Tech Seven to go into more details as to what they are finding and seeing and what is involved. Mr. Faris thought that maybe Tech Seven could determine the one or two contractors causing the issues. Mr. Laible thought that maybe a log of all the damage might help. That way, over time, we could look at it and maybe come up with conclusions. Mr. Moore said that they do have a log. He also said that like from this point in the year, the system is winterized, and any issues will not be noticed until spring. He explained that sometimes the snowplows might veer off a bit and take out a head or people walk and accidentally kick a head and there you have an expense. Mr. Hiltz mentioned that he is concerned about the pricing. Mr. Moore said that the pricing we have is old and doesn't remember the last time a bid for this service was done. He said it has been several years. Mr. Faris agreed with the statement. Mr. Moore said that we have just been extending it and he hasn't really raised it. Mr. Slater said that discussions have been had about doing a full competitive bid, but the board in the past knows that this company is well aware of the ins and outs of this system and to have someone new come in, it would take time to figure it all out. Since the prices have not been raised, the city hasn't seen the need to do that. On a motion made by Laible, seconded by Hiltz, and unanimously adopted, it was #2022-05 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby accept and approve the Financial Statements of the Authority's Special Revenue Fund for the months ending April 2022 through September 2022. November 17, 2022 4 Mr. Faris, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 5. Consideration of an agreement with OHM for an ongoing PRDA Asset Management Program. Mr. Hiltz abstained from the discussion due to conflict of interest. Mr. Taormina reminded the Board that at the last meeting there was discussion regarding future projects and initiatives. It was felt that maintaining the assets and the investment that has been made on Plymouth Road was really the highest priority. Now that funding is available, OHM, who was involved in the initial asset management plan for the Plymouth Road corridor, was contacted to see what could be done in terms of developing an ongoing asset management and repair program. OHM has put together a proposal and Rhett Gronevelt and Chris Ozog from OHM are here to discuss it. It involves three major components. The first is updating the city's GIS datasets to reflect all of the work that was done this past year. Next is work procurement, which would involve identifying future projects as well as the necessary scope of work, including cost estimates and preparing work orders that can be used to then generate contracts. The proposal includes a price for each of the three (3) components. The last part would be to perform an overall assessment every five years. The total cost of all three (3) would be $31,000. Mr. Ozog from OHM then explained the proposal in more detail. He said the first step is to take all the field notes and final repairs that were done and put them into the current system. Second is identifying additional repairs needed and finding contractors that could manage the work and identifying the type of work with a contractor. A fencing contractor to do fencing, a mason to do brick work and a landscaper to do landscaping. The procurement part is selecting contractors through an RFP process. He thought a five-year contract with a contractor with unit pricing. The second part is then taking the GIS data and creating a plan for budgeting. If there's a set number of dollars every year, then the scope of work would need to be determined and then the work order description would need to be identified. He then showed a form from another community that they worked with that was basically one page of where the where the work was done, the type of work when it was assessed and the recommended repairs. He said it could be customized. There could be a packet of 10 or 15 work orders that is all masonry, and you work with the contractor that you have to fulfill those. This could have an annual plan of work that can have a set budget, have set areas of scope, and then be documented back into the GIS system once completed. The last piece is the overall assessment, recognizing that knowing the original assessment was done three years ago, and in the construction, they did find some other issues. Every five years a complete walkthrough of the whole project site could be done to take a look at it and identify new deficiencies that weren't known to figure what the current state is. Mr. Taormina stated that he feels it is the third part that really serves the main purpose of preventing deterioration of the streetscape assets. He feels it will go a long way to save on resources by keeping on top of it. Mr. Slater asked who would identify, on an annual basis, what the work orders would be put through or would it be as it comes up. Mr. Ozog thought that if there was an agreed upon November 17, 2022 5 budget, they would work on the critical pieces or maybe pieces and parts. He said there will need to be some decisions made by the Authority as to where to focus. Mr. Laible wanted to know what sort of process should be put in place. He wanted to know if there are certain things needing to be done, that as long as it's within a budget, it's just automatic approval or is there another piece that would require a vote. He said if it's more of an option, and you can do the A or B, what's more of a priority? He felt it probably needed a little bit more discussion. He did feel that OHM is the perfect firm to work with due to their vested interest in Livonia and their local ties, along with a good reputation. He saw no reason why the Board wouldn't want to go with this proposal. He thought the next step would be the process and to figure out the point where it may require some sort of Board approval and what that would look like. Mr. Faris agreed that OHM is a great fit. Mr. Taormina said the first phase could commence immediately. He said that the Board may want to wait for a couple of years to do another full assessment of the corridor which could then transition into the work procurement phase. Mr. Gronevelt from OHM stated that he hopes that their program would be something easy and efficient to answer any questions that may come from the Board regarding specific items, such as bricks, or fences and their status. He said documents would be able to be generated and if there was a budget established, the project could commence. He did mention the fact that it was difficult to find contractors in the previous project, so with this system in place, the work could be given straight to contractors that the PRDA has working relationships with or contractors that the PRDA trusts. Mr. Faris wanted to know if everyone was happy with RAM Construction and noted that he felt they were safe with their practices. Mr. Slater said that RAM did subcontract a lot of the work, such as the fences, and if the work wasn't as extensive, a relationship could be made directly with the contractors and cut out the middleman, which would save money. He went on to say that the hardest part of this is to identify the work that actually needs to be done. It is a very time-consuming process involving approximately 12 miles of right -of way, six miles each way. Mr. Laible believes that the first phase could be approved, but the next two wouldn't need to necessarily be on a timeline, per se. Also, because OHM is so knowledgeable on this project, he wondered if they could come up with a bullet point proposal and what the board might look at for a pre -approved budget so those repairs would be able to commence immediately. He asked OHM if they would feel comfortable putting a proposal together for the last two pieces. Mr. Gronevelt said it is in the proposal and it would be a matter of when the Board would like to commence the proposal. He mentioned that if it is two years from now, the cost might change slightly, but does it need to be done in two years or five years? Mr. Laible asked about how the prioritizing would happen. Mr. Gronevelt said that it could be added. Mr. Ozog understands that everyone is trying to understand how this program is giving the Board a better understanding of how to stay on top of the repairs. He said it would be customized and at the next meeting they would be able to see what a plan, out five years, might look like after the GIS is updated and then maybe the third part is identifying the contractors to see if there is interest. That way, the Board would know the overall status of the entire November 17, 2022 6 corridor. Mr. Taormina said that shortly after items with defects are identified, there will be more right behind those and asked whether it was better to wait five years to catalog the defects and then correct them using the same process that was used for the initial program, or are there steps we can do in the interim to identify and correct the defects as they arise? He believes that is the intent of step two to address just that. Mr. Faris indicated that he is fine going with OHM for the Asset Management Program, but he believes if you go through a large section, and don't take care of the critical things, the small things become critical things and the small things never, never get any attention. He believes in taking a section and doing it completely. and then moving on to the next section. Mr. Laible stated that he felt it can't be such a bureaucratic process that nothing gets done and what level of discretion does the Authority want to keep, relative to the allocation of the money for specific projects at certain decision points, and what does that process look like? Mr. Faris believes that the Board should keep all of the decision making. Mr. Slater said that the Board would approve the unit pricing for future work. He doesn't want the Board having to wait until the next meeting to approve the contract. He also restated how difficult it was to find a contractor for the streetscape project. The Mayor inquired as to whether there would be levels of criticality. Mr. Ozog stated there are three. Mr. Slater explained that there was a matrix with three levels of criticality on the original project. Mr. Hiltz said that the Board knew what the plan was on the last project and how things change when you actually engage the project. He said with this proposal, at the end of the first step, OHM could come back to the Board and report on what the investment completed and then look at the original assessment to see what might be remaining. At that point, the Board could look at the data provided to determine what the next phase of investment would be targeted at. He said with the initial assessment, they could see where the biggest concerns were. He believes they can make recommendations on the next steps and when the next assessment might be needed. Mr. Taormina agreed with Mr. Hiltz. Using the GIS, he showed the Board an area along Plymouth Road and explained how the various assets are identified, displayed and catalogued as well as the condition and criticality ranking. He also explained that there would be photographs of all of the streetscape assets, before and after the repairs. He said what Mr. Hiltz was referring to was giving the PRDA a sense of how much work might be involved in step number two. He said he felt it was important to keep RAM active. He doesn't want to sit idle for very long and lose momentum working with them. Mr. Faris asked if there were any more questions about entering into an agreement with OHM. Mr. Laible suggested that only the first part of the contract be on the table for approval and before the second part is approved, a process should be put into place relative to decision of allocation dollars. Mr. Slater said that the agreement could be approved and steps two and three would not go forth without reconvening with the Board and getting direction. On a motion by Laible, seconded by Mies, and adopted, it was November 17, 2022 7 #2022-06 RESOLVED, That the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve the proposed agreement with OHM regarding an ongoing Asset Management Program with the understanding that the Authority will reconvene to approve the funds and process regarding the allocation for the second and third phase of the agreement. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Laible, Mies, Brosnan, Faris NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Hiltz 6. Consideration of a proposal by D & B Landscaping, Inc. for landscape services to include fertilization and weed control along Plymouth Road and for maintenance of Plymouth/Middlebelt corner plazas. Mr. Taormina briefly explained what the proposed contract with D&B Landscaping would entail. It includes fertilizing and herbicide treatments of the right-of-way areas between Inkster and Newburgh Roads comprising of approximately 16 acres of grass, as well as clean-up work to the plazas at the intersection of Middle Belt and Plymouth Roads. Mr. Moore indicated that at the last meeting, the Board brought up the condition of the plazas at Middle Belt and Plymouth Roads. As a result of that discussion, he met with Robert Bywalec of D&B. The southeast corner is particularly bad. It is mostly poison ivy. He said that fertilizing and weed spraying in the corridor hasn't been done in the 10 or 15 years. In the past, the Probation Department would go there about three times a year to weed the beds, clean it up, and add mulch. However, when COVID hit, they became very limited in what they could do and that option hasn't been happening much anymore. Mr. Moore introduced Robert Bywalec of D&B Landscaping. Mr. Bywalec emphasized how much poison ivy and other weeds are growing in the PRDA landscape beds. He described what D&B would do to improve it beginning with removing all the bad plant material and then getting the areas prepped and ready with soil for future planting. Then they would apply mulch on top to have a clean look. They would also apply an herbicide to keep the weeds from coming back including the brick paver areas which have weed growth. Mr. Moore told how D&B has been a great partner with the City and went on to tell the Authority some of the work they have done. Mr. Bywalec explained that his business does a lot for the Livonia Police Department and especially Nehasil Park out of their own pocket. He explained that it has nothing to do with trying to get more work from the City. They only do it because they want to out of respect for the police. Regarding the corner, he said the PRDA should .think. about plants and trees that are more salt tolerant and require less maintenance. He spoke a bit about lawn fertilization and spraying and the process they would take. He mentioned that some business owners already spray and take care of their part of the right-of-way which is noticeable. He thought that if they could apply the first application, they could then determine how many acres are actually being November 17, 2022 8 maintained by owners and then the number of acres could be reduced. He explained that the cost would be about $2,300 per application. Mr. Hiltz thought the poison ivy needs to be addressed because it is a liability for public space. Next, he mentioned the inconsistencies between the properties that it should be consistent throughout. For the businesses that have been doing it already, it could be a gift back to them for maintaining it in the past. Mr. Laible asked if the proposal was for only the corners and Mr. Hiltz explained it would be for three of four corners and there is another figure for the weed control and fertilizing. Mr. Bywalec said that when they take on a project, they are responsible for the irrigation. He knows if they pull out the shrubs there is a great chance of some irrigation line damage. He said that the proposal includes repairing any damage to the irrigation system that is caused by D&B. Mr. Laible feels that the plazas at Middle Belt and Plymouth are critical with a lot of traffic and being an entrance point to the City. Mr. Bywalec went on to explain a bit more as to what they would be removing and spoke of the conditions at each of the corners. Mr. Laible explained that there has been a significant investment in that area and to keep it spruced up, he would be supportive of that. He also liked the idea of fertilizing the whole thing and making it look uniform. He feels it is an easy optic thing to do given the price tag. He inquired as to the budget for PRDA and asked if it fits within it. Mr. Slater said it is very manageable for easy curb appeal. The Mayor thanked Mr. Bywalec and also said that it is manageable financially. She appreciates him working with us and the work he does for the police department and Nehasil Park. She also mentioned Livonia Vision 21 and how part of that is the focus on the Plymouth and Inkster Road area. She feels it is an important piece of cosmetics to get it back in focus. She said this is exciting for the business owners along the corridor and hopes that the Authority can get back to the point where the City is putting the annuals back in and advance the look of the corridor. Mr. Hiltz inquired about the time frame of the proposal. He wanted to know if this is a one-year or five-year proposal. Mr. Bywalec said that it is for one season. He said that fertilizing is increasing in price, so he wouldn't be able to tell us about the pricing for the next year. Mr. Faris asked Mr. Bywalec if he was looking for us to adopt a one-year proposal. Mr. Bywalec said he would be comfortable with one year. He didn't feel comfortable committing to more than that. Mr. Hiltz wondered how we would communicate with the business owners to let them know to take this part out of their contracts, for the businesses that already do this to their properties. Mr. Slater did ask the Mayor if the Communications department could be utilized for this task. She agreed and thought this would be good news for the business owners. Mr. Bywalec said the program would probably start in March or April of next year, weather depending. On a motion made by Hiltz, seconded by Mies, and unanimously adopted, it was #2022-07 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve a one-year contract with D&B Landscaping, Inc. for landscape services involving fertilization and weed control along the November 17, 2022 9 Plymouth Road corridor right-of-way areas and maintenance of the three (3) corner plazas at the intersection of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads, as specified in the proposal/contract submitted by Robert Bywalec, Vice President Sales, dated August 30, 2022. Mr. Faris, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7. Request for PRDA funding towards the demolition of the Alfred Noble Library at 32901 Plymouth Road. Mr. Taormina started by mentioning that at the last meeting there was a discussion about the Alfred Noble Library and Shelden Park. He said that the City is getting closer to a decision to demolish the building and explained that what is being requested of the PRDA is essentially a buffer in the costs of demolishing the structure. He explained that the Livonia Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (LBRA) has already approved a majority, and possibly all, of the demolition costs. The LBRA is in a unique position to do so with the monies available in its Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund (LSRRF). He explained how the funds are collected via tax increment financing and that because the building has been deemed functionally obsolete by the City Assessor, the LSRRF can be used to pay the costs of demolition since it is a brownfield related project. He said the LBRA has authorized up to $350,000.00 toward the costs of demolishing the building and that the Administration is requesting that the PRDA allocate an additional 10%, or $35,000, in case additional dollars are needed to cover the project costs. He explained that the building has been closed since October of 2019 and that the Library Commission is in support of the demolition. At the request of the City, OHM prepared an Opinion of Costs. Additionally, Plante Moran Cresa provided a cost estimate as part of a Facility Assessment and Space Needs study. He explained that there have been other studies done regarding the extensive mold in the building and the problems that it has created. The City is looking to have the building demolished in the first quarter of next year. Mr. Faris inquired whether $350,000.00 would be enough for the demolition and removal. Mr. Slater said yes based on the estimates, but with the caveat that since it involves construction -related work, the costs could vary. Mr. Faris does not believe that it will cover the costs. Mr. Mies said he feels the same way, that it wouldn't cover the costs. Mr. Faris mentioned that there was a resident at the last City Council meeting that said a somewhat famous architect designed the building. Mr. Faris said that if that is the case, then there is a possibility that because some architects liked to use the same brick, there may be some money in reclaiming the brick, especially if the architect designed another building with that same brick. The brick is usually not made any longer and it then becomes worth some money. Mr. Hiltz thought that perhaps in the demolition contract there should be something regarding the reclaiming of the brick. Mr. Faris explained that reclaimed brick is extremely expensive, especially when you get into historical societies such as Northville, Detroit, and Birmingham where they require the same brick. When the brick plant has to fire up their old tooling to make the required brick, it can get very expense. Ms. Roehl-Blatt was on the phone and asked November 17, 2022 10 if this is a normal expense for the PRDA to approve or if it is out of the Authority's scope. Mr. Hiltz explained a bit about the history of the PRDA and improvements and plans it has approved. He said that their role is to try to establish improvements that enhance the value of the corridor. He feels that because this is a City property that is deteriorating, it doesn't bode well for the corridor. He feels it is in the interest of the PRDA to help the corridor move forward. Mr. Slater explained that it is an allowable expense because the Library is located within the PRDA District. The Mayor said that the demolition was one of the first things the Authority wanted to do with some of its money. The Mayor explained the PRDA originally wanted to assist private businesses with enticement to help demolish some the buildings on Plymouth Road that were not going to survive. She mentioned the carpet sale store that transitioned into other businesses and is now boarded up. She said it was ripe for redevelopment, but the cost of demolition was high, and the Authority could then incentivize it. Mr. Hiltz stated that he was late for another meeting but if the city had determined that this building would be demolished, he would be in favor of the $35,000.00 and would support it. Mr. Laible said he would like to add that if it is possible for the contractor to look and see if there is anything of salvage value or of historical value, put the prospect forward to see if there is anything we could do without increasing the cost of the bid. Mr. Hiltz asked Mr. Faris if he could see two contract options: one that would include salvaging the brick and the other that would not. Mr. Faris said yes and there has to be a way. He said to remove the brick carefully would be a greater cost versus taking a wrecking ball to it. Mr. Laible said he is in agreement with Mr. Hiltz's motion, but he would like to see the brick issue explored. He said his second was not contingent on that. The Mayor said that her office has met with City Council members to explain the process and where it is all headed in terms of demolition and putting a plan together. As part of the long-range future of the library system, she is looking to do a micro -Livonia Vision 21 public engagement effort focused on that property. This would be the next step taken after the demolition. She said that the Councilmembers didn't indicate any opposition and that the timeline being considered is the first quarter of next year. Again, she stated there is no verbalized opposition. She has also met with the Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowner's Association and explained to them where it is headed with the future of library services and City services in their area. She explained they are concerned about this and is aware that there is a small group of people who are trying to put forward an effort to save the building because they believe it has some historic significance. She said the city does not believe that there is historic significance that would override the mold issue and the health hazard it causes. She mentioned that the Historic Preservation Commission has brought up the historic concern also and that ultimately, City Council will determine whether the Library should come down once the contract for the demolition is in front of them. She said it is important for Council to support this action and to know that the funding is there and would not have to come from the general fund. Mr. Laible wanted to clarify that ultimately, the approval of this motion is contingent upon City Council approving the demolition, which they will do only after consulting with and having November 17, 2022 11 conversations with the historical preservation? The Mayor said yes and that they will be able to take everything into account. On a motion made by Hiltz, seconded by Laible, and unanimously adopted, it was #2022-08 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve an amount equal to 10% of the estimated cost, or $35,000, on a contingency basis should the total cost of demolishing the Alfred Noble Library exceed $350,000. Mr. Fairs, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 8. Update on Plymouth Road Development Projects. Mr. Taormina mentioned the old AT&T building just east of Merriman Road is now a charter school and that a large portion of the parking lot has been removed and fenced -in as a playground area. He also said that a new signal will be installed on Middle Belt Road adjacent to the Chick-Fil-A and that Amazon Fresh will be occupying the main building as well as another large tenant. Mr. Faris asked about the buildings next to Jimmy Johns and it was noted that it will be a Dairy Queen and Lee's Chicken. Mr. Taormina said too that the Wonderland Flats apartment project was denied and that a lawsuit has been filed against the City. 9. Comments from Board Members. Regarding elections, the Mayor asked that they be pushed off. She will be appointing someone and that will give one more person to possibly fill the positions. The Mayor mentioned how Betsy McCue was a long-time member of the Authority but has moved out of state and is no longer on the Board. Mr. Taormina said that he will check the bylaws and statute but thinks that the next member must be a business representative in the District. An employee of RAM Construction was brought up as a possible Board member but is was uncertain if this would meet the requirements. 10. Adjournment: On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 258th Regular Meeting held by the Plymouth Road Development Authority on November 17, 2022, was adjourned at 4:41 p.m. 6L _71, IGG�G Patrick Mies, Secretary fj��/a�