Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 11, 2025 - 262nd Regular Minutes signedMINUTES OF THE 262nd REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA The 262nd Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia, Michigan, was called to order at 3:05 p.m., Thursday, February 11, 2025, in the 5th-floor Gallery of City Hall. Members Present: Dan Laible, Chair Susan Harvey, Vice Chair Stephanie Blatt Omar Faris David Veselenak Members Absent: Maureen Miller Brosnan, Mayor Patrick Mies Jeremy Curtis Rhett Gronevelt Others Present: Mark Taormina, Economic Development & Planning Director Debbie Lichtenberg, Director of Finance Jacob Uhazie, Assistant Planning Director Stephanie Reece, Planning Program Supervisor Doug Moore, City of Livonia DPW, Assistant Director Robert Bywalec, D & B Landscaping Tom Colis, Miller Canfield Mike McGee, Miller Canfield 1. ROLL CALL: A quorum was present. 2. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION: Mr. Taormina introduced Kris Canty, Planner IV, who started this week. He also introduced Zac Nerritz from the Clerk's Office, who is interested in urban planning. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES On a motion made by Blatt, seconded by Harvey, and unanimously adopted, it was: #2025-01 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve the Minutes of the 261st Regular Meeting held on December 11, 2024. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 4. FINANCIAL REPORTS — DECEMBER 2024 AND JANUARY 2025 Ms. Lichtenberg stated that the board should be looking at the unaudited total fund balance of $1,757,932. She said she used the same format as last time. The revenue and expenditures had explanations. She stated that we February 11, 2025 2 do not have any maintenance and irrigation costs at this time of year. The allocation costs for inter -departmental fees were determined. She also showed the Board the checks that had been written and passed out a summary of the costs for the projects that were on the agenda for discussion. Mr. Veselenak wanted to clarify that the water bill was annual instead of quarterly, like the residents. Mr. Taormina stated that the yearly revenue of the Authority is based on property taxes and that the 2-mill levy generates roughly $890,000. He said they were looking at the usual expenses seen throughout the year, except the D&B Landscaping project at Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads. He wanted the Board to keep these recurring expenses in mind when discussing the items on the agenda. Mr. Laible summarized that the balance is about $1.75 million, and the expected revenue is almost $900,000. The expected expenses were $800,000 including the extra projects. He said that if the Board did not want to dip into the balance, there would be approximately $500,000 for potential new projects. He inquired about the debt associated with the park project and what the bonds would look like with the debt service obligations. Ms. Lichtenberg did not have that information with her but would get it. Mr. Laible wanted to know the timing for starting to service the debt. Ms. Lichtenberg said it would begin within six (6) months after the bonds are sold. She asked Mr. Colis, and he said it could be up to a year and that typically, you are paying interest at least once within that first year period, and that principal would start shortly thereafter. Mr. Laible wanted to understand what other expenditures could potentially impact the outline of what the board is considering. He clarified that this fiscal year, without principal payments due and only an interest payment due, it could be taken care of depending on the conversations for the rest of the meeting. On a motion made by Veselenak, seconded by Faris, and unanimously adopted, it was #2025-02 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 December 2024 and January 2025. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared that the motion was carried and that the foregoing resolution was adopted. 5. CONSIDERATION OF ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH MILLER CANFIELD FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLYMOUTH ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCE PLAN Mr. Taormina stated that he feels this is the priority item. It addresses what needs to be done to move forward with any other future capital projects the Board wants to consider. It addresses the Development Plan and Tax Increment Finance Plan that was approved in the late 1990s and is due to expire at the end of 2027. He feels it would be prudent to consider February 11, 2025 3 amending the plan and include projects the Board determines it would like to engage in over the next several years. He explained that Miller Canfield is experienced in working with DDAs and that they serve as the city's bond counsel. Miller Canfield provided a letter of engagement and a scope of services. Mr. Taormina said that the Board would have to identify the projects it wants included in the plan. Mr. Colis stated that their goal at Miller Canfield is to make the process seamless. He said that they would help put together the actual plan amendments. Mr. Colis said that the Board should develop a wish list that they would like to include in the plan. He said they don't have to accomplish them all. They would update the statutory requirements under the required plan. Once the plan is put together, the Board would have to approve it, and then it would be submitted to the City Council for their review and approval, along with the ordinance approving the amendments to the plan. He said that notices would be sent out to tax jurisdictions, and a public hearing would be held concerning the amendment. Miller Canfield helps with all these items. He said that from a bonding perspective, a separate engagement would be undertaken with the city or the PRDA, depending on who issues the bonds. He said that, most likely, it would be the city in those circumstances, even though some revenues of the PRDA are pledged in support of the potential project going forward. Ms. Harvey asked Mr. Taormina if he foresees any pushback or resistance to amending the plan. Mr. Taormina said no, not at this point. Ms. Harvey also asked if this plan is intended to continue the PRDA. Mr. Taormina said yes, it is. Mr. Taormina said the Board could still operate if the plan were to expire. He believes the millage could continue to be levied. There could still be a revenue stream and a board, but it would lack a plan to direct its activities. He feels it is vitally important. Ms. Harvey understands the plan should be what the board wants to accomplish with the funds. Mr. Laible asked if the amendment would supersede the current plan if approved before 2027. Mr. Taormina stated that it would. Mr. Laible asked if it would last for the duration of the bond instruments, and Mr. Taormina said it would. Mr. Taormina said that tax increment financing could be a mechanism for financing at some point. Mr. Veselenak wanted to know if there was a benefit in amending the plan now instead of waiting. He asked if this is a normal timeline for wanting to re-examine it two years ahead of the expiration date. Mr. Taormina said that the plan, as of now, is somewhat stale and needs to be updated. Much of the information in the plan is no longer valid, plus it does not identify the new projects the Board may want to undertake. He feels it is important that Shelden Park be included in the capital planning part of the plan. Mr. Veselenak wanted to ensure that the new plan would take effect immediately and would not have to wait for the expiration of the current one. Mr. Laible agrees with Mr. Taormina that it is very important to have the plan amended and extended for a duration that is congruent or exceeds the discussed activities, especially the park and the financing activities. On a motion made by Blatt, seconded by Faris, and unanimously adopted, it was February 11, 2025 4 #2025-03 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority approves Miller Canfield for professional services regarding the Plymouth Road Development Authority Plan Amendment as outlined in the Engagement Letter dated February 3, 2025, and signed by Thomas D. Colis. Mr. Laible, Chairman, declared the motion was carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6. CONSIDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SHELDEN PARK REDESIGN Mr. Taormina stated that this item is a continuation of the discussion at the last meeting regarding improvements to Shelden Park. He explained that the pool had been shut down and needed much repair and that the park was not living up to its potential. He said the city would like to move forward with a plan to improve the park. Mr. Davis, Superintendent of Parks, has been working with DLZ, a firm the city uses regularly for projects like this. He said that they have provided a quote for the design services. The scope and cost estimate was provided to the Board should it wish to fund all or part of the request from the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Taormina asked the Board to look at this item in context with the next three items on the agenda from a funding perspective. Ted Davis stated that the Shelden Park improvement plan is based on community feedback, survey responses, and the Parks Master Plan. He said DLZ's proposal to prepare specific design documents for $350,000 is in the packet. That figure is based on a total project cost of $5 million with 7% fees. He said that they are open to doing this in a phased approach. He said Phase 1 would be about $2.5 million, including the splash pad, pavilion, center gathering space, and accessible playground. The splash pad would be comparable to the one at the Rec Center, and the playground would be comparable to the one at Rotary Park. The pavilion would be comparable to the new one coming to Rotary. The design fees for Phase 1 would be approximately $175,000. He said there could be up to three additional phases. He said Phase 2 would include the tennis and pickleball courts. Phase 3 would be the event space and pathways with additional pavilions. Phase 4 would be the reconstruction of the ball fields. Ms. Harvey asked whether there were multiple bids. Mr. Davis said no. He said they went with DLZ based on the city's list of pre -qualified architectural firms, and they were the lowest. He felt they were good to work with and didn't see any benefit from multiple bids. Ms. Lichtenberg clarified that the project will only be subject to a bidding process and that this is only for the design work. Ms. Harvey inquired as to what the Board could afford. Ms. Lichtenberg explained that when we start with the design work, they give us preliminary data on what they expect the construction cost to be, and then we will go to our financial advisors and ask them to run bond scenarios based on those estimates. When it goes out to bid, the true costs are determined. Ms. Lichtenberg said she had gotten some information on a $8 million bond. Mr. Colis explained that if the $5 million bond were issued at 5%, it would be about $400,000 February 11, 2025 5 annually in debt service for 20 years. Ms. Lichtenberg asked about 25 years, and Mr. Colis said it would be about $350,000 annually. Ms. Harvey said it makes more sense to know what the Board can afford and then design to that number instead of shooting in the dark. She asked Ms. Lichtenberg if that was something that could be done. Ms. Lichtenberg said that if the PRDA wants to establish a certain amount that it can afford, then Mr. Davis would have to cover anything over that, and that is a possibility. She said if the PRDA feels comfortable committing to $300,000 a year towards debt service, she will have projections run to see what the borrowing power looks like. She said that the design phase needs to be nailed down to figure out what the costs are going to be. Mr. Faris wanted to know if only design money is being asked for. Ms. Lichtenberg said, yes, right now. He then asked if the future cost of the park was on the PRDA. Mr. Davis said, no, not entirely. Ms. Lichtenberg wanted the Board to know that the survey work, geo-tech, data collection, design documents, and construction administration would be reimbursable under a bond issue. She said that the PRDA would potentially be fronting that money and then be reimbursed for it out of the proceeds of the bond. Mr. Laible said that if after the PRDA paid for the design fees of $350,000 and there wasn't a viable financing option, the Board would lose that money. Mr. Taormina said that approximately $100,000 is allocated for construction management and would not be spent unless the project moves beyond the design phase. Mr. Laible asked if it makes sense to plan and kick off the designs for the entire project without knowing whether there is financing that is suitable. Mr. Davis said it would be entirely appropriate to break up the design into multiple phases, reducing the dollar amount, and said that it would cut the price to $175,000 to get Phase 1 in the first year. He said depending on what PRDA can afford, it could assist in funding Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4, or maybe Parks and Rec looks for other partners or the millage funds to continue the project. Mr. Davis said that Phase 1 would be this fiscal year. He said that the Board would potentially be looking at $150,000 for the design documents for Phase 1 based on the numbers that DLZ has presented. Mr. Taormina showed renderings of what the park may look like. Ms. Harvey inquired about what the rest of the park would look like during Phase 1. Mr. Davis said it would be grass. The existing ball fields would still be there. He said they would probably move the tennis courts because of their condition and make sure that the tennis courts and pickleball courts would be at the top of the list for phase two. Mr. Faris said that, in his opinion, it is okay to phase the project, but he does not feel it is okay to phase the design process because there is no consideration for the next phase. He sees it in construction. He feels designing something as a whole is preferred, and building in phases is okay. Mr. Laible understands Mr. Faris' comments. He said regarding Ms. Harvey's reservation about funding a pretty sizable appropriation for something that we don't quite know the details of and whether it can come to fruition is the only concern to get past. Mr. Faris asked if they were only being asked for the design money at this point of $250,000. Mr. Faris and Ms. Blatt both want to know the probability of the project going through. Mr. Laible spoke to some thoughts of other members who weren't present and mentioned the same thing. He February 11, 2025 6 understands this is early in the process, and everyone is trying to put it together. He asked if the Board is being asked to fund it in its entirety, and if not, what? He wants to know if there is a hard number you're looking for the Board to fund. He feels that if the Board had a little bit more clarity on the likely bandwidth of the debt obligation, it would certainly help start the decision -making process, but he also feels there is still some uncertainty. He does not feel comfortable kicking off a $250,000 project, which is a pretty material expenditure for the board, without at least a high degree of confidence from everybody around here that the financing discussed so far will likely come through. He also wants to know if there are other sources of revenue that people have. He wants to know if that is in place so that we're not left with a $250,000 expenditure that could have gone to other projects for the citizens and the businesses, but the Board approved it early before the rest of the project details are taken care of. Ms. Lichtenberg said she feels great support for this project to move forward. She said that was the first hurdle. From the financing standpoint, a partnership is being sought after. She said the city and Parks do not have the ability to fund the debt service. She said that the city is looking to the PRDA to fund it in part or in full based on the construction cost. She said that the PRDA could commit to the annual debt service and that Ted would need to find the rest. She felt PRDA was a good partner. Ms. Harvey said she would feel more comfortable starting with the budget and cash flow and existing obligations. She wants to know what other projects would be competing with this and then she would feel comfortable with an annual commitment of a certain amount. She said that would inform the design people what they should be designing to. She wants to tell the design people how much money is available and have them design according to that. Ms. Lichtenberg does understand there are other items on the agenda and that there will need to be some prioritizing. She said that after discussing the other items, she would better understand the landscape for budgeting. Ms. Blatt voiced concern regarding the change in the city landscape, what it will look like, and the priorities there. She wanted to know if there was a slowdown in the economy and where the Shelden Park project would fall. She asked if it was a top priority or would it be one of the first ones to go. Mr. Davis said from a Parks and Rec position that this project is a top priority after the Senior Center. Ms. Blatt wondered what would happen if Parks' budget got cut. Mr. Davis said they are not that reliant on the general fund. He said they are tied to property taxes. He said, except for this last recession, they are pretty recession -proof. He said there are federal funds to be had, and Wayne County is continually looking for projects with their funds. He said that he feels confident that if he received $2.5 million to do Phase 1 from the PRDA, he believes that they would phase in with their existing budget over the next three years and complete the project. Mr. Faris inquired about what was going to happen to the library. Mr. Davis said the plan ends at the park proper and does not include the library. Mr. Faris was concerned that the Board has only recently been able to get some funds. He feels the corridor could use a few improvements before taking on a big project. He loves the project and feels it is great for the city, but maybe not to the degree that is being asked. Ms. Harvey said that maybe PRDA's commitment is smaller February 11, 2025 7 than the city's, not that it would not be supported by the PRDA. Mr. Laible asked if the $1.75 million fund balance has any restrictions. Ms. Lichtenberg says it does not, other than the current liability obligations. Mr. Laible said he doesn't want to use up all the discretionary funds and not be able to work on any other projects. He believes the other Board members would have an issue with that. He also feels there is a lot of positive momentum for this park, and the Board helping to facilitate the construction of it. He feels it would be good for the neighboring businesses to have a vibrant spot like this and that it is good for citizens and businesses along the corridor. He feels like the Board is not comfortable authorizing the requested design services yet and asked the members to speak about that. Ms. Harvey says she doesn't feel the Board is comfortable and that they need more information. Mr. Laible said they need more certainty about the proposal. Before the Board entertains the funding of the design services, they need more clarity on the split of the project and details relating to the finances of the project, including the term and the anticipated debt service obligation. Ms. Harvey asked who goes after funding from Wayne County or state grants. Mr. Davis said it was him. Mr. Faris mentioned a sponsor wall, and Ms. Blatt mentioned earmarks. Regarding the earmarks, Mr. Davis said there has to be some level of dedicated funding already for those. Ms. Blatt suggested going to the senators and representatives for the earmarks. Mr. Laible said the Board remains excited about the potential for partnering to develop this park. They are open to its funding through debt instruments and for kicking off and approving expenses for design after receiving clarity as requested. 7. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT PROPOSAL BY D&B LANDSCAPING, INC. FOR STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO SESQUICENTENNIAL PARK Mr. Taormina reminded the Board of the landscape improvements at Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads. The Board asked D&B to come back with design and cost proposals for the Merriman and Farmington Road plazas as well as Sesquicentennial Park. Mr. Bywalec introduced the plan for the park at Inkster and Plymouth Roads. He said there is going to be a bit of concrete work to make it bit more inviting. He said the brick patio is in disrepair. He said instead of redoing it with brick pavers, he is suggesting landscaping. He said the wall that is there needs to be fixed. The landscaping is going to be consistent with the Middle Belt and Plymouth Road plaza. He wants to put in color with crab apples and some large maples. He suggested putting in some screening for the homes to the south and a couple of benches throughout the park. The benches would be the same as the ones at the bus stops. The plan includes some lighting also. Mr. Bywalec explained that the irrigation, even though being done by TechSeven, is part of the quote. Ms. Harvey was questioning the setting it up for pedestrians. She said it seems unlikely that there's going to be people. He said that it was discussed to design it from top to bottom and then the board could decide if they want to proceed or not and what changes they may want to make. Ms. Harvey inquired about native February 11, 2025 8 plantings that don't need as much irrigation and mowing. She feels the annual expense is a lot for a park that people only drive by. Mr. Bywalec understands her point and stated that once the trees are established Mother Nature would take care of them. He also said the planting just need to get established and that they will flourish later. He mentioned the consistency aspect of this too. It will then match the Middle Belt and Plymouth plaza. Mr. Bywalec asked Ms. Harvey what she was thinking of and she said the wispy grass that just survive without any effort. Mr. Laible asked Mr. Bywalec to remind everyone of the cost of the project and the maintenance of it. Mr. Bywalec said it is $256,214 which includes main and mowing for 2025. He proceeded to say that they will install the hydroseed and sod and will mow it to make sure there is no damage. Mr. Laible asked what the maintenance would be after the initial year. Mr. Bywalec said the maintenance in 2026 would be $37,790 and they project 2027 to be $47,430. Mr. Faris asked about the benches and thought that maybe stone benches may be better with no maintenance and are relatively inexpensive. 8. CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT PROPOSAL BY D&B LANDSCAPING, INC. FOR STREETSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF FARMINGTON AND PLYMOUTH ROADS AND MERRIMAN AND PLYMOUTH ROADS Mr. Bywalec started by saying that the plantings at both of the plazas will be the same and consistent with the Middlebelt plaza. He said the areas are much smaller than the Middle Belt one. Mr. Taormina said that the existing walls, brick piers, and fencing really define these areas. There were easements secured for the purpose of installing the walls and the landscaping, with the obligation that the PRDA would maintain the areas. He said these plans are really what the PRDA was obligated to do. He also said that not every property has the walls and fences. Mr. Bywalec stated that the Farmington plaza project cost is $138,639. Ms. Blatt asked who's responsible for the curbs. Mr. Taormina said it is the city's responsibility. He said that the plazas were damaged during the installation of the Consumers line. Ms. Blatt stated that the curbs are destroyed due to trucks and wanted to know if there is a way to help that not happen, especially if the board is putting so much money into it. Mr. Taormina explained that the plazas were originally brick pavers and after a couple of the plazas at Merriman Road was torn up, it was decided to go with stamped concrete. The pavers that are still there are still being maintained. He said the plaza at Farmington Road is a constant maintenance issue. Ms. Blatt brought up the fact that the pavers are also a safety issue due to tripping. She wants to know if it can be replaced with stamped concrete. Mr. Taormina asked if the board should be considering replacing the plazas ahead of the landscaping or do the landscaping now and then a year or two from now replace the plaza. Mr. Bywalec said the beds are mostly raised and Mr. Taormina said then the plazas could be replaced. Ms. Harvey wanted to know why there is a 30% increase in maintenance in 2027. Mr. Bywalec said mulch. He said there is no mulch in 2026 but there is in 2027. He said it is probably some price February 11, 2025 9 increase as well. He said he would get back with Mark about the increase. Mr. Laible asked if Mr. Bywaled could share the cost of the Merriman intersection. Mr. Bywalec said $119,238. Mr. Laible stated that the two intersections discussed are both critical and high optics. He said they have been on the to do list for a while and leans toward approving both of them. He also said that he agrees with Ms. Harvey that the nearly $260,000 one time fee and a $47,000 annual fee on Sesquincentennial is a big number for the board, especially when the board is kind of trying to understand what the long term debt obligations are if they were to fund or enter into a partnership with Sheldon Park. He feels all three projects is prohibitive. He said if he were to pick two this year, it would be the intersections, which are more palatable and aligned with the budget. Ms. Harvey agreed with him. Mr. Veselenak said it just makes sense to continue doing Middle Belt and then moving on to the next two intersections, so the impact is seen. He said you will then have a stretch where it is all uniform and is probably the busiest part of the corridor. He feels the intersections should be the priorities. Mr. Laible does think that there needs to be a solution for the Sesquincentennial Park. Ms. Harvey asked if the board is agreeing to just the initial project cost or the three-year maintenance. Mr. Bywalec said it is only the initial cost, and the maintenance fees were for budgeting purposes. On a motion made by Harvey, seconded by Veselenak, and unanimously adopted, it was #2025-04 RESOLVED that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby authorize an expenditure not to exceed $138,639 for landscaping at the intersection of Plymouth and Merriman Roads and $119,238 for landscaping at the intersection of Plymouth and Farmington Roads, to D&B Landscaping, Inc., per the submitted plans, The maintenance for 2026 and 2027 for both intersections shall be approved at a later time. 9. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS Mr. Laible said he thinks if the Sheldon Park project was pitched to them as more of a firm proposal with a dollar expectation and the expected cost on the debt service, it would be a lot easier to get to a yes. 10. ADJOURNMENT On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 262nd Regular Meeting held by the Plymouth Road Development Authority on February 11, 2023, was adjourned at 4:34 p.m. Patrick Mies, Secretary