Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-16 CITY OF LIVONIA — CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF STUDY MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 16, 2020 Meeting was called to order via Zoom remote technology at 8:21 p.m. by President Kathleen McIntyre. Present: Rob Donovic(Deployed), Jim Jolly(Livonia, Michigan), Laura Toy (Livonia, Michigan), Scott Bahr (Livonia, Michigan), Cathy White (Florida), and Kathleen McIntyre (Livonia, Michigan). Absent: None Councilmember Donovic led the meeting in the Pledge of Allegiance. Elected and appointed officials present: Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Todd Zilincik, City Engineer; Paul Bernier, City Attorney; Susan Nash, City Clerk; Curtis Caid, Chief of Police; Dave Heavener, Fire Chief; Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection; Casey O'Neil, Director of Information Systems; and Jacob Rushlow, Superintendent of Public Service. President McIntyre stated that Mayor Brosnan had given an update on Covid-19 at the Regular Meeting and that employees are urged to work remotely if possible and that residents should make an appointment with the specific department they are hoping to visit at City Hall. President McIntyre stated that the Petitioner for Item No. 2 had requested closed captioning and that they were not able to accommodate that request but will have it available for the next Study Meeting of December 2, 2020. AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None heard. NEW BUSINESS 1) REQUEST TO EXTEND WAIVER USE APPROVAL TO NEW OWNER: Yangkai Yuan; re: to operate a massage establishment (Omorfia Esthetics) within the Burton Hollow Shopping Center located on the east side of Farmington Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis Avenue (17142 Farmington Road), Section 10. (CR 70-20) Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, stated that he had not received any information on this but explain the history that goes along with the original waiver use. He stated this goes back to a petition that was filed and approved in 2016 involving Omorfia Esthetics. And one of the conditions of approval for that waiver use to operate a massage establishment was that the Petitioner would have to enter into a conditional agreement limiting the waiver use to that user only and it could not be extended to any other or any new user without first obtaining approval of City Council. So that's why this item is before you. I do not have information about the new business owner in this case. Councilmember McCullough stated that the packet information for this item 2 was fairly light. The only thing it listed was a license number through the State of which I did look up and it does show in good standing since 2014. It doesn't show any kind of a plan on any changes that may take place or the options for the massage parlor, if he's going to offer any kind of new services. It seems to be lacking in my opinion and for that reason at least for right now, I'd be willing to offer a denying resolution until we can at least see some more information. DIRECTION: DENYING REGULAR 2) REQUEST TO APPROVE THE BUILDING OF AN ICE RINK WITHIN DOVER PARK: Louis Csizmadia; re: to construct a 50ft x 80ft ice rink with lights for use by the public. Louis Csizmadia, 8884 Gabber Court, presented this request to Council. He stated he provided all of the information in a letter to the Council. Councilmember Jolly stated he thinks this is a great idea to bring before Council and it's a very engaging thing to add to the City here and thanked the Petitioner for doing so. He indicated he has some questions, not of the Petitioner but of the Law Department and the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation if he is still on the line and that is: as this would be an ice arena set up on City property, my only concern here really is the staffing of it to ensure safety and any potential legal liability as to that safety and maintenance of the ice rink and asked Bernier to give some information in regards to what his initial thoughts are on that and would there be some sort of additional insurance rider or something that we have through the City through our current insurance policies or is that something that can be discussed to make this accomplished. Bernier said as an old hockey player, this sounds like a great idea on the surface but as a City Attorney, I cringe at the whole prospect of this to be honest with you. From a liability standpoint we are allowing somebody to put something that is inherently dangerous on City property, and who knows who's going to patrol it, who knows what condition it's going to be in. I just see from a liability standpoint a great deal of problems for the City. I also think we have a great deal of problems when it comes to enforcement on who gets to use the property because although it will be made by a private individual, it will be on City property open to everybody. From a liability standpoint I see a great deal of problems with it. As much as I find the whole prospect intriguing because it's what we used to do in our backyards all the time as kids, to allow it on City property I have a problem with it. If it's going to be an ice rink it should be owned, operated and maintained by the City of Livonia. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, stated as an idea I think it's interesting, but my concern is as the City Attorney stated was liability. I'm also am not crazy, if you look at a site map, it's right behind several people's backyards, right up against fence line, a good distance away from the public access points in that park. Those are things that all raise concerns for me on top of — aside from liability, there's still going to be restoration to the park which hasn't been addressed, again, who maintains it, who's staffing it. There was lighting in the proposal, I'm concerned about that. A lot of concerns I have with the project. 3 Councilmember Jolly asked Davis wasn't there talk about putting up a temporary outdoor ice rink at the Greenmead property as part of the Winterfest and Davis replied yes, they are talking about putting up a seasonal ice rink at Greenmead, yes. Jolly then stated maybe the Petitioner doesn't know about that and maybe that will suffice is desire to have something like that outside. Vice President Bahr asked for clarification of exactly where this is being proposed and Davis replied it's basically Joy and Newburgh, it's in Section 31 of the City, it's a landlocked park, actually there's only three public access points to it. Bahr stated it sounds like, as much as I hate to say this because I couldn't help but smile as I read the proposal, the notion of the neighbors getting together and the ingenuity they've already shown and the initiative to think through all the details of this and just the letter that was included in our packet of essentially neighbors rallying them all to the cause. There's so much about this that I love but just from a liability standpoint, a financial standpoint, it's problematic. I want to suggest that the neighbors, though, and we're not going to be able to solve this here, but something else you might explore. The neighborhood where I lived for more than a decade up until a few years ago was Compton Village and in Compton Village, at least at the time, and Ted Davis can tell me if this is not happening anymore. But at least at the time they were still flooding an area of Dooley Park every year with an outdoor ice rink. And I was familiar with that because it was in our neighborhood but as I recall that was one of two or three such areas of the City that they did that and maybe somebody else knows where those other areas are. My point is this: There is precedent for the City having outdoor ice rinks in our parks and when we have a motivated base of neighbors like this, I would really recommend to the Petitioner that you take those neighbors probably to the Parks and Rec Commission and propose this for your park. As cool as that was that it was in our neighborhood, the usage in recent years was a lot lighter than it had been in past years. It looks to me like we potentially had a neighborhood here where that usage would be pretty heavy and I think that would be an interesting thing for our Parks and Rec Commission to consider,just adding within our park system. So I can't support this here as proposed now as much as my heart wants to for the reasons stated earlier, but I think there's another avenue for you to have this considered and I would really encourage you to pursue that.. Councilmember McCullough asked Bernier if there are any ordinances to having ice rinks on your own property and Bernier replied I think our zoning ordinances are silent as it pertains to ice rinks. The typical ice rink that I think about when I was a kid, when we built up the snow walls and flooded it with water and let it freeze. I can't imagine our zoning ordinances contemplated that being an issue. So I doubt that there is anything that talks about that. McCullough stated that for the past few years I have had a 20 x 40 ice rink made in the backyard. And looking over the past ice rinks there's usually three companies that provide these kits, and they can go from a 10 to 20 square foot rink all the way up to obviously the 50 x 80 which is like a regulation ice rink in an NHL arena. So obviously hockey is near and dear 4 to me and this is a great idea but the liability does come into play. I would recommend to the Petitioner in looking at a satellite view of the backyard, you've got quite a bit of space back there and a 50 x 80 might not be feasible within your lot, but your neighbor, if it's something that you would be interested in to maybe shrinking it down a little bit. I know a lot of work goes into it, especially in flooding the rink, building it, and there's a lot of passion that goes into it, I think it's a wonderful idea but you can see liability is an issue but you can look at the lot and see how big of a rink you can fit on it, I don't think you should let this go, but I would suggest you keep it in your lot if possible. Councilmember Toy said unfortunately Council has to consider those kind of liability issues as we look at our great City and all the nice activities we might be able to do. But I strongly believe in citizen driven efforts. If you just have to go up to Greenmead to ice skate, I love Greenmead but it's not appealing to me. If some of these folks want to do something in our parks perhaps like was suggested, there should be somewhere which is the Parks and Rec Commission, would help with open minds, that administering some of these winter outdoor activities, I always thought we should have an ice rink on our campus at City Hall. It made a lot of sense. To have some food trucks around it or hot chocolate trucks and do it in the winter months and get on it early enough so that we can build up that rink and things like that. And I know that we all have our favorite area but to say the only one to have perhaps at Greenmead, really? Let's look at some of our south end neighbors, our middle end neighbors, and I don't want to divide the City, but let's make it convenient for the kids. They're home now and it's healthy for them evidently to be outside, so it behooves us to think about extracurricular activities perhaps out there. And Mr. Davis does a superb job for our City and I know he doesn't need one more thing added to his plate, he's got a lot already, but perhaps we can think through a little bit clearer and again, I applaud, as many of you have, the residents that have suggested this. But most of all I'd like to see a few some of those outdoor activities were at all possible, especially if our residents are willing to help. So I want to thank the folks for coming in tonight but I can't support it with the liability and our attorneys and our Parks Director suggesting that we do have some very serious responsibility when it's on City property. So let's try and work it out another but let's not give up on it. Councilmember Jolly said this did come before the Parks & Rec Commission but it was sent to us because the nature of the request here and I think a lot of the points have been valid. I think we have an open minded Superintendent of Parks & Rec and an open minded Parks & Rec Commission; one is better than none. So let's get one going and then if it works then throughout the City if possible. And I don't necessarily care where it's at but I think we need something like this outside. Vice President Bahr offered a denying resolution for the Consent Agenda. Patty Nowak, a neighbor of the Petitioner, stated they did discuss this with Parks & Rec two or three weeks ago when they went to the meeting, and they had already contacted the insurance company and there was an umbrella policy they were going to write. This is not going to be a hockey rink; this is a skating rink. It's for the kids in the neighborhood. Louis is retired, he is a very nice man, he just wants this ice rink. And it's not 5 gigantic. They didn't like the fact that the lighting would possibly be going into somebody's house with an extension cord. We talked about batteries and things now. One gentleman next door works for Penske. He said that wasn't a problem. Also we could put flood lights on our telephone poles and we could pay for the electricity ourselves. We don't want the City to pay for anything. There's no parking lot. If anybody looks at our park, it's in the middle of our subdivision. You can't drive to it. You have to walk either through somebody's yard or up a little sidewalk off of Pere there or Deborah Court. I mean it's really like a private park. Nobody comes there. President McIntyre stated these are the kind of things that are very difficult for Councilmembers to take a stand and say that they're going to deny it because everything about this is how we want our citizens to be citizens in our City and all of the things that we encourage. And that's looking to make the City a better place, looking to do things for others, using our own talents and resources and financial resources to do things to help other people. And on its face it seems ludicrous that we couldn't support this. Unfortunately we live in a world of laws and litigation and we can't control who has access to this park and we can't, as much as we know it would be great for the neighborhood, there's no way that we can stop someone from going in there and engaging in mischief making that could potentially cause a lot of danger and harm to other people. And you have an umbrella policy and again, we so appreciate this proposal and all of the due diligence that's been done, unfortunately your umbrella policy that would protect you from litigation, doesn't protect the City. And the City could end up in a very, very bad situation being exposed to various liability and expensive litigation. And I'm so sorry to have to underscore what you heard from Council tonight and kick the air out of what just seemed like on its face and is on its face is wonderful, generous suggestion. And if there's a way that it can be done on private property, then the City has no liability and we would think that was great and in fact I think you heard and I don't know if you heard the conversation, it wouldn't require an approval from City Council to have it on private property. Nowak said there's no lot big enough in this small subdivision. But my question is a couple of years ago the City did put a Jumping Gym set in the park here, what's the difference between if somebody fell off the Jumping Gym or fell down in skating and wants to sue the City. The Petitioner stated he would put up the rink on his own private property but it's not possible because of the grading. President McIntyre stated we understand that. Everything the City puts up in their parks, we look at from a risk and a liability perspective. There are certain liabilities and risks that the City is willing to take and we bear those risks and there's always the risk that we're going to get sued because somebody falls on a Jungle Gym, the difference is we put it up, we inspect it, we ensure that it's maintained properly. We simply don't have the resources if people want to put up recreation facilities on their own on public property, we do not have the manpower and the resources to ensure that they are safe. And we understand that logically it may seem that they would be safe, but if we can't ensure that they're safe and control over it, then that's a level of risk and liability the City simply can't accept. 6 Vice President Bahr stated he is familiar with that park and he remembers approving the Jungle Gym project not too long ago. What I'm suggesting you do is to go to the Parks & Rec Commission with a proposal that would be in the same category as that Jungle Gym, an added improvement to the park. The difference is — and this isn't sending you on a runaround, the difference is right now you're asking to put a private rink on public land. What I'm suggesting is that you suggest to Parks & Rec putting a public rink on public land. I can't guarantee you what their answer to that will be once they look at all the factors involved but I would encourage you to pursue that because I think that's a good idea. Councilmember McCullough stated this is a tough thing that we want to approve but there is liability that goes along with it. Again, these are ideas that we will keep note of and again, as Vice President Bahr said this would be a great idea for a permanent solution that could be used by the City. Councilmember Jolly offered a resolution to refer the matter of outdoor ice skating rinks and where they may be viable in the City and where they may not be viable in the City directly from the City Council to the Parks & Rec Commission for them to consider so as to not request or create any additional work for the Petitioners in this case. And then that way, I don't want to send them back and forth, back and forth, and I know that's not the intention here but if we can do this directly ourselves by asking the Parks and Rec Commission to consider this. And also as well, our Superintendent Ted Davis is on the line, he's listening, and I'm sure he's taking notes because that's what he does. President McIntyre apologized for the technology not working quite as well as it should, and that the Petitioner does not have to go back to the Parks & Recreation Commission. What Councilmember Jolly just directed the Council to do, was for the Council to refer this directly to the Park & Rec Commission for them to take the issue up. And so you should look forward to this on a future agenda of the Parks & Rec Commission. She then stated to the Petitioner and Ms. Nowak that Council wished Livonia had 92,000 residents just like them and they pride themselves on being a City of great people and their willingness to come forward and want to do something with your own time and resources is simply amazing and we're glad you understand why despite our hearts wanting us to approve it, we can't, but we want to make something good come of this and all of the work that you've done. DIRECTION: 1) DENYING CONSENT 2) REFER TO PARKS & REC COMMISSION CONSENT 3) REQUEST ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION THAT APPROVES THE WAYNE COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN DATED SEPTEMBER 14, 2020: Sgt. Brian Kahn, Director of Emergency Preparedness, re: for a period of five (5) years in order to receive funds made available through certain mitigation grant programs, pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Chapter 1, Subchapter D, Part 201, Section 201.6.c.5 which has been approved for implementation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Curtis Caid, Chief of Police, presented this request to Council. He stated that Director Kahn and his office, look for opportunities to find funding from grants and 7 the like. (The meeting encountered technical difficulties.) Vice President Bahr stated that Council has had this is the past and he did look through a little bit of the paperwork provided and this is pretty standard stuff here, it's approving a report that we have to provide every so often for Federal reporting purposes. This is something that's already been submitted to FEMA and already been approved. This is Council approving something that's really baked and ready to go and I'm willing to offer an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 4) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL ON A PROPOSED LOT SPLIT- Department of Assessment, re- for the property located on the east side Merriman Road, between West Chicago and Plymouth Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 (11316 Merriman) and to waive the property depth-to-width ratio. (Tax Item 138-99-0058-000) (Petition 2020-09-LS-04) Mark Taormina, Director of Planning and Economic Development, presented this request to Council. He stated this is a lot split on Merriman Road, it's a single acreage parcel that currently measures 180 feet in width by 226 feet. It does contain a single family residence. The intent is to split the property into two equal halves that would measure 90 feet by 226 feet each. That turns out to be just less than '/2 acre minimum requirement which is zone R-U-F. So both parcels would be about 1,440 square feet shy of the '/2 acre requirement. There's no issue with the lot width it's really just an area deficiency that would require Council's approval. Other than the need to remove the garage on the lot that's being created since that would create an accessory building on a parcel that does not have a principal structure, but that's probably secondary to the lot area waiver. And if you'll note, this is very consistent with the pattern of development in the area. This is the largest lot on this side of the road, just about every other parcel has been split to the 90 foot dimension at their request. Councilmember McCullough asked Taormina if the additional items needed to be addressed by Council and he replied that the garage is something that would have to be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals if they wanted to keep that structure on the property after the split. The issue of the stormwater is one that would be reviewed administratively through the Engineering Division, and he's assuming that there are options available and what exactly those are, he doesn't know, but Todd could address that. Councilmember McCullough offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 5) REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE BUILDING PLANS SCANNED INTO ELECRONIC MEDIA AND AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE: Department of Inspection, re: under State of Michigan Scanning and Microfilm Services extended purchasing program, 8 to avoid losing the paper history files due to unfortunate events. Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection, presented this request to Council. He stated in the last couple of years they've had most of their history files of all of their properties scanned, over a million documents were scanned and this is the last part of that which is all of our commercial industrial plans and they are required to be maintained through the life of the structure. And some of them are becoming deteriorated already and this is an opportunity for us not only to save those documents but to make them more readily accessible to staff members and other departments and to FOIAs. He stated they are asking Council to authorize this already budgeted expenditure. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 6) REQUEST TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 2020 LIFE LINE TYPE-1 SUPERLINER AMBULANCE ON A 2020 FORD F-450 XLT CHASSIS THROUGH THE HOUSTON GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL (HGAC-BUY) COOPERATIVE PURCHASING CONSORTIUM: Livonia Fire and Rescue, re: to replace a current frontline ambulance, from trade-in of 2006 Freightliner Ambulance and budgeted funds. (CR 61-17) Dave Heavener, Fire Chief, presented this request to Council. He stated they are respectfully requesting Council's approval of the purchase of the 2020 Life Line Ambulance for a vehicle that is being purchased through the Houston Galveston Consortium which gives us a discount, we've purchased from them in the past. Tis ambulance is going to be used to replace one of our frontline ambulances which is a 2011 model with 104,000 miles on it. This is purchased as part of our regular vehicle replacement program and it is purchased through the 2020/2021 budgeted funds. The 2011 model will be downgraded to a reserve status and we will be either auctioning off or trading in a 2006 ambulance in its place. They are also requesting to waive the formal bid process because it's purchased through the Consortium. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 7) REQUEST TO RENEW A FIVE-YEAR SERVICE AGREEMENT: Public Service Division, re: with Sensus USA, with an automatic five-year extension, to provide software and equipment to obtain remote water meter reads. Jacob Rushlow, Superintendent of Public Service, presented this request to Council. He stated as you're aware, Sensus manufacturers are water meters and the software used by the meter reading system. Renewing our agreement here with Sensus will ensure the City will receive the latest updates to the software program which helps us maintain minimal water loss and improve the efficiency in meter reading and billing. This renewal also upgrades our software from the standard program that we currently have to the enhanced program at no charge to the City. This is an important upgrade to note because it will allow for over the air updates to program and correct which we're currently experiencing a warranty issue affecting about 216 electronic meter registers and without this upgrade those would need to be 9 done manually one meter at a time from one property to the next. So, with that it's our recommendation from the Public Service Division of DPW that Council proceed to authorize approval of this service agreement and authorize signatures to execute the agreement. Councilmember McCullough stated he is comfortable with Sensus, they're pretty much the name of the game when it comes to these remote water meters and he'd be happy to offer an approving on Consent if there's no objection. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 8) REQUEST TO ACCEPT STORM WATER FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Engineering Division, re: from MCM 12001 Farmington, LLC, in conjunction with the construction of a storm drainage system that provides adequate drainage for property developed at 11999 and 12001 Farmington Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated as you're aware this is the exciting part of the meeting that we get to, after the first seven I know they're exciting as they were, this is even better. This is a bit of a housekeeping issue with this particular item. As you know Quality Metalcraft built next to Consumer's Energy there on Farmington Road and now it's just a matter of housekeeping to ensure that their storm water system is maintained by themselves, if not, then obviously we would come in and assist, hopefully we won't have to in the future, but looking for City Council's approval to get the Maintenance Agreement signed and then onto Wayne County for recording. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 9) REQUEST TO APPROVE 2021 ROAD REPAIR PROGRAM: Engineering Division, re: as reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Committee on roads for the ninth year of the ten year paving millage approved by Livonia residents. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated it's hard to believe it's November and we're already thinking about next year's program to get out there and reconstruct. So, leaves are falling, now it's time to get those roads studied and get fixed next year so we can start out in April/May. Looking for Council's approval as we had a Citizens Road Advisory Committee Meeting on October 15th, with a supplemental meeting on October 28th at City Hall for residents to bring their concerns to us. We're looking for Council's approval based on their recommendation of approximately 63 segments of roadway of which we're going to use 4.9 million dollars for concrete repairs, 4 million dollars for asphalt, and $800,000 for selective slab. So, again, looking for approximately 9.9 million dollars in road repairs in our ninth year for the 2021 Road Repair Program. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have them, and, again, I appreciate all of your assistance and support in the past over the past eight years to again continue on with improving our infrastructures throughout the City. Councilmember McCullough thanked the Citizens Advisory Committee for all of their hard work they put into this. Obviously improving our infrastructure is a huge deal and he then offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. 10 DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 10) REQUEST FOR ADDITIONS TO THE LOCAL STREET SYSTEM FOR THE 2021 ACT 51 COMPUTATIONS: Engineering Division, re: for streets or portions thereof, newly opened in 2020. Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated it's hard to believe that we just paved Capri a year ago in November and we're looking to add Capri and Dover to the system of our Act 51 Map, one is 600 feet long, the other one is just over 500 feet. Again, this helps us in assistance with the State for Act 51 funds to allow for future funding for the State. This will also allow that the DPW will recognize each street to maintain them and plow them in the wintertime and looking for City Council's approval to accept these as public roads and looking forward to both these subdivisions getting streetlights in the near future, over the next couple of weeks, and again make it a safe public road to add to our system and get the benefits of the Act 51 funds. Councilmember White offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 11) REQUEST TO AMEND THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION (QBS) PROCESS WITH ANDERSON, ECKSTEIN AND WESTRICK, INC. FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2021 CONCRETE ROAD PROGRAM (CONTRACT 21-C): Engineering Division, re: same (CR 365-16) Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated he is looking for City Council's approval with AEW who has done this program since 2008 to help assist us in design of the Road Repair Program based on 4.9 million. We are requesting City Council's approval for that design cost of$210,700 to assist us in that endeavor and looking for these improvements in 2021. As you know, Scott Lockwood is a vital part of this program and his team and happy to have him on board as they do a fabulous job for us as inspectors to ensure quality control and our streets are being put and meet the specification standards. President McIntyre recognized that Scott Lockwood was in attendance in the Zoom meeting. Councilmember Toy offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 12) REQUEST TO AMEND THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT THROUGH THE QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION (QBS) PROCESS WITH ANDERSON, ECKSTEIN AND WESTRICK, INC. FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE 2021 CONCRETE ROAD MAINTENANCE/SELECTIVE SLAB PROGRAM (CONTRACT 21-J)- Engineering Division, re: same (CR 365-16) 11 Todd Zilincik, City Engineer, presented this request to Council. He stated this is the Selective Slab Program in which DPW and Engineering have a cooperative list of locations that we try to address where the tree upped the pavement or we have a drainage concern or something that can obviously make a big difference to the homeowners in front of these areas that need to be fixed on the concrete program. We're looking for approximately $800,000 to be spent throughout the City and requesting Council's approval for AEW to assist us in this matter in the amount of $42,400. Again, Scott Lockwood with AEW is on tap here for any questions. Councilmember Jolly offered an approving resolution for the Consent Agenda. DIRECTION: APPROVING CONSENT 13) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LIVONIA CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED: Department of Law, re: to amend Section 070 of Chapter 2.36 (Commission on Aging), Section 040 of Chapter 2.40 (Arts Commission), Section 040 of Chapter 2.44 (Commission on Children and Youth), Section 020 of Chapter 2.52 (Historical Commission), and Section 080 of Chapter 2.56 (Historic Preservation Commission), to reflect departmental changes. Paul Bernier, City Attorney, presented this request to Council. He stated this is simply a clean-up of the ordinances to reflect the changes that were made in the Department of Community Resources, putting of these things under Ted Davis in the Parks and Recreation, it's just to clean up the ordinances. Councilmember Jolly asked Bernier if because Ted Davis is overseeing the Parks and Recreation and all of these things are reporting through him at this point, does that essentially mean that all of these separate commissions that we're referencing here tonight retain their original jurisdiction as to Ted, is that correct? Or are they in someway now overlapping in certain ways? Bernier replied the reality of most of these departments or these commissions are that they should have been under the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Director in the first place. As Council knows the history of the department was that it became a — I don't want to call it a dumping ground, but it became a department that were taking things that were part of its original charter. So the Mayor tried to get that department back to where it was supposed to be and then the placement of these where it more logically fell into place. So that was the reason for it. So it does more logically fall under Ted Davis and Parks and Recreation and under Mr. Davis' directorship. Jolly then asked because Parks & Rec is overseeing the Senior Center now, would the Parks & Rec Commission ever consider anything to do with the Senior Center programming or events or would they still be funneled through the old structure? Bernier replied that is something that will probably be brought to Council in the near future on consideration on those issues. As of now it's just under the directorship 12 of Ted Davis, under his directorship. But the issue of fees and costs, that will come to Council in a relatively short period of time for Council's consideration. Because if you look at our charter right now there are arguments that could be made both ways so it will be brought to Council so Council can have an intelligent discussion of the issue. Councilmember Toy stated she respects the wishes and the thought that's going into a lot of this through the Administration, but what concerns her is as we look at these, and we're saying there's more to come, then why wouldn't this go into the Committee of the Whole right now so that we study it all at once so that we do make a very intelligent, long range kind of decisions on this rather than scrap it together if you will and perhaps that's not the right word. It concerns me that we're putting this under Mr. Davis, that under Mr. Davis, and he's a very capable individual, don't get me wrong, but I'm just concerned of that workload and what that all means because I'm not real clear on it. I'm thinking of the old way, perhaps I need to get my mind out of that, but if you can hit the pause button for a minute, I might feel a little bit clearer on this and maybe I'm reading into it too much, but I'd be willing to offer a Committee of the Whole on this, Madam President. Ted Davis, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, stated to answer Councilmember Toy's question, it is a lot but just as there was in Community Resources, there is support staff that does assist as liaisons for these commissions. It's certainly not me attending every single commission meeting, although I have attended most since we have transitioned. I think this is simply a matter of housekeeping in the sense that these ordinances when they were written they specifically named Community Resources as the City department they were working with. And really all we're doing here is changing it to request the current Administration's structure which puts Parks and Recreation as a liaison for these commissions. That's really all that's taking place right now and Paul, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Bernier said what he wanted to say is that it's kind of odd that the ordinances any way list a particular department that a commission should fall under. Considerably speaking that's a management prerogative, who gets to control that, so it's kind of an unusual situation that this lists that particularly that this is under the Department of Community Resources. And the reality of it is, it is not anymore, it's being directed by Ted Davis. And usually those are, like I say, management prerogatives, who gets to manage those various departments. And we're just doing it this way to recognize the reality of the situation right now and to make sure currently that our ordinance reflects what's happening. Now, could Council consider the entire scenario in a Community of the Whole? Absolutely. But what we're trying to do right now is to have the ordinances reflect reality. Councilmember Toy stated in all due respect the reality is when any new administration comes in they're going to look at the overall health of the City and what they think will be the best course of action, I get that. But with some of the 13 comments that were made, that we're going to bring other things in, I think it is best if you do it all at once because everybody has different opinions on what should happen with different commissions and different roles and all that and I respect the Administration for their insightfulness and their forward thinking, but I also want to understand it in a deeper way of understanding it. And I'm very concerned that one individual that is highly capable has a lot of workload, those are huge. And you can have staff all you want but you've also got to manage staff and know what they're doing. So I want to be clear on that so that's why I'm offering Committee of the Whole on the topic. Councilmember Jolly offered an approving resolution for Consent as well for consideration. I understand what Councilwoman toy is saying and she's right, that if we're going to bite the apple, we should eat the whole apple. What I think in this circumstance, let's think about it for two weeks and then figure out what you want to do. DIRECTION: 1) REFER TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 2) APPROVING CONSENT AUDIENCE COMMUNICATION None heard. As there were no further questions or comments, President McIntyre adjourned the Study Session at 9:35 p.m. on Wednesday, November 16, 2020. For the 1,910t" Regular Meeting of December 2, 2020 DATED: November 20, 2020 SUSAN M. NASH, CITY CLERK