Month: September 2020

Posted on

September 28, 2020 City Council Meeting (held virtually)

Note: links to the video recording and the council packet can be found at the bottom of this post. Please note any errors or omissions in the comments. Anything noted between brackets was inserted by Clarkston Sunshine.

Meeting:

City Manager Jonathan smith welcomed everyone to the city council meeting and read the virtual meeting rules that posted on screen.

Agenda item #1, Call to Order (Video time mark 0:01:12):

Meeting called to order by Haven.

Agenda item #2, Pledge of Allegiance (Video time mark 0:01:20):

Pledge of Allegiance said.

Agenda item #3, Roll Call (Video time mark 0:01:38):

Present – Eric Haven, Al Avery, Ed Bonser, Gary Casey, Jason Kniesc, Joe Luginski, and Sue Wylie.

Agenda item #4, Motion: Approval of Agenda (Video time mark 0:2:08):

Luginski wanted to know where we were regarding in-person meetings. It’s been a few weeks since it was last discussed, and it’s not been placed back on the agenda. Smith said that there is a lot to look into, and he’s trying to get three bids. Right now, we can only have ten people or less. City attorney Tom Ryan said that a new executive order was issued that changed the guidelines to square footages effective on October 9th, so we may be able to fit more than ten people with social distancing. Luginski said he was interested in looking at the formula.

Agenda approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #5, Public Comments (Video time mark 0:04:45):

Comments by Chet Pardee:

    • Thanked Smith and Jim Meloche for visiting the North Main homes and viewing the visible exterior preservation issues that may not be able to be repaired and painted before winter. It was unclear if the correct ordinances were included in the code enforcement communication by Craig [Strong?].
    • How SAD- [special assessment district] dependent are the city’s finances? The need for additional citizen financial contributions has increased with the city council’s decision to make capital project expenses. The city manager presented a constrained budget on June 24th and reserved funds to pay for the estimated $350,000 cost estimated by Mr. Tamm for the Bisio lawsuit that included no capital project expenses and included employee layoffs. Since the decision by the Michigan Supreme Court, we have approved $50,000 for a city driveway, $30,000 for city signs, we are paying $90,000 in unbudgeted costs for interceptor repair, and there were $19,000 of unbudgeted expenses for the city’s portion of the east alley repair. Tonight’s consent agenda includes reimbursement for more than $8,000 in Hubbell, Roth & Clark [HRC] professional services, and we will be talking about $90,000 to pave North Holcomb. There is also the DNR project that requires the city spend $127,000 before August 2022. The costs add up to over $316,000 with no parking revenue coming in. There is a risk in moving funds within the water and sewer funds to make $98,000 available with no plans to replace these funds for approximately eighteen months when the city can add the SAD amount into the citizens’ water bills. Comparing the constrained budget to the city spending suggests that the city has no intention of paying the $350,000 in legal costs estimated by Mr. Tamm. Will the city require a special assessment district approach that is funded by the citizens?

Haven said that is not on the agenda tonight. He appreciates the questions. This needs to be addressed.

Comments by Rich Little:

Little wanted to give a quick oral description of a couple projects the Planning Commission is working on that will be brought back as a formal presentation.

    • They are doing work on Main Street – traffic calming, “your speed is” signs, and multi-modal transportation, which is a plan for cars, trucks pedestrians, scooters, bicycles, and anyone using our streets and sidewalks.
    • The Planning Commission has been meeting with SEMCOG for the last six weeks to two months. They thought perhaps we could get a grant for a study, which is normally around $40,000. We would have had to match $20,000, and they didn’t think it was a good time to bring that up. However, SEMCOG has been working on a computer program that allows a village or city to enter data regarding its streets, traffic, crash history, and other information, and it will produce a plan of what can be done. For example, the plan could include lowering the speed limits and putting in some crosswalks, bump outs, bike lanes, etc. We will participate as the initial city to use the tool. Even though we aren’t going to get a grant, Little thought this would produce good results.
    • The MSU student has been taking data from the “your speed is” sign on Holcomb and producing some charts and graphs. When the Main Street signs are installed, we can run them in silent mode for a week and collect the data to see how fast people are driving and when. Then they will turn on the flashers, tell people how fast they’re going, and see if that has an impact on speeding.
    • The MSU student will also be doing some research with national historic preservation organizations in the state to see if there are programs in other places where traffic has been successfully calmed in historic districts, which are particularly vulnerable to speeding traffic and noise.

Haven mentioned the $40,000 grant and noted that several residents wanted speed control issues addressed on Main Street. What does the software do? Little said they are two separate things. The grant would have allowed us to bring in a consultant and perform a multi-modal transportation survey and look at crashes, speed, calming, traffic patterns, and other tools. SEMCOG would have funded $30,000 and we would have had to fund $10,000. It didn’t seem like a good idea, and it had to be submitted quickly in September. The good news is that the computer tool does many of the same things and won’t cost anything because we signed up for the pilot program.

Haven thought this was great news and information. We had the opportunity for the SEMCOG director to visit with us in the fall. A brief letter to SEMCOG might be in order, but he left that to Little’s discretion. Little said that when we get to the point where we have a plan, then we could bring him in to talk about it. We would like to propose a solution and be able to say what we need to move forward with it.

Smith noted that there were a lot of comments from Cory Johnston. They would take much longer than three minutes to read, so he won’t go through it all. Avery said he read Johnston’s letter and was hoping that Smith would respond to it.

Wylie referred to the Johnston letter and said that Johnston noted that there is a shortage of handicapped spots. We were supposed to put two spots in front of Church Street, and Johnston is concerned about how to access the handicapped parking on the other side of Church Street because there are some barriers in the way. He also mentioned repaving and repainting parking lots. Smith said that Depot Park has three or four handicapped spots, and we will retain all of those. We had to block the Church Street spots off for safety reasons per the Oakland County Sheriff. This is a temporary situation. It doesn’t make sense to restripe all of Main Street to find an additional couple of spots because all of this will end in about a month.

Wylie said she was going to bring up Johnston item #3 when discussing the consent agenda. The ordinance number in the resolution to establish the SAD district was incorrect. Johnston said it should be #132 instead of #130, and he is correct.

Avery had concerns about the HRC bills and the widening of North Holcomb. It seems that money is being spent without the approval of the city council. Smith said we can discuss the HRC bills when we go through the consent agenda. There are three months’ worth of bills, which is unusual, and it’s a large amount to hit us with all at once. He will talk about the North Holcomb proposal when that agenda item is considered.

No additional public comments.

Public comments closed.

Agenda Item #6, FYI (Video time mark 0:23:07):

There is no FYI at this time.

Agenda Item #7, City Manager’s Report (Video time mark 0:23:11, page 3/50 of the council packet):

Haven said we had a great dedication of the new building. People were excited about what they saw, and they want to put the finishing touches on the landscaping. Smith and the team did a great job and everyone was recognized in a brass plaque that was placed on the wall.

There were no questions regarding the city manager’s report.

Agenda Item #8, Approval of the Consent Agenda as Presented (Video time mark 0:24:20):

    • 8-24-2020 Final Minutes (page 4/50 of the council packet)
    • 9-14-2020 Draft Minutes (page 6/50 of the council packet)
    • Treasurer’s Report, including Revenue and Expenditure Report for the period Ending 8-31-2020 (page 8/50 of the council packet)
    • Hubbell, Roth & Clark invoices (page 20/50 of the council packet)

Wylie referred back to Johnston’s email and the resolution from the last meeting establishing the SAD. The September 14th minutes mention Ordinance #130, which is about offenses, and it should be Ordinance #132, which is about special assessments. The September 14th and August 24th minutes misspelled Wylie’s name in a number of places; Jennifer Speagle said that it was a problem with her spellcheck. The August 24th minutes also didn’t accurately record a vote for Item 9c (the word “no” was omitted).

Avery addressed Johnston’s concerns regarding the HRC bills. We are spending more than council agreed to for the sewer behind the Woodshop and all the buildings on Main Street – $3,900 was authorized and $5,600 was spent. Smith said that the bill for $367 was for an initial consultation involving a site visit, and that amount is within his approval level. The second $3,900 was for the survey work to decide who owned what. We had no drawings for that, and that’s what the council approved. The next $1,400 could be contested by the council, and Smith explained that charge occurred after the survey was done, because Smith didn’t see the ownership listed on the survey and asked for an onsite meeting. Three people came to the two-hour meeting, and they walked through the survey. Follow up work was needed on one question regarding the wall that separates the alley, and the expense was more than Smith expected. It’s a complex job, and HRC still owes Smith some specifications so that he can put the job out to bid. The costs will be shared by one of two calculation methods – either by the property owners in front of the alley or based on drainage.

Avery asked whether or not Smith should come back to council when the amount exceeds what has been approved. Smith noted that the city manager’s spending amounts have not been updated in many years. His spending limit is $500 unless there is an emergency, in which case it is $1,000. Costs can add up quickly, but Smith set up a new procedure with HRC that requires an advanced estimate if costs will exceed $1,000. Avery understands the problem, but rules are rules, ordinances are ordinances, and the charter is the charter. Smith said he wasn’t trying to hide anything, but the costs can add up before he realizes it; he’s trying to do what is necessary and get the answers he needs. Avery said Smith should be following the rules.

Wylie agreed with Avery and didn’t understand why the $1,400 charge wasn’t included as part of the survey. Smith thought it was related to questions about water in the alley and a sanitary sewer that is close to the wall because they wanted to make sure that the storm drain wouldn’t impact the sanitary sewer. Smith was surprised at the amount of the charge. He can go back and challenge it and get more details. Wylie thought if they provided a quote and didn’t catch something, that should be on them.

Pardee wanted to know if the property owners know that they are going to be sharing in the costs. Smith said the owners that he’s talked to are aware, but they haven’t talked about the numbers; they are going to get quotes. The city is responsible for the drain on West Washington, but someone will share the costs of the other two drains. Haven agreed that the costs should be apportioned to the various property owners under the survey.

Casey suggested that the council revisit the city manager’s spending limits. Haven and Avery agreed that this issue should be discussed in the finance committee.

Wylie also asked about HRC’s September 1st bill for a Mill Street study. Smith said that the $1,000 cost was to prepare drawings for Mill Street. When outside dining was discussed, he realized that we didn’t have a survey that told us where the lot lines were. They didn’t do a physical survey. They had the dimensions, but they didn’t have a drawing. The $1,000 cost was for ten hours to prepare drawings to share with the Planning Commission and business owners.

Pardee noted that Johnston mentioned three more invoices relating to restrooms and gazebo relocation, main street traffic calming, and city offices and DPW planning layouts.

Smith said that the city council had requested a “master plan” for Depot Park, and the Friends of Depot Park [FDOP] have been working on a master plan for a while. It is an important document for the future and was 6.5 hours of work. The gazebo will not be relocated.

Smith said that the next invoice for three hours of time related to Main Street traffic calming for the period ending August 8th. Smith will have to research that charge; he didn’t believe that it was for the “your speed is” signs because that work was just finished last week.

Smith said that the last $994 bill was for the city driveway. This involved finessing the driveway to an exact elevation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and drainage.

Haven suggested that HRC should provide better descriptions on their bills. Smith and Haven agreed that we should be receiving bills on a monthly basis, rather than three months at once. Smith has a meeting with HRC tomorrow and will discuss these issues.

The consent agenda was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #9, Old Business

Item 9a, Discussion: Election Update (Video time mark 0:50:15; page 27/50 of the council packet, including a sample ballot):

Speagle sent out 190 absentee ballots and has 25 more that need to be sent. People can register to vote without registering in person until October 19th. After October 19th, you must register in person with the Clerk. October 30th is the last day to request an absentee ballot by mail, and November 2nd is the last day to vote in person with an absentee ballot. The polls are open from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm on November 3rd. All absentee ballots must be turned in by 8:00 p.m. on election day. Speagle will be in the office on October 30th from 9:00-5:00 and on October 31st from 8:00-4:00.

Casey asked if there is a grace period for an absentee ballot to arrive if it is postmarked by November 3rd; Speagle said no, the ballots must be handed in by 8:00 pm on November 3rd. Ryan said that Court of Claims Judge Stephens ruled that there is a 14-day window for ballots to be received if they are postmarked by November 3rd. Speagle said she’s been encouraging everyone to drop off their absentee ballots at the office or in the secure drop box. The box is checked multiple times per day and on the weekend. Ryan also suggested that people drop off their ballots rather than mail them.

Speagle said that the city received ballots from Independence and Springfield Township voters during the August election. We don’t have enough staff to deliver the ballots where they belong, but the township sent people to collect them three times that day.

Item 9b, Discussion: MDNR [Michigan Department of Natural Resources] Grant Status Update (Video time mark 0:54:54):

Haven said that we’ve been told that the October 2nd deadline is not fixed, but we would like to do this as soon as possible. We want to do our due diligence before bringing a resolution to the council to sign a contract. This is not a city expense; it’s funded by volunteer time and citizen contributions.

Luginski said that there were still some questions about the contract with regard to park usage, ownership, cost, and whether we have to share proceeds. Haven said that he has a video that will shed some light on “encumberment,” which is the term of concern. Michigan is building a portfolio of properties within the state that are enhanced by the MDNR trust fund, which is funded by oil and mineral revenues. We want to maintain the property as recreational property, and the encumberment insures that the property is protected for recreational use. Luginski didn’t find that answer helpful; he wanted to know what the contract said, whether the MDNR can say no to city events, and whether we needed to share revenues with the State. Haven said that they just want the property open to the public, and that’s also what we want, but he wasn’t ready to discuss it.

Luginski said that the problem is in Section 16 of the contract. Haven said that the contract describes what they are trying to accomplish; otherwise, it’s just boilerplate language. Ryan didn’t have the language available, but he said that the property is supposed to be open to the public in perpetuity for recreational purposes, and that’s what the city wanted for Depot Park anyway. Luginski said his concern was whether the MDNR could tell the city that we can’t do certain things in the park, such as the concerts or Art in the Park. Ryan said he didn’t think they could do that, but they are still looking into it. Haven thought it was a fair question.

Pardee thought that it might be helpful to have a list of events and revenue for the last couple of years. Haven said that a list is good, but he didn’t think we will see this in the contract language. Mary Carlisle from the MDNR has been helpful in explaining things. To Pardee’s point, Ryan said that the agreement says that you can set two different event rates for residents and non-residents, but you can’t charge a non-resident more than twice the rate of a resident. Ryan thought that this answers a lot of the questions regarding charging – it’s a public park, but you can differentiate between the taxpayers who support the park and nonresidents. Pardee thought that a list of events and revenues would be helpful so that we know whether we have to share or not. Haven said he hadn’t heard anything about sharing revenue, and Ryan didn’t think that it was in the contract – but we can ask.

Luginski was concerned with more then revenue sharing. He wanted to know if we could even hold events. The contract says that the MDNR owns it, they make the decisions, and we have to go to them for approval. Ryan said that the contract doesn’t say that the MDNR owns the park, but there are restrictions regarding what we can and cannot do. We aren’t ready for discussion, but it’s not accurate to say that the MDNR would own it. Luginski said that the contract talks about “purchase,” but Ryan said that relates to the purchase of facilities for a public park. Luginski said we need to tell them that we aren’t going to ask for permission, and it needs to be made part of the contract. Haven said it can be understood, but they aren’t going to customize every agreement.

Pardee was concerned with Smith’s administrative workload. Haven said he’s had that discussion with Smith. It’s helpful that engineering is covered to back Smith up in terms of what is needed, technically and legally. The MDNR requires that onsite engineering calls, bids, and those kinds of things be handled by an engineering firm and the costs are reimbursable.

Pardee asked if we needed to name a point person. Haven wasn’t sure, though there is a responsible entity. We are the owner, and we want an owner’s representative involved. Smith may fill that role but the rest of us will as well. Pardee’s question was about labor burden, and we will lighten that as much as we can.

[A video was played explaining the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund [MNRTF] at video time mark 1:08:17. The sound quality was poor. “The MNRTF is protected in the Michigan Constitution and continues to generate investment income which can only be used for public outdoor recreation grants.”]

Haven said that we’ve done a lot of work on this and will be reporting back.

Agenda Item #10, New Business

Item 10a, Discussion: New Global Warming Awareness Walk (Video time mark 1:14:55; page 30/50 of the council packet):

Smith said that there was a request for a Global Warming Awareness Walk. The group will be walking on the sidewalk and do not need a permit. The organizer believes that this is the largest issue that we have as a country and world. They were originally going to start and end in Depot Park, but the plans may have been changed to St. Dan’s since they have a large parking lot. The walk is scheduled for Sunday afternoon, October 11th, and they plan to walk through the community with signs. There would be no disruption to traffic flow. Ryan said that Smith should make Lt. Hill aware of this and the organizers should be told they need to follow the Governor’s orders, but the city doesn’t have to approve this. Smith agreed to contact Lt. Hill and to tell the organizer that she needs to follow COVID guidelines.

Item 10b, Presentation: CRWC [Clinton River Watershed Council] WaterTown 2020 (Video time mark 1:19:07)

    • PowerPoint Presentation (page 31/50 of the council packet)
    • Master Plan, Placemaking, Item L (page 46/50 of the council packet)

Haven said that we are a dues-paying member of the CRWC WaterTown organization. They have been very helpful to us in terms of grants, supervision, and project planning. There is a short-term need to update the Master Plan in the third category, “Place Making.” Item L has been added, and this concerns design and maintenance standards for the city going forward. Jim Breuck volunteered to chair the committee and address Item L of the Master Plan.

Breuck introduced Chris Bobryk, Ph.D, Watershed Planner. Our community is impacted by the water around us in our lakes, ponds, rivers, etc., and our WaterTown designation fits quite well into Item L.

Dr. Bobryk delivered the presentation discussing the organization’s mission, programs, funding, completed projects, and potential projects. They can provide volunteers and mini grants. (Video time mark 1:22:14)

Breuck discussed the committee’s efforts to address placemaking, to create and adopt guidelines for low impact development design and maintenance standards, and the use of native vegetation. There are two categories – water quality and biodiversity with sub-activities listed. The next step is to create deliverables to take back to the Planning Commission regarding education, potential ordinances, recommendations, maintenance, recreation, and an interface with the Historic District Commission.

Haven said that before the rain garden was harvested, it stood out as something that was green and lush during the construction period. They plan to establish a landscaping scheme outside of the building and extend it down the pathway toward the mill race.

Wylie asked Breuck to explain what a protected setback is. Breuck said that it has different names in different communities, but it is a 5’-20’ portion of land from the water’s edge that requires protected and limited activities, such as limited building. The intention is to make the shoreline areas as natural as possible without being onerous to the homeowners. We don’t have uncontrolled development, but there is the potential for it. Wylie wanted to know if this is voluntary or if it would involve ordinances. Breuck said that was one of the deliverables; perhaps there would be an ordinance prohibiting fertilizer within 15’ of the water, or a recommendation that native plants be used within a certain setback area for storm water runoff and other elements that might wash off your lawn. Breuck doesn’t know what they are going to come up with.

Wylie said that someone had posted a chat question asking whether the shoreline between Deer Lake and Middle Lake would be protected under this project. Breuck doesn’t see this as part of their mission and thinks that’s an offline topic.

Haven mentioned the phragmite problem several years ago and the city-funded effort to remove them. That was a good conservation initiative, and now there is a beautiful view of Middle Lake. He wants to continue and make Clarkston a showplace for good environmental conservation. He supported what Breuck is doing and hopes that as we go forward, we will reap the benefits.

Item 10c, Resolution: Repairing of N. Holcomb Road (Video time mark 1:42:07; 48/50 of the council packet):

The resolution was titled “Repaving of N. Holcomb Road.”

Smith said that in 2018, with the help of HRC, we evaluated all of the city’s streets and established priorities. The 2019-2020 capital improvement plan captured our future plans with regard to the current condition of our roads, and our plans to improve them that was filed with the State. There were three to four roads that were identified as being in poor condition – Clarkston Road, Waldon Road, parts of M-15, and North Holcomb. Only North Holcomb is within the city’s control; the other three are maintained by the Oakland County Road Commission [OCRC].

Smith said that whether or not a road is high priority may not be evident by just looking at them; some roads can be saved before they have to be completely torn out. East Church Street is an example of a road that could be saved by diligent crack filling and patching. Miller Road was so far gone that it needed to be milled down and replaced. That isn’t the case with North Holcomb.

Smith is proposing a 2”-3” overlay of North Holcomb that could last another 20-25 years if it’s properly crack filled. Smith said he is just making a proposal, and the decision belongs to council in consideration of the other financial needs we are facing.

Smith only obtained a quote from the OCRC. We worked with them when Miller Road was repaved. The work would be done by Cadillac Asphalt. The OCRC manages the program, and we get favorable, vetted pricing – better than we could get on our own. The OCRC thought that a 2”-3” overlay would work. Smith noted that the road shoulders are breaking down and won’t last more than a couple more years, so his proposal is to widen the road in a manner that is similar to Waldon Road. The road is striped the same way, so it isn’t actually wider, but it allows for less breakdown of the shoulders and extends the life of the roadway. Smith is proposing a 3’ shoulder on both sides, especially in the curved areas. This will help the residents and strengthen and extend the life of the roadway.

The proposal includes a $77,500 cost for the road work, plus $275 for each of the 11 manholes, which brings the total to $80,525. This is a $20,000 savings over what we would be charged if we tried to do the work outside of the OCRC. We received a local road improvement grant for $3,222 with the help of Tom Middleton of Oakland County. Smith also noted that he’s asking for a 5% contingency allowance for unforeseen costs in the amount of $4,000. The total for the work is not to exceed $84,551. $76,000 would come from the capital outlay fund that was budgeted as part of the capital improvement plan, $3,222 would be covered by the grant, and the balance of $5,329 would come from the parking kiosk fund that has been designated for that purpose. There are no comparative bids because this is a better price, and Smith included a letter from the OCRC explaining the price [located at page 49/50 of the council packet].

Casey asked whether the additional 3’ on each side could be potential bike lanes. Smith said they could serve that purpose, but it wasn’t the intent.

Bonser asked about the length of the paving, which was from West Washington to the city limit – how far is that? Smith said there is a road sign on North Holcomb, two houses north of Miller, stating that it is the end of local maintenance. The OCRC handles maintenance beyond that, and it’s clear where the city limit is.

Bonser wanted to know if this work would shut down traffic, and Smith said it absolutely would. It will not be a complete closure as it was with Miller Road, though there will be times when the road needs to be closed entirely. He will find out if they can do one lane work with a flagman.

Bonser wanted to know when this would be done. Smith said that they can pave until the end of October, so it could be done within the next 30 days.

Bonser asked if anyone who lives on that section of the road was on the call and wanted to comment. Frank [no last name given] was available and said that the repair is definitely needed. It is a hazardous condition because of the deterioration of the curves. The sooner it can be repaired the better.

Wylie said as much as she thinks we need to watch our spending, delaying this too long would create a situation where there is much greater damage to the road. We ought to take care of it now since it’s been rated as one of our worst roads. Smith said that it’s an investment because it could end up costing us a lot more.

Kniesc asked what the cost would be without the 3’ overlay, and since people park on the street and the grass, he wondered what the cost would be to make it a whole car length. Smith said that the cost savings of not doing the 3’ overlay would be between $12-$14,000. Some people park on the street and lawn; others don’t. This is a middle of the road solution and the breakdown of the edge of the road will be delayed. You could pave the whole lane on both sides, but that would add to the cost considerably. A paving machine can pave approximately 12’, and a lane is 9’-10’. They don’t have a paving machine that paves a lane plus 7’ for a full shoulder, so it would require two passes and raise the cost significantly.

Kniesc thought that if there were an extra foot, then cars could get off the road. Smith said that was his original proposal, a foot on each side, but they recommended 3’. He doesn’t have the cost for an additional 2’. He would have to ask if there is an option for road width plus 1’.

Pardee said he walks Holcomb every day. There is sidewalk breakage that was caused by Consumers Energy putting in a new gas line. There is a cast iron drain in that area, and the difference between the top of the drain and the road surface is about 1’. This may complicate things, and Pardee believed that Smith is trying to prevent the problems that occurred on the south side of Miller Road. The city engineer came out and recommended a draining sump to correct the area in front of 9 Miller where the water was accumulating and ponding (Smith was surprised this wasn’t on the bill). This doubles as a parking easement but that wasn’t the purpose for it. We dug out 8”-10” of earth that another homeowner took away, filled it with stone, put timber on the edge, and it is now used as a drainage sump so water doesn’t pool. Hopefully, this will extend the life of the road. The cost to do this was around $350 plus DPW labor, so it was an inexpensive solution.

Smith said that there is a need for backfilling in front of some of the homes to bring them to grade level. This will also happen on Holcomb. This means that there will be a small amount of topsoil cost along with our labor and that is not included in the numbers. They will grind down the driveways to create a transition. There will be a taper on the driveway, but the dirt and gravel areas will need to be backfilled with topsoil. If the homeowner has gravel or grass, it will be replaced with gravel or grass.

Pardee asked Smith to look at the dome drain that is 10”-12” inches below the road surface near 41 North Holcomb where the sidewalk is broken. He doesn’t know how that will be taken care of. Smith said this was a good point, and he would walk the area with the OCRC engineer to go over all of the details before the work starts.

The resolution passed unanimously.

Agenda Item #11, Adjourn (Video time mark 2:10:09)

The motion to adjourn passed unanimously.

Resources: