City Council - Regular Meeting

America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call, please. Madam clerk, Mayor Beagle, I'm here. Deputy Mayor Gotcho, here. Council member Berman, present. Council member Grenlin Fox, here. Council member Kennedy, here. Council member OD here. Council member Simmons here. We have quum. Thank you. Changes or additions to the agenda tonight as presented. City manager Brown. May I have no changes or additions? This is city manager Benson. I have none, sir. Any from the dis.

Very good. Moves us on to approval of minutes. We've got one set of minutes to approve tonight. That's from the regular city council meeting of April 14th, 2026. Do I have a motion? Thank you. Any discussion? I got a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the regular city council meeting of April 14th, 2026. All those in favor, please signify by saying I.

I opposed. We got two items of correspondence tonight. One is for the notice of hearing for the customers of DTE electric case number U-21595 and notice of hearing for the customers of DTE electric case U-22067. And that moves us on to the call to the public. I'll read the rules for the call to the public. They are as follows. The public shall address the council during the call to the public which shall be included on the agenda immediately after correspondence and again immediately after new business. The first call to the public immediately after correspondence shall be limited to agenda items only. A person shall not address the council in excess of 5 minutes unless the time is extended by a majority vote of the council present. Persons wishing to address the council shall identify themselves and their place of residence and shall state their reason for addressing the council. and all comments by the public shall be made directly to the council. Do we have anybody for the first call to the public? Seeing none, I'll close the first call to the public and we'll move on to city managers reports. We have the departmental reports from March 2026. Any questions? Council member Glo Fox.

Thank you. I have a question regarding the um water report, please. Good evening. Hi. How are you? Good. How are you? Great. So, on page 12 of the report, I don't know if you have it with you or not, but the um P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F P F Poya and the P FAS um I think it was just a typo, but it looks like the results were left out and it said they were um above normal, but it doesn't say what they were unless the bottom is what they are.

The bottom is what they are. That line is incorrectly in there. I apologize for the typo. This was from a prior um report and this is entirely my fault for missing that line. The numbers are correct. It happened at a previous uh monthly operating report where there was the reporting numbers that they gave us. So when a lab runs a number the equipment is only capable of going down to a certain level and below that they have to qualify the result and saying we can only give you the result up to this. below this the equipment does not give you results. They had one during one of the previous sessions that was not at the state level minimum. So it could have easily been interpreted as us exceeding our limit. So I called them back and asked them to rerun it. The results were better. It's just sometimes POS interferes with different compounds on its own. So I believe I can find which report it was previously and reference that for you. Can can you tell me if um and and that's fine as long as where where are we at now as of this?

I haven't gotten the April results yet. The the numbers that are on here that you see on the report are the correct March ones. I just forgot to remove the line from there. Oh, okay. Okay. The the the line that says results for March 3rd, 2026 were above the normal reporting limits. That line shouldn't be in there. Okay. In grammar. So, we're good. We're good. Okay. Thank you. Council member Barman.

Thank you. I think my question is for Drew, but it's his report and maybe the planning report. Um, there seems to be a lot of activity in the property behind Amazon James Logistics. A lot of uh big trucks going in and out. I know last year they were doing crushing back there, but that's not happening this year. What's going on back there? Why are they moving so much earth? Our understanding is that basically they're finishing up uh the a the cleanup from the concrete crushing but also the cleanup from the uh from the brownfield. So when the concrete crushing ended they still had some some grading to do and they have an open grading permit with us to that end. Um in the end they had a burm or two basically piles of dirt that were contaminated that still needed to go off site. So that is my understanding of what they're doing is basically they're finishing up the grading.

Thank you. My second question was just an update on our contract for our city signs. It seems to be like that's sort of at a standstill now for about a month.

Yeah, I I haven't got a chance to get out and about this week. Uh but my understanding is the next phase of signs will be rightway signs within the city's right ofways. Um so they'll they'll be smaller and less noticeable. I know they've been moving dirt because they've been doing a couple drops over at DPW. Um, so those would be like our secondary gateways um on like West Maple as an example would be one of them. Um, some of the downtown directionals, those kind of things. Um, the last signs and they are taking the longest to get approved are all of the uh signage that will be in the Oakland County rightways. Um, those pro those are uh permits have been submitted and are under review. Uh, but we have not gotten authorization for them yet. So, they'll take the longest. Um they should be in um I'd like to say within the next month or two, but it it will depend on where we get with the road commission.

Yeah, they were able to get permits to put sidewalks in for all these bus stops in under a week. Just seems interesting. It's funny how that works. Thank you. Any other discussion? Very good. We'll move on to the consent agenda. All items listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by the city council and will be enacted by one motion. There'll be no separate discussion of these items unless a council member sole request in which event the items will be removed from the uh consent agenda and added to the regular agenda at the end of unfinished or new business store. Motion to approve

support. I got motion and support to approve the consent agenda as presented tonight. All those in favor please signify by saying I

I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. We have no unfinished business tonight which we will move on to the new business portion of the meeting tonight. New business number one is a recommendation to accept the bid from Hartwell Cement Company of Oak Park, Michigan for sidewalk replacement and road upgrades for $100,000 from Safety Path Construction account number 223-555-971.390 and $150,000 from Concrete Industrial Road Repairs account number 203-554-971399. Do I have a motion?

So move support. All right. Uh, city manager Brown, you want to take this along with uh, DPW? Now he's a foreman, longtime employee of DTBW, now a foreman. Uh, Russ Pearson. If you guys want to tag team on this, be fine. So, to get started, we've got two different uh, aspects of this project that's before you tonight with new business number one. It's the the sidewalk project, which is uh, details how the city goes about identifying needs across the city. Uh, and then it basically uh spells out that we're not going to have the list of individual sidewalk pieces uh put together here until we um really kind of piece it all together and come up with the the maximum amount of benefit and the maximum use of the dollars available that we have budgeted. So, um that's still in process, but we've done the uh the the different evaluations to identify trip hazards and drainage concerns on that front. And then there's a series of uh road upgrades uh in business sections of the of the town, if you will. um that is going to be done with the $150,000 from the road repairs account. Um and that's pretty much the extent of my remarks. I'll defer to Russ Pearson if he's got anything he'd like to add.

No. Okay. Any questions, man. Wow. We got to have at least one question for him. What do you think the line's right? It's not. Thanks. Thank you, sir.

Thanks, Russ. All right. I had a motion and a second to approve the recommendation to accept the bid from Hartwell Cement Company of Oak Oak Park, Michigan for sidewalk replacement and road upgrades for $100,000 from safety path construction account number 223-55-971.390 and $150,000 from concrete industrial road repairs account number 203-554-971399. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. All right. Uh, now we got a new business number two, which is a recommendation to award the bid for West End Commons Construction to DA Contracting LLC of Southfield, Michigan for a construction cost including contingency and furnishings of 1,118,82 and authorize a proposal for construction engineering services from Hubble Roth and Clark for $180,000 for a total project uh non to exceed cost of1 1 uh,298,82 from Weston Commons Capital account number 401-751-971.547 as recommended by the Downtown Development Authority. Do I have a motion?

So moved. Support.

All right. Along with Drew tonight, we've got the DDA director, Laura Clutier here, Mike Gargo from HRC. Guys, take it over. and we we uh we brought the whole gang on tonight. Uh good evening, mayor, members of city council. Before you tonight is the uh the request to or recommendation to award the bid for the West End Commons. I won't go through all of the components of the West End Commons. I know we've talked about it um you know multiple times, but u you know this this would essentially be a pocket park that includes a uh a variety of heartscape features um a small kind of stage area you know gathering spaces as well as a uh pre-fabricated bathroom. And uh we did include the plans in your packet. Happy to answer any questions you may have about those specifications. Uh I'll focus a little bit more just on the numbers here. I know there are a lot of them and some of them are a little bit confusing. Um the the reason for that is that we we work very hard to attribute costs that came in for the bids on this to the various grant sources that we have available for this. Um as mentioned in the report, the uh United States federal government is contributing 738,000 to this and Oakland County via their ARPA funding is contributing 206,000 and the Wixom DDA would be covering the balance via their TIFF capture. Uh the the bid that we are recommending tonight is to go forward with DA contracting. They were the second low bidder. Uh however, in our conversations with the lowest bidder, we had some concerns with their proposal, how they proposed it, and they were not uh responsive to the extent that we needed them to be to feel comfortable recommending them to you. So, um conversations with the second low bidder have gone well. U Mr. Darger can speak to those conversations as well. The number one thing I want to point out is that there everyone's bid amount includes a charge for sewer lining. That was a a piece added to the scope of work that is not eligible for grant funding,

but was requested because this was a good opportunity to at least consider pricing to line the sewer main that runs underneath the West End Commons since the ground is already going to be disturbed. Uh we at least wanted to explore if there would be cost savings there. uh after getting pricing in for all of them, the uh DPW determined that they didn't think that any of the prices offered or at least you know the low one was worthwhile to pursue at this time. So right off the bat that 1.137390 bid number would be reduced by $118,000. Um so that's the first piece of confusing math, but just to kind and it's it's uh you know explained a little bit further down, but I want to point that out on the front side. um we will not be proceeding with that and we will not be charged for that service. Um so moving forward uh basically there are three primary cost components of the recommendation before you tonight. Um there is the request for the construction and contingency cost which would be 1 million uh 98,000. um that that 98,000 includes the 80,000 that's referenced as a contingency which would be charged to the DDA. Again, that was all this has been set up intentionally to try to maximize the use of grant funds as opposed to maximizing the use of of local funds. So you'll notice that the contingency um and the engineering are all allocated towards the uh DDA's portion of the project whereas more of the hard costs the fixed aspects of this construction project are allocated towards our grant funding sources. Um the second piece is that there is a uh a $20,000 uh $20,293 portion of this um for West End Commons furnishings. uh we are seeking authorization to buy those furnishings in align u in line with the original

plan, but those are not through DA contracting. Again, I didn't want to make your motion have so many pieces that it would be unreadable, but I want to be clear about, you know, what we're requesting authorization for tonight. And then the third piece is the uh the engineering component, which is a proposal from Hubble, Roth and Clark, who did the design work for us. They've helped us with all of the grant administration to this point to uh basically have them do the construction observation um and con contractor management for us. Their proposal also includes a pretty substantial contingency um and it also includes some funds for the um um grant administration. All of those kind of pieces put together. We do believe this project came in under budget through bidding. We anticipate that it will going forward. Um and and we are trying to gear as much of those savings as we can towards uh the DDA and their TIFF capture. Uh with that in mind, I I imagine there may be questions, but we are happy to try to answer them however we can.

Council member Barman.

Thank you. Um first and foremost, I support the project. Um, I think the the bids that came in from the construction aspect seem all in line and I respect the decision to go with the second lowest. Um, I I understand the signage component. What I don't understand is the engineering component. Um, because you know traditionally engineering to oversee construction is around 10%. And this one seems to be substantially above that. And then it's just fishy to me that by the time you add the one component that wasn't bid out, it just comes in under budget by $238. It's like they just looked at the budget and said we can go up to the the budget amount. And I just I'd like to hear why this is more than 10%. Which is usually your ballpark for engineering. Well, the and I'll let Mike speak, but I want to make it clear that it was our recommendation to have them put the contingency in to get from 147 to the 180, right? We want to be able we're presenting this is is you know what we recommended as I do not believe they ant you're you're coming in at the 147 number. You can talk how you got to that, right? It's just when something like this isn't bid out, it's a lot of money. And I don't necessarily think that this is a project that should have been bid out given the fact they already did the design engineering. But when there's so much above the 10%, it it just gives me a little bit of second guessing on it. Do you get do you see where I'm coming from?

Uh most of that's easily explainable. I'll try my best here. Uh there's some components that we still have to work with the contractor and decide what they're going to do like the fire feature. So that's going to be a lot of review time on our end and it's unknown what we're going to need to do during construction of it. So we don't know what it is yet. So that plays into it. um some of the extra money for the grant funding is in the contingency to if DDA needs help with submitting any of the grant um documents. What else do we have?

And if and if we need additional help through ASI, we have historically subcontracted through them. Again, there are components of this that we hadn't seen coming even when we were working through the first part. So that is why we're setting a contingency a little bit higher on the front side because we don't know what we'll run into or what help HRC might need to help secure on our behalf. So we're seeking to to get authorization up to the maximum amount that the grants, you know, allowed us to uh but we anticipate coming in well under that on the actual expense side. I understand that discussion. And I guess from my standpoint, I just see that we're approving a no bid contract substantially above 10%. So I just wanted a further explanation, but I think the grant issue and the unknown with the construction, it makes sense for the $30,000 swing, but um that's the only reason why I even brought it up is just because being substantially higher than what we're used to seeing. And this is spread over two construction seasons due to the bathroom install. And it's not going to happen till next spring 2027. So whenever you start a project back up, there's always startup cost and time and that type of stuff. So that there's a little bit of fluff in there. So that's probably where you're getting a little more percentage in there.

I appreciate the explanation. And one last thing just I I want to make clear that we are build based on the hours that they acrew. So it's not a flat fee. Um some of the proposals we bring to you, we get build the same amount no matter how many hours they do or don't put in. In this scenario, um all of our billing with HRC is they submit invoices with the actual hours. So um often times we come in under sometimes it's close, sometimes we, you know, we've needed to do amendments with council before, but just I want to make that piece clear, too. Thank you. We good? Okay. I'm gonna go down. Council member McGrella Fox.

So, I have two questions, but the first is um regarding this DA contracting LLC. I mean, I'm confident that everybody did their due diligence and and who they picked. It it's it's um I mean I kind of laughed actually when I was looking at the pictures because the examples that they gave are homes and and different buildings, but you think they would have given an example of some type of pocket park that they would have done. Do they have experience doing this type of project?

I'll defer to Mike. He's talked to them more than I have, but my understanding is not a ton of this specific type of project. Well, if you look all their pictures, a lot of it is landscape beds and brick work and concrete work, which is what this project is. So, in talking to them, that is what they've done. They have a lot of um car washes on here and those are popping up everywhere and they're the look like the nice strict ones. So, they manage similar type of construction. Okay. So, you're you're confident that they're getting

Okay. Um, and then my other question, thank you. My other question is, will this um will this area will the our parks and wreck staff be programming that area as well along with the DDA? The intent uh is that the DDA would do the the primary programming. Um parks and recck would have every opportunity and ability to. Um, it's, you know, it's a city-owned piece of property being, you know, with the construction being funded by the DDA. Um, in the short run, I anticipate the DDA will do more with it. Um, but there are certainly opportunities for parks, right to, um, take advantage of it as well, and they do work together. Yeah. Okay. Super. Thank you, Council Member Simmons.

Thank you. Um, I'm obviously in support of the project. Um, the one question I had, and thanks for answering my questions earlier. um regarding the budget and all the things. Um was the note on the bot court um and are these final plans or should we expect changes from them?

These are the final plans. I think I may have made a mistake when I was rewriting the agenda items cuz sometimes I'll base them on older versions. Like I noticed a section where I said uh public or uh permanent or temporary restroom. It is it's a permanent one. in past discussions that wasn't confirmed. So in the short run and Laura correct me if I'm wrong here but there there is no FIC ball intended. It's not being constructed as a part of this but we may be able to use um do temporary setups. Um Laura can speak to the programming aspect.

Yeah originally um we envisioned a Bachi ball court there and through discussions with uh past councils and DDA we have decided not to pursue that. We will program it with like cornhole boards and you know those type of activities that can be taken in and out. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Council Member OD. Thank you.

Real quick, don't go far. No, just a simple one. Um and and maybe this has already been discussed prior uh to my arriving on council, but have any uh sponsorship type opportunities been discussed? I know I see here we have like brick papers uh you know for if folks wanted to pay for something like that or you know just in the rendering I know there's not a lot it doesn't look like there's a lot of like permanent structures like benchwise or something that folks might have a placard on or something but has it been yeah um we ha that has been brought up um we've not really gone in depth to see what that might look like u for this space but it is something that we can probably explore while we're going through the process.

Okay. Yeah. And and and a part of the uh furn furnishings not being fixed structures. Um you want movable furniture so people can gather and create their own spaces and you know feel comfortable. So deputy mayor. Thank you. Um, can you share a little bit more about I guess the issues with why we're not going with the lowest bidder?

Yeah. Uh, and again, Mike can can help with this, but essentially um, in their original proposal, they did not bid the bathroom the same way that everyone else did per the specifications included in the RFP. Uh we did work with them over I'd say what two three weeks to try and clarify and get them to to you know be able to commit hey can you do what's outlined in the RFP for the price that you've written and they said they could but they didn't really verify it to an extent that we felt comfortable with. Um so you want to add anything Mike?

No that's pretty much it. Um the restroom that they were looking at was more of just a metal structure and the company that when we looked on their website they do like guard shacks and stuff. So that's not what was in the specs. The specs are the same restroom that is in Gunner Matella Park. That's a you know concrete structure just you know probably top of the line. And one of the things that's I think important there uh we talked about it at Thunder Metal installation how how uh uh damage resistant it will turn out to be a metal building sounds exactly the opposite of that. Um I don't see that being damage resistant. I see that being very prone to being damaged by people that want to damage it. So that's a key difference as far as I'm concerned and that's why it's more expensive. Well, it also created an equity issue with if everyone else bid it the way that we asked for it to be bid, but then they bid it a completely separate way, now you've created an apples to oranges scenario for comparison. And then finally, you know, I I just think the the interactions and communications we had with them um in trying to get those questions addressed made us uh uncomfortable um you know, when thinking about what how that could look uh you know, over a six-month construction project. So putting all those factors together u you know we decided to at least move on and have conversations with the second low bidder and we felt a lot more comfortable with them. So we gave them a chance to or we asked them if they would build what we wanted and they said they would but we weren't happy with I guess

well they didn't confirm that in writing. They didn't they didn't back up how they were doing that or how that how that reflects into their bid. They weren't they weren't basically they weren't being responsive um with detailed enough information for us to feel comfortable bringing that recommendation forward. If you compare that steel building with what we were asking for, it's the cost factors are nowhere near the same. So I don't understand how they can do it for the same price. Just didn't compute. How I mean, how were they was that the only cost difference or h were they if we get rid of the bathroom from everybody's bid, how do they stack up or did we not look at it that way? Because I'm wonder it's a if we're not breaking ground immediately. It's a stretch to me to ask us to pay an extra I think it was $125,000 was the difference. I understand it's not all our money, but it's a little bit of a stretch to not try and work it out or see if we can get them to do the bulk of the project and then we hire somebody else to just do the bathroom, whoever did Gunner Mattel the way we want. But it I it I struggle with, hey, you didn't answer fast enough or we're not happy enough, so let's spend an extra six figures on this. I would rather try and get it worked out and if we can't then we can vote on this again or split it up to see if there's cost savings that way. Um the other questions I had are kind of I guess re-referencing questions or comments I had made previously. The cafe chairs and tables look like they're the same ones. And we had talked a little bit about weight limits on those and I didn't feel like those were appropriately sturdy enough

or they the weight the weight limits up to 300 lb.

Okay. So, those have increased. Okay. Um, and then the I the layout I'm still not a giant fan of having the um pavilion wall backing to the road. I just worry about safety concerns like somebody being behind there not being able to see the road or people on the road not being able to see people that are behind there for whatever reason. I mean, we have people tossing rocks and concrete off of overpasses on the highway and hurt like hurting people, damaging vehicles, and just you never know what's going to be in somebody's head. And I don't feel like it's the best safety standpoint to put a tall brick wall at a corner that people can hide behind. Um, I just hopefully nothing would ever happen. But that layout I think I had mentioned last time I prefer that was on the other side of the circle 180° around and I still kind of convinced of that. Um I do appreciate the chair weight limit in increasing. Um

I don't know if anybody else has any other com. Can I comment real? Sure. Uh the reason we did not move that is because the opposite end of the property is narrower and the space provided where the stage is going to be allows for that size of stage and that design. Um we would lose a lot of space if we moved it to the opposite end of the property um because it is narrower. No, sorry. I just mean in that same circular pad just shifted to to the other side of the circle basically. So it' still be on the west side or the north side of the property even though it's West End Commons. It' be on

I I I guess that ruins the ambiance of the open space and the connectivity from one seating plaza to the next. No. I guess it's just a a difference of opinion because it also raises the other point of like do we even need it? We have Sibly Park across the street for concerts. So I understand wanting that like it's a design feature, but do we actually actually need it if it's going to be a safety security issue? You Well, who know who who knows?

We we don't know until we know, right? Yep. Um, but one thing I will say is the businesses at that end of downtown, they do not see the impact of concerts. So, activity on a stage, whether it's a lunchtime guitar, you know, acoustic guitar player playing, it will benefit those businesses that don't see the Thursday night um concert impact. I don't disagree that that is a walk that I don't expect most people make. Um, I guess the counterpoint to like the ambiance of the openness is like you're also partly cutting off the primary view from people on the road to wonder what's behind there. Um,

well, the wonderment will bring them in. So, and and to go back to your um your comment about are we doing this immediately, we need to break ground as soon as possible because we will lose construction season time and um for the Oakland County ARPA grant, we have to expend those funds by the end of this year. We have till 2032 to I believe 2032 to expend the uh federal dollars. So, um we need to get moving on this as soon as possible.

That's fine. It just it like I understand the 2 or 3 weeks. To me, it's worth uh if we can get an answer by next meeting or see if we can split it up and save money. Like I feel like maybe we haven't checked every box to get to yes, let's spend $125,000 more. That's I guess where I'm I mean my understanding is that the contractor really as Drew has indicated he was not responsive in his um our request. Yeah. Well, and it was we we talked for three it's been four weeks since the bid opening. So I mean we've been in conversation for about a month.

Um if that was the direction of the entirety of council, you know, that's that's the direction we can go. Um, you know, at this point this is our recommendation and you know, you guys are you have every ability to act how you see fit. Was that I mean is the do we have something like line item wise in or I assume I we do since that's the sticking point here between lowest bidder and second lowest bidder. I mean I asked a question earlier how did they stack up on the rest of the project? Is that something that is accessible? Like we can say excluding the restroom situation, they were still the lowest or were they the lowest because of the restroom situation not being as we bid?

We don't know that because their price for the restroom was like $50,000 and everyone else was like $200,000. So I think if we do the math, I think the second bidder is going to be lower than the low bidder because of that. But I don't know if that's a fair comparison cuz you're not comparing the same. I'm not I'm saying if we take the bathroom out of all of the bids, right? Where do we fall? The people that bid it correctly have a higher price for the bathroom. So, their number is going to drop way down and their number for the bathroom was so low that they're not going to drop much. That's what I'm wondering though. Like are they low because of that or if they are because

that's the only reason though like if we get rid of the bathroom they're not the lowest. Correct. We did we did include a copy of the line by line bid tab in here trying to okay trying to did. So basically the lowest bid didn't bid properly with the RFP. Correct. Correct. Right. So then why would we even put this on the list? Correct. Cuz they didn't meet the criteria. So you know, basically the lowest bid is the one we're going with. Correct. Yes. That that that that's a perspective. Absolutely. Yeah. Okay.

We do have the ability to disqualify incomplete or inaccurate bids. Okay. He's got HRC. There's a table right now different rates for different people, but yes, it's uh it says it lines um 39 and 40, correct? So, if you add those two up, that's $72,000 and you compare and contrast that with the next lowest bidder at 305. That's 310. Yeah.

Yeah. That's a substantial difference that would result in them no longer being able to bid if they were apples to apples. That's making some assumptions 72,000 versus 310 on the second lowest bidder. and put it in the 240 neighborhood, which would make them the lower bidder by a substantial amount compared to the original company that was lowest bidder. Even if you included anything in the ballpark, it would be substantially lower.

Very quick financial analysis. So, you sure you come back to your guess? Yeah, I'm just normal. Okay, Council Member OD.

Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to put it out there that I definitely do not want to kick this down the road any further in light of the bid. Um, I think we have great proposals in front of us tonight and I want to vote on them tonight. Um, two more weeks out gets us into miday. We have, as you indicated, um, grant implications with the county and just the overall getting the project started. It's been my experience in my career after reviewing many bids, RFPs, things of that nature. The lowest bid is not always the best bid. It's kind of like the Olympics. Kick out the lowest and the highest and then go from there. And if a company isn't responsive when they're courting your business, it's been my experience, it gets even worse once they've secured it. So, I would like to just move on this tonight.

Council member Simmons, thank you. Um, since you're up here, uh, the question that I thought of after we, uh, again, I'm coming in, um, green to this.

Um, so I'm not sure how much council, um, has had, but, since you're here, the, uh, question I had was on the fireplace location. Um, I see it on the plans, but I don't see it on the, uh, top view, uh, rendering. Is it correct to say, and I don't we don't have anything to point to for you, so is it correct to say that it's next to the the stage area on it's it's within the stage area plaza. Okay.

Um if if you're facing drafting table and you're facing the stage, it would be slightly over to the left. I see it in one rendering view. Yeah. Okay. drawing. I just want to make sure I'm understanding just why we're here. That's great.

No worries. the rendering and the location are not showing it in the same spot the top view of what I'm seeing unless it's just the fly line but so can you tell me where it is? So, if you're looking at the stage and you have the X the center of the seating plaza, it's slightly over to the left of the X but closer to the end of the seating plaza if that makes sense.

Okay. Is it designed for people to sit all the way around it? Yes, people can sit around. Okay. And just while I have the mic, the other concern I think on not even knowing the full scope um just as what I do in my day job, the first bid, the electrical um quote seemed extremely low, too. So, I'm comfortable moving forward with DA. Council member Garland Fox, you're welcome. Thank you. Do we um it's probably not a fair question, but do we remember do we know what the bathroom cost over at um the last one that we did that?

Yeah, I I have a lip reading course in an action. It's $225,000. Three 325 32 325 just restructure. That was a larger. That was larger. Yeah, that was a larger 325 for the larger. Okay. But this one will be ours much smaller. Ours is much smaller. It is much smaller. So that's why the difference in price, but but this one also does include the cost of having to um install the utilities alongside it where the the Gunnar Mattala one already had them. So there there's a little bit of an inflated cost on that component of it, but in aggregates, yeah, prefab is less expensive. Yep. That's right.

Listed in the bids and that 38 uh 39 and 40 I should say. So even so even if we which I I'm not in favor of going with with the the lower if they if they I agree with um council member or day if they if they didn't respond to us when we put out the the RFP. What are they going to be like if we were to use them? Um and who knows maybe they'd be great but that's just not a good sign for me. But even if we were I mean it looks like the difference is roughly $124,000. It would cost more than that to do the bathroom anyway, right? Correct. No. Okay. Anybody else?

All right. Very good. Um I too I am in very much support of this. I'm glad to see it's happening. This is just going to be another jewel that we have in our city. And not only is it going to benefit the residents, but you know with the airline trail, people can ride their bikes and they got a place to meet and things like that. But and my favorite spot I think is X marks the spot. X is the place to live to work and play. So I think that's very cool. And thank you guys to the DDA for all your hard work on this project. And with that, I got a motion and a second to approve the recommendation to award the bid for the West End Commons Construction to DA Contracting LLC of Southfield, Michigan for construction cost including contingency and furnishings of 1,118,82 and authorize a proposal for construction engineering from Hubble Roth and Clark for $180,000 for a total project not to exceed cost of 1,298,800. $12 from West End Commons Capital Account number 401-751-971-547 as recommended by the Downtown Development Authority. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Get those shovels ready for us to break ground. And that concludes the new business portion of our meeting tonight. It brings us to the second call to the public. I'll read those rules again. The public shall address the council during the call to the public which shall be included on the agenda immediately after correspondence and again immediately after new business. The first call to the public immediately after correspondence shall be limited to agenda items only. A person shall not address the council in excess of 5 minutes unless the time is extended by majority vote of council president. Persons wishing to address the council shall identify themselves in their place of residence and shall state their reason for addressing the council and all comments by the public shall be made directly to the council. Do we have

anybody for the second call to the public? Seeing none, I'll close the second call to the public and move on. City manager comment. City manager round. Thank you, your honor. I just had the uh celebration of work anniversaries uh in the uh city manager update this council meeting. Um we range from one year to 22 years from Kelly Burr and parks and recreation and John Bartell and uh DPW. So, uh, congratulations and thank you to all the employees celebrating those work anniversaries. And, uh, that's all that I had in my report this evening, your honor. Very good. As city manager Benson, anything?

Uh, beyond what's included in my my monthly report, I would just say, uh, the downtown Wixom Derby Day is this Saturday. Uh, those of you who are running or volunteering, we'll see you there. If you weren't planning on going, you should come by. It's a good time. Um, we're in the team. record number of uh registrants as well this year. We're at 467. Last year we had a total of 453. We are expected to be over 500. So um something to look forward to on Saturday. That's all I have. Very good. Council comments. Uh council member Barman.

Thank you to the DP uh DPW for uh cleaning up Mag Park. It it looks uh already a little bit better. Be nice for the grass starts to grow. Okay, Council Member Kennedy, good job to the DDA for putting this together. It looks really nice. I'm excited to see how it turns out. Council member Simmons, uh, just looking forward to Derby Day. I will not be running, but I will be there in full support, cheering on those choosing to subject themselves to that. Um, and uh, I did have a comment that I forgot, so I'll leave it at that.

All right. Very good. Council member OD. Thank you. Um, just to um, congratulate ahead of time uh, the runners upcoming weekend and already a lot of thanks to the volunteers. I I shouldn't say already. The work has already been happening, but then that much more on uh, Saturday and the whole weekend. I'm sure it's going to be lovely. I will not be able to attend. Um I will be watching my daughter become a Wolverine alumni that day. So uh but I know it will be fabulous. Very good. Go Blue. Council member Grenland Fox. I'd

like to thank all of those uh employees that are celebrating their uh workveries. Um 22 years that's that's great. All the way down to one year. What is who is the the one-year person? Just out of curiosity. She works in parks recreation with Kathy and I Okay, great. That's awesome. Thank you. Good. Deputy Mayor Gota,

thank you. Um, relating to the work of versaries list, I was hoping we can update um Brian Callus's length of service for next year. I know I mentioned it last year. He's been serving in the fire department a lot longer than two years. cuz I know he took a little break because of old leadership issues, but I think I hope we can uh kind of recognize how long he's actually been serving our residents. Thank you.

Thanks. And uh I just want to thanks everybody who is celebrating work anniversary also. And I'll see everybody at the derby day. And if we do have the frost like we have, we do have a Derek Kev, the weatherman from channel or a Fox 2 there so we can uh voice our uh complaints to him personally. And with that, do I have a motion to adjurnn? All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I opposed. Motion carries. Good night, everybody.