Council Minutes

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING

MILFORD CIVIC CENTER

 

President Nader called the meeting to order in the Milford Civic Center at 7:30 p.m. President Nader led the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

PRESENT President Thomas Nader; Councilmembers Michael Glagola, Elizabeth Heer, Richard Kostin, James Kovach (7:40), Theresa Rusas, Kevin Ziegler

 

ALSO PRESENT Nick Lomako, Wade-Trim, Tim Brandt, Village of Milford Dangerous Building Inspector/Milford Township Building Official, ; Arthur Shufflebarger, Village Manager; Jennifer Elowsky, Legal Counsel

 

APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA

 

CM-06-101-09 Rusas moved, Heer seconded, to approve the June 15, 2009, consent agenda as presented. Motion CARRIED.

 

Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of June 1, 2009

 

Council Approval of Direct Debits

 

Council Approval Payroll 06/09/09

 

Transfers and Disbursements

General	$ 71,279.04
Major Street Fund	6,369.98
Local Street Fund	1,806.35
Police Fund	7,482.93
Downtown Development Authority	6,903.25
Senior Citizens Fund	809.54
Water/Wastewater Fund	7,617.86
Escrow Fund	14,423.98
Total	$116,692.93

 

APPROVE REGULAR AGENDA

 

CM-06-102-09 Heer moved, Rusas seconded, to approve the June 15, 2009, regular agenda as presented. Motion CARRIED.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Adopt Resolution of Appreciation, 09-007, Veteran’s Memorial

 

Rusas read the following resolution into the record:

 

     WHEREAS, Memorial Day is meant to reflect on the true meaning of the day, to honor America's fallen heroes and be thankful to them for their efforts and their profound patriotism, and;

     WHEREAS, the Village of Milford has traditionally held Memorial Day parades and a brief ceremony in Central Park honoring those who have given their lives and to those who still put their lives on the line for this great country, and;

     WHEREAS, under direction from American Legion’s Post 216 Past Commander Joe Salvia, many volunteers stepped up to develop a plan to enhance the Veterans Monument located in the Village of Milford’s Central Park and;  

     WHEREAS, through their remarkable efforts the Village of Milford now has a Monument that not only enhances the beauty of Central Park, but now provides the appropriate honor and dignity to those represented by the Monument.

     THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that at their Regular Meeting on June 15, 2009, the Milford Village Council, on behalf of our residents, extends their appreciation to Joe Salvia and the numerous volunteers who unselfishly gave their time, services and donations to help create the New Veteran’s Monument located in Central Park, Milford, Michigan.

 

Joe Salvia, 3770 Dunham, Highland, MI, was present and accepted the resolution. He stated he hoped to have a plaque placed in Central Park recognizing the individuals who took part in the development of the monument.

 

Adopt 2008-09 Budget Amendments

 

CM-06-103-09 Kostin moved, Glagola seconded, to adopt the 2008-09 Budget Amendments. Motion CARRIED. (Copy on File in Village offices.)

 

Set 2009/2010 Water and Sewer Rates

 

CM-06-104-09 Kostin moved, Rusas seconded, to adopt the following resolution:

 

     WHEREAS, the Milford Village Council has the power to fix by resolution, from time to time, such just and equitable rates as may be deemed advisable for supplying the inhabitants of the Village with water and sewer,

     NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the following charges be in effect for all users of the system as of July 1, 2009.

 

Water Operating & Maintenance	$1.53 per 1,000 gallons water usage
Water Debt	$1.95 per 1,000 gallons water usage
Water Base	$12.00 flat rate per quarter
Wastewater Operating & Maint.	$4.38 per 1,000 gallons water usage
Wastewater Debt	$.37 per 1,000 gallons water usage
Wastewater Base	$4.33 flat rate per quarter

 

Motion CARRIED.

 

 

Mr. Donald Bramlage, attorney for the company owning the property, requested this item be set aside until representatives for the property arrived. President Nader continued with the agenda.

 

Council returned to this item after the Manager’s Report.

 

Randy Sapelak read his letter into the record:

 

     “The minutes of a Dangerous Building Hearing that took place on 2-17-09 in the Village offices were included in the packet that went to Council for the May 18, 2009 Village Council meeting. The minutes indicated that the Dangerous Building Hearings Officer ordered the demolition of an apartment building located at 200 Peters Road and the demolition was required to take place no later than 5-1-09. That demolition did not take place and, as required by ordinance, the Council was requested to set a show cause hearing for June 15, 2009 to review the criteria that initiated the demolition order.

     Per Ord. #231, Art. IV, Dangerous Buildings, Sec. 18-94, c &d, the Village Council is required to review the findings and the order of the Hearings Officer. At the hearing, the owner, or agent of the owner, shall be given the opportunity to show cause why the building should not be demolished. The Village Council shall decide, based on facts presented, to either approve, disapprove, or modify the order for demolition.

     In this packet I have included the minutes to the Dangerous Building Hearing, brief summary of the many complaints regarding this property over the years, some of the correspondence that I have received or generated about this property and some of the most recent pictures taken both inside and outside of this building. I have also received and included a restoration proposal with some bid proposals I received by the owner’s agent but I did not include a generic contract proposal that was created by Certified Management Company. I ended my inclusion in this packet with my response to the owner’s agent, Lawrence Hadley.

     As Council reviews some of the items in this packet please pay attention to the summary and how the problems have rapidly increased with this building since 2008. The roof is in terrible shape and although I received correspondence from the owner dating back to 2004 and again in 2008 that the roof would be repaired, that work was never done and instead there exists a large blue tarp on the roof that has been there for months. The building had an illegal boiler installed in, I believe 2006, that was never inspected by the State. Council should note that their proposal for building restoration only includes replacing the roof, repairing the boiler and some painting. The proposal does not address any interior pipe repair that will forever end the annual pipe breaks. Also, the proposal does not mention new insulation, mold or rotting wood investigation, or exterior soffit, brick and flashing repairs. The building also needs to have a monitored alarm in good working order and the sprinkler heads in the building are required to be in good working order. A Knox box was requested to be installed for the fire department that was never installed. As noted on another document, the building appears to be settling in places once again and nothing was mentioned how that situation would be addressed.

     Since this building was approved for senior housing as a special conditional use, an on-site manager should have been in the building at all times. Instead, these apartments were rented to the elderly that were often times left to fend for themselves when problems arose. Sometimes apartments were rented to individuals that were not seniors. 

     I believe that the owner of this building is attempting to do the equivalent of placing a band aid on a patient that needs intensive care. The fact the owner of this building lives out-of-state compounds the matter since no one is really monitoring what is taking place at this building. 

     Due to all of the problems associated with this site I can only see this situation getting worse as time progresses. Even though the owner seems to express that doing some work will change the situation. Council should note that many pipes burst in this building in 2003 and some repairs were done but the same problems reoccurred in 2008 and 2009. I have no confidence that this building will ever be a fit place to live for anyone. It is for these many reasons the Dangerous Building Hearing was initiated and the order for demolition was given.”

 

Rod Sabourin, introduced himself to Council as the representative of the company owning the property. He specified he was not the owner and never was the owner of the property, nor did he own any stock in the property. He stated he was involved in the beginning.

 

Mr. Sabourin, stated that up until December there were two employees in the building during the week and a night time emergency person on the property.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated there had been settling in the building prior to the purchase in 2000. A company was brought in and the building was raised. He added there has been no substantial settling of the building since then, no cracks, no separation of any walls from the footings, no cracks in the footings. He stated a report from an Engineering firm was provided to back this.

 

Mr. Sabourin discussed the conditions of the boilers and that two of the circulating pumps had failed, causing the water lines to freeze in some of the units. He added that the boiler did not pass inspection because it did not have a backflow valve. The repair has been made.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated a general contractor will be involved to replace drywall and insulation. He added there were also pipes that needed to be fixed.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated they vacated the property in February 2009. He added the property is currently being maintained, but they have not been allowed to make repairs or go forward. He stated there is an insurance claim, with enough money to cover the repairs.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated this was the only low income, senior housing in this area and realized that it did not bring in as high taxes as newer developments would, but felt the “city” needed to also address low income housing in the area. He stated that some of the residents couldn’t pay their rent and that is why they called the inspector with complaints.

 

Jennifer Elowsky, Legal Counsel, Village of Milford, asked as a point of clarification, whether Mr. Sabourin owned stock in the property, referring to a letter she had from him dated May 2008 that stated he and his wife owned stock in the property. He stated he does not nor did he ever own stock in the property, and added it was possible there was a secretarial error in the letter. He stated the property was in a trust that he was not involved in.

 

Rusas asked Randy Sapelak if he had addressed the roof issue in 2004. Mr. Sapelak stated the owner wrote that roof repairs were being done in 2004 and again in 2008. To date there was still a tarp on the roof and repairs had not been done. Mr. Sapelak added he thought this roof was the original from 1983 and that roofs (referring to the type of shingle installed) don’t normally last more than twenty years.

 

Rusas informed Mr. Sabourin that if the demolition were to be granted, it had nothing to do with the tax base. The Council has always supported low income housing.

 

In regards to the roof, Mr. Sabourin stated two sections facing the East have developed significant problems. The sections facing the West and Northeast do not have any significant problems. A Manager was told to get the work done; it was not done. That Manager was terminated. Then at the same time last fall most of their credit lines were cancelled.

 

Rusas asked if the credit lines were cancelled, how Mr. Sabourin proposed to pay for the repairs of the building. Mr. Sabourin stated there was a significant insurance claim filed. He reiterated that the building was not being lived in and was a danger to no one. He feels they had a strong case. Mr. Sabourin stated the reason the insurance company denied their claim was because the “City” was going to condemn the property so the insurance company was not going to pay for anything. They are beginning Circuit Court action on the insurance claims’ denial.

 

Nader asked why there were tenants living in this “senior housing” that were not seniors. Mr. Sabourin stated there was a handicapped couple allowed to reside there. This couple was to be the weekend emergency manager. He did not feel this was an issue for condemnation, but understood it could be a zoning issue.

 

Mr. Shufflebarger stated he did not see a mold investigation as part of their proposed work plan. Mr. Sabourin stated a general contractor was coming in to do work. He stated there were only two sprinklers in the building and there was no reason to run the tests. But he said the test would be done. He was sure the building would not be reoccupied without “City” inspection and approvals.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated there was some mold in one section that was in a storage room and this was removed as well as the insulation in that area. To the best of his knowledge there was no mold anywhere else. He further stated he has had several roofers walk the roof and they found no wood that needed to be replaced. They would have started the roof repairs by now, but they were not allowed to without a building permit, and obtaining a permit was not allowed since the beginning of February.

 

Rusas asked Mr. Sabourin at what point he had started contracting for the repairs such as the mold. Mr. Sabourin stated sometime after the end of February, after the building was evacuated. Rusas asked if he was unaware of these problems until the dangerous building hearing took place on February 17, 2009. Rusas referred to pictures of ceilings caved in taken in January 2009. Mr. Sabourin stated that had been removed, along with insulation and carpeting.

 

Mr. Ziegler asked what the timeline would be to have everything done if they were to start immediately. Mr. Sabourin responded they could be done in 90 days. He stated a general contractor would do the work which would include replacing approximately 100 sheets of drywall. He added the roof could be done in a week.

 

Kostin asked if there were repairs that needed to be done before the drywall goes up. Mr. Sapelak stated he would like to see the interior of the walls. Kostin asked how many inspections would be required and whether Mr. Sapelak felt the job could be done in 90 days. Mr. Sapelak stated if working full-time it could probably be done in that time frame and that there would be approximately 20 inspections needed.

 

Rusas added if the insurance claim was denied, work could not start immediately. Mr. Sabourin reiterated that the building, foundation, roof and floors were structurally sound. He had a certified engineers report to verify these findings. He agreed there were cosmetic problems. He said the last time the building was worked on was in January (2009). Mr. Sabourin stated the electricity, gas and water were still on and the lawn was being cut every other week.

 

Kovach asked what the occupancy rate was before the evacuation. Mr. Sabourin stated 17 of the 24 units were being lived in.

 

Glagola asked what kind of bond would be placed on this project. Mr. Sapelak stated a bond would be higher than $2,500.

 

Heer asked for Mr. Sapelak’s opinion of the structure of the building. Mr. Sapelak did question the engineer’s findings and stated he knows there has been some settling. His concern was more with the disregard for the rest of the building, mentioning the roof should have been replaced five years ago and there are several openings on the outside of the building that have not been taken care of. One resident was given a heater to heat her apartment while there was still an open hole in the ceiling allowing cold air and rain to enter. Mr. Sapelak said the building can be fixed, he just questions how it will be maintained. The proposal submitted regarding repairs did not address interior pipe repairs insulation, mold, rotting wood, flashing, and drywall.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated a general contractor would be involved and would address all of these areas, including drywall, insulation and plumbing in need of repair. He said it was a badly designed building for Michigan. He added that the door Mr. Sapelak referenced to in the settling of the building was the only door that was not re-hung, and it was to the storage room. He saw no need to re-hang the door since the room was for storage only.

 

Ms. Elowsky asked where the proposal was from the general contractor. She stated because this was the show cause hearing, Council needed to see his proposal on how the problems are going to be fixed.

 

Mr. Sabourin stated again he did not have to fix the foundation, the walls or the roof because there was no structural damage there.

 

Rusas asked if the insurance claim does go through, will this be enough money to take care of the work that needs to be done. Did he have something from the general contractor showing the costs, and how could Mr. Sabourin show Council he had enough money to do work. Mr. Sabourin stated the proposed budget was $125,000 - $150,000. The work would be done on a time and material contract.

 

Larry Hadley, Hadley and Associates, stated he was a Real Estate Development Management Consultant, stated he was involved in bringing various contractors through to get bids for various repairs. It was his opinion that there was nothing in the building that could not be repaired. Mr. Hadley restated the engineer’s findings regarding the structural integrity of the building. He added that he was certain the building would not be rented without the Village’s Building Department’s complete approval upon completion of any repairs.

 

Don Bramlage, attorney for the owner of this case, wanted to place the Council’s focus on the law. He referred to items 1-13 on page 4 of the Dangerous Building Hearing minutes dated February 17, 2009 (copy on file). Mr. Bramlage stated that the thirteen items listed did not justify demolition of the building according to the definition in the Village’s Dangerous Building Ordinance, Sec. 18-92. Reference items (1) through (9) (copy on file). He felt none of the definitions listed were congruent with the Dangerous Building Hearing findings. He did not feel anything had been violated according to the Village’s ordinance or that the building could be classified as a dangerous building. He also reiterated that the building was currently vacant, therefore no one was in danger and that no one would reside there until a Certification of Occupancy was issued. He stated the building will be repaired, but this not a requirement under the Dangerous Building ordinance.

 

Kovach and Heer felt items 6 and 8 under definitions, Sec 18-92, Dangerous Building Ordinance, did qualify as reasons for demolition.

 

Mr. Bramlage stated there has to be a certification of a Health Officer, and there has not been such certification regarding the health issues.

 

Heer commented on the letters received from residents and relatives of residents complaining about no heat, ceiling falling on their heads and living with mold and becoming ill from these conditions. These are conditions of a dangerous building.

 

Rusas asked if the building was still occupied at the time of the dangerous building hearing. The response was yes. She commented that the building would not have been vacated if not told to do so by order of the Hearing Officer.

 

Mr. Bramlage asked if Council was to look at the situation as of current date or prior to the Dangerous Building Hearing. He felt items should be addressed as they appear currently.

 

Kostin felt the only reason individuals were evacuated was because of the Hearing, and that was the timeframe he was referring to. He stated the building was dangerous and should not have been occupied and that was why they were evacuated.

 

Mr. Bramlage stated that the Dangerous Building Hearing officer did not make that finding. He felt the only thing Council should be reviewing was the evidence provided a the Dangerous Building Hearing.

 

Jennifer Elowsky asked Tim Brandt, Dangerous Building Hearing officer, to read through the criteria as listed in Sec. 18-92, Definitions, and state how it does or does not pertain to this hearing. Mr. Brandt read each item and gave the following determination pertaining to each:

 

(1) Does apply: In his inspection of the property he noted the rear exit was blocked with 3” of standing water and debris materials.

(2) Does not apply because there was not a catastrophe.

(3) This item speaks to the exterior of the building, did not feel it applied in this case.

(4) Does not apply.

(5) Does apply: Deterioration and decay would be a problem due to lack of maintenance. The migration of water from the outside, open to elements for quite some time. He said he cannot see the damage inside the walls, however as experienced inspectors, you know problems exist when you allow water to enter a building over many years.

(6) Does apply: The building was intended to be rented. It was unsafe when he was there. He was wearing a jacket in apartments where people were using portable heaters and kerosene heaters. He was in standing water where there was live electricity. The sprinkler system heads were rusted. The heating system was unapproved. Space heaters are not an approved source of heat for habitation.

(7) Didn’t feel this applied as it was not in a condition for people to trespass.

(8) Does apply: He knew he wasn’t a health officer, however he was in the apartment with water falling on his head from the ceilings from rain, not broken pipes.

(9) Does apply: He stated there were enough openings on the exterior of the building to allow the elements to enter causing deterioration. They had the opportunities to make repairs and maintenance, and it wasn’t being done.

 

Ms. Elowsky asked Mr. Brandt if this was his recollection of the Dangerous Building Hearing held on February 17, 2009 and if he recalled if this was the information he reviewed at the time and these were the findings he made at that time. Mr. Brandt stated yes and that he had the opportunity to walk through the building a few days before the hearing.

 

Ms. Elowsky reiterated to Council the steps that led to this Show Cause Hearing. She stated in February the Dangerous Building Hearing was held where the Dangerous Building Officer made the findings and ordered the building be vacated and be demolished by May 1. The building has not been demolished, so it was necessary to have this show cause hearing so the owner could explain why the building was not demolished as ordered by the Hearings Officer. Council is reviewing what happened at the Dangerous Building Hearing, the results of that hearing and the owner’s failure to comply with the order.

 

Thad Sienkiewicz, 977 Panorama, asked if the repairs were made, whether the apartments would remain senior housing. It was stated that was the designated use and zoning for that property. Mr. Sabourin stated he had no idea what the estimated rent would be for the units.

 

Charles Mize, past resident of Woodland Apartments, urged anyone who has lived in the apartments to be checked with an infectious disease doctor for mold. Ms. Elowsky asked if he was the part-time manager of the building. He stated he was not.

 

Ann Collins, 655 Hilldale Circle, asked Mr. Sabourin to explain his statement that he was not allowed to pull permits, was this prior to the hearing? Mr. Sabourin stated the freeze up happened a little before the hearing. The repairs on the pipes did not require a permit. He stated after the hearing the Boiler people were in and they were denied pulling a permit.

 

Jerry Aubry, 245 S. Main, asked when work would start on the project if given permission. Mr. Sabourin stated repairs could begin within a short time, depending on the “City” permit.

 

Joe Salvia, Highland, asked does the owner have resources other than insurance to bring building to occupancy status. Mr. Sabourin stated their company has the ability to commence and proceed with repairs.

 

Rusas asked if the repairs for the building would require new sprinklers. Mr. Sapelak stated the existing sprinklers were definitely in need of repair. In his opinion the whole system should be done, but he would need to go to the State to get recommendation.

 

Sarah Mize, past resident of Woodland Apartments, felt the elderly residents were taken advantage of while living there.

 

Jerry Aubry asked why this had not been brought to Council before. They were given until May 1 to do what the Hearing’s Officer ordered. They were not given an option to appeal this to Council before this date. This show cause hearing is their appeal process. If Council did enforce the motion of Hearing Officer, the owner has the option to appeal in Circuit Court.

 

Rusas felt the building did not get into this condition over night, or that anything would have been done if the Dangerous Building Hearing had not taken place, and she did not believe there was a realistic plan to do anything about the situation. She was prepared to stand by the Building officials.

 

CM-06-105-09 Kovach moved, Heer seconded, based upon: (1) the Report submitted to Village Council by the Village Building Official; (2) the findings and Order of the Dangerous Building Hearing Officer; and (3) the evidence and testimony presented by the owner and/or his agent, the Village Council of Milford hereby orders the Woodland Apartments Building, located at 200 Peters Road, Milford, Michigan be demolished by the Village. It is further ordered that the cost of the demolition shall be a lien against the real property. The owner whose name appears on the last local tax assessment records shall be notified of the amount of demolition cost and, if he fails to pay such costs within thirty (30) days, the assessor shall add such costs to the next tax roll of the Village. Motion CARRIED.

 

Approve Wade Trim Proposal for Bid Package Preparation on CDBG Stimulus Project

 

CM-06-106-09 Kostin moved, Rusas seconded, to approve Wade Trim proposal for bid specification document preparation and associated services for a cost not to exceed $3,500. Motion CARRIED.

 

Approve Purchase of Police Department Vehicle

 

CM-06-107-09 Kostin moved, Rusas seconded, to waive bid requirement due to the Oakland County pre-bid program; approve purchase this vehicle for a total of $29,448.40; and approval of conversion costs as necessary, up to $3500. Motion CARRIED.

 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

 

Nader asked if there was anyone who wished to address Council on an item that was not on the agenda. There was no response.

 

MANAGERS REPORT

 

Mr. Shufflebarger reported that the water system project is undergoing clean-up and restoration activities, and all the water system that has been installed and all individuals that needed to be are hook up to the system.

 

Mr. Shufflebarger looked at the ordinance and has spoken to the owner of Coratti’s regarding outdoor seating. The ordinance does call for a five foot walkway for pedestrians at all times and the owner has been reminded of this requirement. The fencing is required because of LLC regulations, and Mr. Shufflebarger did not see a problem with the fencing that was in place.

 

Mr. Shufflebarger reminded Council of the Special Council Meeting to be held on June 22, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. He also informed Council and the public of upcoming 4th of July events.

 

 

Glagola requested a Resolution of Appreciation be prepared for Stan Zasuwa upon his resignation from the Planning Commission.

 

Kostin stated at the Planning Commission stated a Public Hearing was set to discuss the draft for recreational vehicles. He added that the owner of the old St. Mary’s Church was at the meeting and presented plans to make the building into a Jazz Hall. Kostin attended the ribbon cutting ceremony at the Medi-Lodge on Highland Ave., which is intended for short-term rehabilitation.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

 

Deborah S. Frazer, Clerk

Village of Milford