HomeMy WebLinkAboutInterlocal Agreements - 2016.08.31 - 31120 PONTIAC CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REVIEW
September 22, 2016 6:00 pm 150th Session of the 9th Council
It is this Council’s mission “To serve the citizens of Pontiac by committing to help provide an enhanced quality of life for
its residents, fostering the vision of a family-friendly community that is a great place to live, work and play.”
Call to order
Moment of Silence or Invocation
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Authorization for excused absences for councilmembers
Amendments to and approval of the agenda
Approval of Minutes
1. September 15, 2016 2. Closed Session Minutes of September 8, 2016 and September 15, 2016
Special Presentation-
3. Deputy Oakland County Executive Matthew Gibb
Departmental Head Reports
Subcommittee Oral Report
Community Announcements
Recognition of Elected Officials
Public Comment
Public Hearing
4. Public hearing for City of Pontiac and Bloomfield Township, Oakland County, Michigan as platted in
“Bloomfield Acres”, a subdivision of part of the SW ¼ of the NW ¼ Section 5, T2N, R10E, recorded in Liber 41,
Page 49 Plats, Oakland County Records, as vacated by the resolutions recorded in Liber 8534, Page 431 and Liber
20379, Page 601 and Liber 36534, Page 537 and Liber 38061, Page 283 and Liber 49182, Page 351.
5. Resolution for vacation of property.
AGENDA ITEMS FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
6. Amended Brownfield for The Village at Bloomfield Project 7. 2016 Oakland County Brownfield Consortium Agreement
8. State Mandated 63-day Review Period-request to distribute master plan, Complete Streets Amendment.
Mayor Report
Clerk, City Attorney and Council Closing Comments
Adjournment
Adjournment
September 15, 2016
Official Proceedings
Pontiac City Council
149111 Session of the Ninth Council
A Regular Meeting of the City Council of Pontiac, Michigan was called to order in City Hall, Thursday,
September 15,2016 6:00p.m. by President Patrice Waterman.
Moment of Silence
Invocation -Kermit Williams
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Members Present: Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward.
Members Absent: Carter, Holland, and Taylor-Burks.
Mayor Waterman was present.
Deputy Mayor Jane Bais-Disessa was present.
Clerk announced a quorum.
16-245 Excuse Councilperson Carter, Holland and Taylor-Burks for personal reasons.
Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Councilperson Woodward.
Ayes: Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Motion Carried.
Councilman Randy Carter and Mark Holland arrived at 6:01 p.m.
16-246 Approval of the Agenda with 2 agenda item add-ons. (Emergency Ordinance #2337
and a resolution requesting rehabilitation study of the ewalt center) Moved by Council person Woodward
and supported by Councilperson Holland.
Ayes: Holland, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: Carter and Pietila
Motion Carried.
16-247 Journal of September 8, 2016. Moved by Councilperson Woodward and supported by
Councilperson Carter.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman and Woodward
No: Williams
Motion Carried.
16-248 Resolution to go into Closed Session. Moved by Councilperson Woodward and
supported by Councilperson Carter.
1
September 15, 2016
Whereas, Section 8 (e), MCL 15.268, permits a public body "[to] consult with its attorney regarding trial
or settlement strategy in connection with specific pending litigation, but only if an open meeting would
have detrimental financial effect on the litigation or settlement position of the public body": and,
Whereas section 8 (h) to consider material exempt from discussion or disclosure by state or federal
statute.
Whereas, the Pontiac City Council believes that an open meeting would have a detrimental financial
effect on the litigating or settlement position of the City:
Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Pontiac City Council recesses into closed session for the purpose of
consulting with its attorney regarding settlement strategy in the case of Bloomfield Village Owner vs.
City of Pontiac.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Resolution Passed.
16-249 The Pontiac City Council schedules a public hearing on September 22,2016 at 6:00
p.m. during the regular council meeting regarding the Bloomfield Village Street Vacation. Moved
by Councilperson Woodward and supported by Councilperson Pietila.
Be It Further Resolved that the Pontiac City Council schedules a public hearing on September 22, 2016 at
6:00p.m. during the regular council meeting in the council chambers on the 2nd floor at 47450 Woodward
Ave., Pontiac, MI 48342 regarding the City of Pontiac and Bloomfield Township, Oakland County,
Michigan as platted in "Bloomfield Acres", a subdivision of part of the SW 'l4 of the NW 'l4 Section 5,
T2N, RlOE, recorded in Liber 41, Page 49 Plats, Oakland County Records, as vacated by the resolutions
recorded in Liber 8534, Page 431 and Liber 20379, Page 601 and Liber 36534, Page 537 and Liber
38061, Page 283 and Liber 49182, Page 351.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Resolution Passed.
Departmental Head Reports-Deputy Mayor Jane Bias-DiSessa
Subcommittee Oral Repot1s-Public Safety and LT.
Recognition of Elected Officials -Trustee Sherman Williams and Chairman Rosie Richardson
16-250 Resolution for General Motors Student Corps. Moved by Councilperson Woodward
and supported by Councilperson Pietila.
Whereas, The Pontiac City Council encourages an environment in which volunteers in the community can
flourish; and
Whereas, The Pontiac City Council recognizes that City Government excels when community
involvement is maximized; and,
Whereas, The General Motors Student Corps volunteered hours of their time at the beginning of the
summer on July 7, 2016, working every Tuesday and Thursday; and,
Whereas, these students worked cutting down branches, trimming branches, painting playground
equipment and cleaning debris; and,
2
September 15, 2016
Whereas, The cohmt of David Aguilar, Lillian Baker, Oscar Banuelos, Dashinique Howard, Kenzie
McCarthy, Kenneth Ortha, Raven Simpson, Ali'jah Smith, Brayan Reyes, and Craig Turner did a
fantastic job of helping with the renovation of Indian Village Park.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that we, the members of the Pontiac City Council honor the personal
achievements of these spectacular young men and woman of the General Motors Student Corps and
would like to salute and give them a gracious thank you for a job well done.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Resolution Passed.
16-251 Resolution for the 2016 Oakland County Pilot Local Road Improvement Program.
Moved by Councilperson Pietila and supported by Councilperson Woodward.
Whereas, the City of Pontiac submitted an application for the 2016 Oakland County Pilot Local Road
improvement Program for supplemental funding for the resurfacing of Franklin Road;
Whereas, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners established the 2016 Oakland County Pilot Local
Road Improvement Program for the purpose of improving economic development in Oakland County;
Whereas, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners awarded the City of Pontiac a grant in the amount
of$84,754.00 to supplement the funding of this project;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City Council for the City of Pontiac does hereby accept the
terms of the Cost Participation Agreement for the 2016 Local Road Improvement Matching Fund Pilot
Program and authorizes the mayor and/or Deputy Mayor to sign and enter into this agreement.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Resolution Passed.
16-252 Resolution for DPW Purchase of (2) Pick-up Trucks. Moved by Councilperson Pietila
and supported by Councilperson Woodward.
Whereas, the Department of Public Works is in need of two new pickup trucks that will allow personnel
to perform there required daily assignments and perform the required and needed services to the citizens
of the City of Pontiac, and;
Whereas, the Department of Public Works has assessed the need and provided the necessary supporting
bid documents and;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Pontiac City Council, after review by the Purchasing officer and
Finance Director, an upon the recommendation of the Mayor, approves the purchases of (2) vehicles for
use by the Department of Public Works.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Resolution Passed.
16-253 Emergency Ordinance #2337 (Amended). Moved by Councilperson Woodward and
supported by Councilperson Pietila.
An ordinance to provide for a limited increase in pension payments for certain members of the
General Employee Retirement System.
3
September 15, 2016
Whereas, the temporary increase to certain members of the GERS pension system is set to expire on
August 31, 20 16; and,
Whereas, the City Council desires that this temporary increase continues for at least one more year; and,
Whereas, in order for this temporary increase to continue, the Transition Advisory Board must
recommend that the State Treasurer approve an amendment to Order S-307; and,
Whereas, such amendment must be approved by the State Treasurer before September 1, 2016; and,
Whereas, the Pontiac City Council considers this an emergency.
The City of Pontiac ordains:
Section 1. Amendments.
The General Employee Retirement System ordinance shall be amended to read as follows:
a. Section 17.6 shall be amended to add the following language:
Temporary Pension Increase
"All persons who are receiving retirement benefits as of August 1, 2016 and who enter pay
status through August 1, 2017, shall be entitled to receive an increase in their monthly
allowance of four hundred dollars ($400.00) per month beginning September 1, 2016 through
August 31, 2017. Should the City of Pontiac as a result of litigation or settlement thereto,
provide a compensation that is understood as an alternative healthcare benefit, the monthly
allowance of $400 per month ends or at least it is adjusted
Section 2. Severability.
If any section, or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared to be unconstitutional, void, illegal, or
ineffective by any Court of competent jurisdiction, such section, clause or provision declared to be
unconstitutional, void or illegal shall thereby cease to be a part of this Ordinance, but the remainder of the
Ordinance shall stand and be in full force and effect.
Section 3. Repealer.
All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent
necessary to give this Ordinance full force and effect.
Section 4. Publication.
The Clerk shall publish this Ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation.
Section 5. Emergency Declaration and Effective Date.
This Ordinance is declared an emergency to allow the pension recipients to collect the increase authorized
in this Ordinance on the date identified in this Ordinance and shall be effective immediately upon
adoption by the City Council and approval by the Transition Advisory Board and State Treasurer. This
ordinance must be approved by the State Treasurer by August 31, 2016.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Abstain: Waterman
Ordinance Passed.
16-254 Resolution requesting a Rehabilitation Study of the Ewalt Center. Moved by
Councilperson Woodward and supported by Councilperson Pietila.
4
September 15, 2016
Whereas, on August 11, 2016, this Council passed a resolution creating a ballot question regarding an
additional millage for youth center funding; and,
Whereas, the Council has been advised that the City-owned Ewalt Center no longer has any interested
buyers; and,
Whereas, the Council believes that the Ewalt Center could be viable option to serve as a City-wide Youth
Center, if deemed fit for public use; and,
Now, therefore, Be It resolved, that the City Council formally requests that the City's Administration
conduct a study and analysis of the Ewalt Center to determine what needs to be done in order to abate any
building deficiencies and restore the building to a condition where it could serve as a city-wide youth
center. Any study should include both a description of what remediation is required and the approximate
cost of such remediation.
Ayes: Carter, Holland, Pietila, Waterman, Williams and Woodward
No: None
Resolution Passed.
Mayor Deidre Waterman Reported.
City Clerk Sherikia L. Hawkins, Councilman Kermit Williams, Councilman Mark Holland, Councilman
Don Woodward, Councilman Randy Carter, Pro-Tem Mary Pietila and President Patrice Waterman made
closing comments. City Attorney Travis Mihelick had no closing comments.
Councilman Randy Carter left the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
President Patrice Waterman adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
SHERIKIA L. HAWKINS
CITY CLERK
5
CITY OF PONTIAC CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF ROSTEL ROAD IN THE CITY OF
PONTIAC AND APPROVING CONSENT JUDGMENT
The Pontiac City Clerk read a proposed street and utility vacation submitted by
Bloomfield Village Owner, LLC, as part of Case No. 2016-154386-CH pending in the
Oakland County Circuit Court, requesting to vacate a small portion of Rostel Road,
including any utility easements. The property is legally described as:
All that part of Rotsel Road, which lies west of a line described as theSE
line of lot 63 of said subdivision extended North 39 degrees 43 minutes 30
seconds East to a point in the south line of lot 8 of said subdivision (19-05-
151-000).
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.113 of the City Charter, a public hearing on this
street and utility vacation was held on September 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Pontiac City Council finds that the proposed street and utility vacation
would not restrict or hinder access needed by adjacent or nearby property owners; and
WHEREAS, the Pontiac City Council finds that the street and utility vacation is
necessary to accommodate the redevelopment of the petitioner's property; and
WHEREAS, the Pontiac City Council finds that this section of Road had previously
intended to be vacated by the Pontiac City Council in 2005, but failed to include the
above legal description; and
WHEREAS, the Pontiac City Council has been provided with a legal opinion from the
City attorney about the case of Bloomfield Village Owner, LLC v. Jefferson Group LLC,
et. a/, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 2016-154386-CH and believes it to be in
the best interest of the City to enter into the Consent Judgment provided by the City
Attorney; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council formally vacates the
remaining portion of Rostel Road, along with any utility easements, as legally described
above; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby
authorized to take any action necessary to accomplish and finalize the transfer of the
property to the grantee(s); and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor is hereby
authorized to enter into and sign the Consent Judgment presented by the City Attorney
in resolution of Case No. 2016-154386-CH, as described above.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, Pontiac, Michigan, this 22"d day
of September, 2016.
AYES: ____________________ __
NAYS: ____________________ __
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COUNTY OF OAKLAND
CITY OF PONTIAC
RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
A BROWNFIELD PLAN ADOPTED BY THE OAKLAND COUNTY
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE
VILLAGE OF BLOOMFIELD PROJECT
RECITATIONS:
WHEREAS, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners, pursuant to and in
accordance with the provisions of the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act, being Act 3 81
ofthe Public Acts of the State of Michigan of 1996, as amended (the "Act"), have established a
Brownfield Redevelopment Authority and Board (OCBRA) to facilitate the clean up and
redevelopment of Brownfields within Oakland County's communities; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Bloomfield project, in the City of Pontiac is a Brownfield
under state statute; and
WHEREAS, a Brownfield clean up and redevelopment plan (the "Plan") has been
prepared to help redevlop the site in order to restore the environmental and economic viability of
it which the OCBRA has reviewed and approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to OCBRA by-laws, a local committee has been appointed,
participated in discussions regarding the proposed plan and project, reviewed the plan, and
recommends its approval; and
WHEREAS, the OCBRA, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 13 of the Act, shall
consider recommending that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners approve the
Brownfield Plan to be carried out within the City of Pontiac, relating to the redevelopment of
Village of Bloomfield (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Plan, and have been provided a reasonable
opportunity to express their views and recommendations regarding the Plan in accordance with
Sections 13(13) ofthe Act; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City of Pontiac hereby concurs
with the provisions of the Plan including approval of the Plan by the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners and implementation of the Plan by the Oakland County Brownfield
Redevelopment Authority.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT should any section, clause or phrase of this
Resolution be declared by the courts to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this
Resolution as a whole nor any part thereof other than the part so declared to be invalid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict
with any of the provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
It is hereby certified that the foregoing Resolution is a true and accurate copy of the
Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Pontiac at a meeting duly called and held
on the _day of September, 2016.
CITY ofPONTIAC
By: ____________________________ _
________________________ ,CLERK
2
OAKLAND COUNTY
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AMENDED BROWNFIELD PLAN
FOR
THE VILLAGE AT BLOOMFIELD
PROJECT
Prepared by:
REDICO, Master Developer for Bloomfield Village Owner LLC
Contact Person: Ken Till
Senior Vice President, Development
One Towne Square, Suite 1600
Southfield, Michigan 48076
Phone:248-784-6466
Lynn A. Gandhi, Esq.
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, LLP
660 Woodward A venue
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone:313-465-7646
lgandhi@honigman.com
22121719.6
September 2, 2016
OAKLAND COUNTY
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BROWNFIELD PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................. 2
A. Description of the Eligible Property (Section 13(1)(h)) and the Project ............ 2
B. Basis of Eligibility (Section 13(1)(h) and Section 2(n)) ........................................ 4
C. Summary of Eligible Activities and Description of Costs (Section 13(1)(a),(b))5
D. Estimate of Captured Taxable Value and Tax Increment Revenues
(Section 13(1)(c)); Beginning Date of Capture of Tax Increment Revenues
(Section (13)(1)(f); Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Taxing Jurisdictions
(Section 13(1)(g)) ........................................................................................................... 6
E. Plan of Financing (Section 13(1)(d)); Maximum Amount of Indebtedness
(Section 13(1)(e)) ........................................................................................................... 7
F. Duration of Plan (Section 13(1)(1)) ......................................................................... 7
G. Effective Date of Inclusion in Brownfield Plan .................................................... 7
H. Estimate of the Impact of Tax Increment Financing on the Revenues of All
Taxing Jurisdictions in Which the Eligible Property is Located (Section 13(1)(g). 8
I. Displacement or Relocation of Individuals on Eligible Property and Financial
Assistance and Other Reimbursement of Expenses (Section 13(1)(i-1)) ................... 8
III. ATTACHMENTS ......................................................................................................... 9
ATTACHMENT A .................................................................................................. 10
ATTACHMENT B .................................................................................................. 11
ATTACHMENT C .................................................................................................. 13
ATTACHMENTD .................................................................................................. 16
22121719.6
I. INTRODUCTION
In order to promote the revitalization of environmentally impacted and other eligible
areas within the boundaries of Oakland County, Michigan (the "County"), the County has
established the Oakland County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (the "OCBRA")
pursuant to Michigan Public Act 381 of 1996, as amended ("Act 381").
The primary purpose of this Brownfield Plan ("Plan") is to promote the redevelopment of
and private investment in certain properties within the County. Inclusion of property
within this Plan will facilitate financing of environmental response and other eligible
activities at eligible properties, and provide an incentive to eligible developers willing to
invest in revitalization of eligible sites, commonly referred to as "brownfields". By
facilitating redevelopment of brownfield properties, this Plan is intended to promote
economic growth for the benefit of the residents of the County and all taxing units
located within and supported by the OCBRA.
The Plan project area is within the City of Pontiac pursuant to Michigan Public Act 425
of 1984, as amended ("Act 425").
This Plan is intended to apply to the eligible property identified in this Plan and, if tax
increment revenues are proposed to be captured from that eligible property, to identify
and authorize the eligible activities to be funded by such tax increment revenues.
This Plan is intended to be a living document, which may be modified or amended in
accordance with the requirements of Act 381, as necessary to achieve the purposes of
Act 381. The applicable sections of Act 381 are noted throughout the Plan for reference
purposes.
This Brownfield Plan describes the project to be completed (see Attachment C) and
contains information required by Section 13 ( 1) of Act 3 81.
1
22121719.6
II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Description of the Eligible Property (Section 13(1)(h)) and the Project
The property comprising the eligible property consists of four ( 4) parcels and all tangible
personal property located thereon. One (1) parcel has the cunent address of 1957 S.
Telegraph Road, Pontiac, Michigan. Three (3) of the parcels have no cunent assigned
addresses, and are located in Pontiac, Michigan. The parcels are functionally obsolete
within the meaning of Act 3 81, see Section II B.
Bloomfield Village Owner, LLC is the project developer ("BVO" or "Developer"). The
project is the development of approximately 87 acres of land into over 900,000 square
feet of development for a variety of mixed commercial and retail uses, including utilities,
roadways and other improvements, and the intended construction thereon of
approximately 350 apartments in the latest contemporary design.
Attachment A includes a site map of the parcel. The property is located on the east side
of Telegraph Road, north of Franklin Road.
Parcel information is indicated below.
Address Parcel Number
1957 S. Telegraph Rd., Pontiac 19-05-159-003
No address, Pontiac 19-05-159-006
No address, Pontiac 19-05-15 9-004
No address, Pontiac 19-05-159-005
The parcels located thereon and improvements will comprise the eligible property and is
referred to herein as the "Property". See Attachment B for a legal description of the
Property.
The historical developed uses of the Property included agricultural, residential, retail and
commercial uses. Prior to World War II, the Property was primarily agricultural in
nature, planted with row crops. During the post-war decades, the Property was developed
to include commercial offices, miscellaneous retail stores, an automobile dealership, a
gasoline station and a drive-in movie theater to meet the needs of the growing suburban
environment. In addition, in response to the post-war housing demand, the interior of the
Property site was developed with single-family residential dwellings along Hood and
Rotsel Roads. The existing vacant and abandoned structures were constructed during the
late 2000s in conjunction with the now defunct Bloomfield Park project.
2
22121719.6
Attachment C provides a description of the project to be completed at the Property (the
"Project"). The Project description provided herein is a summary of the proposed
development at the time of the adoption of the Plan. The actual development may vary
from the project description provided herein, without necessitating an amendment to this
Plan, so long as such variations arise because of changes in market and/or financing
conditions affecting the project and/or are related to the addition of amenities to the
project. Any material or substantive changes to the project description may be subject to
an amendment as determined by the OCBRA Board of Directors and shall be consistent
with the overall nature of the proposed development, its proposed purpose, and the
purposes of Act 3 81.
Currently, the Property is burdened with eight (8) structures in various stages of
completion, all of which have been qualified as functionally obsolete by the Oakland
County Assessor. It is anticipated that all structures will need to be demolished, but for
one building and one parking structure. It is hoped that these two structures will be able
to be rehabilitated. The total estimated costs associated with demolition is almost three
(3) million dollars. The rehabilitation of the vacant and blighted Property will provide a
needed stimulus in a geographic area that has undergone significant financial stress (City
of Pontiac). This development is expected to act as a catalyst for further improvements
along other portions of the major corridor that it fronts (i.e. Telegraph Road) and provide
retail and employment opportunities for nearby residents, many of whom rely upon
public transportation for mobility. The development will remove large, vacant and
blighted eyesore along a major corridor.
3
22121719.6
B. Basis of Eligibility (Section 13(1)(h) and Section 2(n))
The Property is considered "eligible property" as defined by Act 381, as the majority of
the structures at the site have been determined to be "functionally obsolete" as
determined by a Level3 assessor, as defined by Act 381.
Parcels 19-05-159-004, 19-05-159-005, and 19-05-159-006 contain structures that are
functionally obsolete. Parcel No 19-05-159-006 is contiguous to parcel19-05-159-003.
All existing structures have been affected by water incursion. Buildings A, B and C have
constant water leakage and ponding causing concern with the structural integrity of
bearing soils with heaving observed on site. These properties also exhibit concern with
damage to the roofing systems.
Building D has similar foundation issues caused by water leakage and ponding. These
concerns extend past the foundation and impacted both the precast plank floor and the
loadbearing concrete masonry walls (CMUs). In the parking area of this structure
ponding in the elevator pits and issues with components of the foundation caused by
water were also observed.
The Building E report reflects extensive ponding and silt build-up. The deck is
incomplete and no drawings are available. The DCNE report specifically notes hat
without a complete set of recast shop drawings, erection drawings or fabricated members
that this deck cannot be saved.
Building F has the same foundation findings found in A-D, with an additional finding
that the interior pad may not have sufficient frost depth. This building also reflects issues
with loadbearing CMUs. Building G has only a partially erected steel frame.
Former Building G was demolished in December 2015 as it posed a safety hazard to the
site maintenance crew.
Building J again reflects similar foundation findings as noted in A-D, as well as notable
steel frame corrosion, issues with the precast plank floor system, issues with the
cantilevered deck balconies (cracking and corrosion of the steel deck plate) and concerns
with the loadbearing CMUs. In addition, while access to the high roof was not available,
observation of the low roof indicated that all roofing needed replacement. The 2016
report reflects emergency shoring is required in order to prevent major structural failure.
The final building is referenced as BP-CIN. It has partially erected foundations and
reinforcing CMUs which are in poor condition. The report reflects that the area
surrounding this is "saturated and swampy" and based on this building. BP-CIN was
demolished in August 2016 to maintain site safety.
Utilities, plumbing, heating and sewerage have been rendered ineffective, and the
property is unfit at this time for its intended use.
4
22121719.6
The property also contains super adequacies in design, particularly due to the parking
structures needed for re-use of the site. The existing parking at the site exceeds the
anticipated needs by over 1,550 parking stalls. Building E is not feasible to complete,
given that it is only 25% complete with no detailed drawings to rely on to complete.
Deck J contains 1,563 additional spaces. These spaces have no known attributable use as
adequate parking is designed for each proposed tenant that is contiguous with the
buildings they will occupy. Costs required to repair structural damages and complete this
Deck are projected at $21.5 million. This cost includes the cost associated to the failing
beam which threatens a partial collapse of the second floor at this time. Retainage of
Deck J would continue this situation of super adequacy relative to reasonable parking on
site ranging from over 1,550 to 2,000 parking stalls.
For additional detail, a copy of 1) Review of Phase 1 -Condition Assessment Report of
Bloomfield Park, updated August 16, 2016 by DNCE, Inc., and 2) Bloomfield
Development Impact Assessment, dated September 2, 2016, by Baker Tilly, has been
provided.
C. Summary of Eligible Activities and Description of Costs (Section 13(1)(a),(b))
The "eligible activities" that are intended to be conducted at the Property are "eligible
activities" as defined by Section 2 of Act 381, because they include previously incurred,
as well as future, demolition, site preparation, infrastructure improvements, interest costs,
baseline environmental assessment activities, due care activities, potential additional
response activities, and development and preparation of a brownfield plan and work plan.
Eligible activities include all eligible soft costs directly related to the demolition,
infrastructure improvements, and site preparation improvements, including design,
engineering and testing activities. A summary of the eligible activities and the estimated
cost of each eligible activity intended to be paid with tax increment revenues from the
Property are shown in the table attached hereto as Attachment D. The eligible activities
described in Attachment D are not exhaustive. Additional eligible activities may be
carried out at the Property, without requiring an amendment to this Plan, so long as such
eligible activities are permitted by Act 381 and the performance of such eligible activities
does not exceed the total costs stated in Attachment D by more than 15%.
Demolition activities are anticipated to begin in 2016 and the majority of eligible
activities are expected to be completed in 2019.
The Developer desires to be reimbursed for the costs of eligible activities. Tax increment
revenue generated by the Property will be captured by the OCBRA and used to reimburse
the cost of the eligible activities completed on the Property either before or after approval
of this Plan pursuant to the terms of a Reimbursement Agreement with the OCBRA (the
"Reimbursement Agreement"), subject to limits contained in Act 381.
The costs listed in Attachment C are estimated costs and may increase or decrease
depending on the nature and extent of environmental contamination and other unknown
conditions encountered on the Property. The actual cost of those eligible activities
encompassed by this Plan that will qualify for reimbursement from tax increment
5
22121719.6
revenues of the OCBRA from the Property shall be governed by the terms of the
Reimbursement Agreement. No costs of eligible activities will be qualified for
reimbursement except to the extent permitted in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Reimbursement Agreement and Section 2 of Act 381. The Reimbursement
Agreement and this Plan will dictate the total cost of eligible activities subject to
payment, however, the total cost of eligible activities subject to payment or
reimbursement under the Reimbursement Agreement shall not exceed the estimated costs
set forth above by more than 15% without an amendment to this Plan. As long as the
total costs, adjusted by the 15% factor, are not exceeded, line item costs of eligible
activities may be adjusted after the date this Plan is approved by the Oakland County
Board of Commissioners.
D. Estimate of Captured Taxable Value and Tax Increment Revenues
(Section 13(1)(c)); Beginning Date of Capture of Tax Increment Revenues
(Section (13)(1)(0; Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Taxing Jurisdictions
(Section 13(1)(g))
This Plan anticipates the capture of tax increment revenues to reimburse the Developer
for the costs of eligible activities under this Plan in accordance with the Reimbursement
Agreement. A table of estimated tax increment revenues to be captured is attached to this
Plan as Attachment E.
An estimate of the captured taxable value and tax increments by year for real property is
indicated in Attachment D. The actual amount will be based upon the total Project costs
and values. Estimated projected amounts to be captured are as follows:
Specific Levy Estimated C~ture
School Operating 26,994,712
State Education Tax 8,998,237
City of Pontiac 13,907,826
County (with Parks) 6,495,228
OIS 5,043,962
OCPTA 1,499,406
HCMA 321,837 occ 2,372,385
Seniors 749,853
Capital Improvement 2,113,236
Sanitation 4,226,622
In addition, the following taxes are projected to be generated but not to be captured during the
life of the Plan:
Specific Levy Estimated Generated
MESSA Judgment 47,141
DIA 299,342
Zoo 149,671
6
22121719.6
In no event shall the duration of the Plan exceed 3 5 years following the date of the
resolution approving the Plan, nor shall the duration of the tax capture exceed the lesser
of the period authorized under subsection (4) and (5) of Section 13 of Act 381 or
30 years. Further, in no event shall the beginning date of the capture of tax increment
revenues be later than five years after the date of the Oakland County Board of
Commissioners resolution adopting the Plan.
E. Plan of Financing (Section 13(1)(d)); Maximum Amount of Indebtedness
(Section 13(1)(e))
The eligible activities are to be fmanced by the Developer. The OCBRA will reimburse
the Developer for the cost of approved eligible activities, but only from tax increment
revenues generated from the Property. No advances have been or shall be made by the
City or the OCBRA for the costs of eligible activities under this Plan.
All reimbursements authorized under this Plan shall be governed by the Reimbursement
Agreement. The inclusion of eligible activities and estimates of costs to be reimbursed in
this Plan are intended to authorize the OCBRA to fund such reimbursements and does not
obligate the OCBRA, Oakland County or the City of Pontiac to fund any reimbursement
or to enter into the Reimbursement Agreement providing for the reimbursement of any
costs for which tax increment revenues may be captured under this Plan, or which are
permitted to be reimbursed under this Plan. The amount and source of any tax increment
revenues that will be used for purposes authorized by this Plan, and the terms and
conditions for such use and upon any reimbursement of the expenses permitted by the
Plan, will be provided solely under the Reimbursement Agreement contemplated by this
Plan.
The OCBRA shall not incur any note or bonded indebtedness to finance the purposes of
this Plan.
Reimbursements under the Reimbursement Agreement shall not exceed the cost of
eligible activities permitted under this Plan.
F. Duration of Plan (Section 13(1)(f))
The duration of this Plan shall be up to the maximum period permitted pursuant to
Section 13(1)(f) of Act 381.
G. Effective Date of Inclusion in Brownfield Plan
The Property will become a part of this Plan on the date this Plan Amendment is
approved by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners.
7
22121719.6
H. Estimate of the Impact of Tax Increment Financing on the Revenues of All
Taxing Jurisdictions in Which the Eligible Property is Located (Section 13(1)(g)
An estimate of the incremental tax fmancing is attached as Attachment E.
I. Displacement or Relocation of Individuals on Eligible Property and Financial
Assistance and Other Reimbursement of Expenses (Section 13(1)(i-l))
There are no persons or businesses residing on the eligible property, therefore there will
be no displacement or relocation of persons or businesses under this Plan.
J. Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund (LSRRF) (Section 13(1)(m))
The OCBRA has established a Local Site Remediation Revolving Fund ("LSRRF"), as
authorized in Section 13(5) of Act 381. The amount of recapture per year will be
deposited into the LSRRF commencing immediately after the Developer has been fully
reimbursed under this Plan and the administrative fee has been paid to the OCBRA
pursuant to the reimbursement agreement to be entered into by the Developer and the
OCBRA, and shall continue for five (5) years. The amount of tax increment revenue
authorized for capture and deposit in the LSRRF is currently estimated at $8,074,187.
8
22121719.6
III. ATTACHMENTS
9
22121719.6
22121719.6
ATTACHMENT A
Site Map
10
ATTACHMENT B
Legal Description of Eligible Property to which the Plan Applies
Land Situated in the City of Pontiac in the County of Oakland in the State of Michigan:
Parcel 1:
Commonly known as: 1957 S. Telegraph Rd., Pontiac
Tax Id Number(s): 19-05-159-003
Parcel2:
Commonly known as: No address, Pontiac
Tax Id Number(s): 19-05-159-006
Parcel3:
Commonly known as: No address, Pontiac
Tax Id Number(s): 19-05-159-004
Parcel4:
Commonly known as: No address, Pontiac
Tax Id Number(s): 19-05-159-005
Legal Description
CITY OF PONTIAC PARCEL:
ALL OF LOTS 1 THRU 30, 41 THRU 50, AND ALL OF LOT 63, ALSOALL OF
ROTSEL ROAD AND MYRTLE ROAD, AND PART OF VACATED HOOD ROAD,
ALL INCLUSIVE, OF "BLOOMFIELD ACRES", A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, AS RECORDED IN LIBER 41, PAGE
49, OAKLAND COUNTY RECORDS, TOGETHER WITH; LAND SITUATED IN
THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 5, T. 2N., R. 1 OE., BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP , THE
CITY OF PONTIAC, AND BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP (CONDITIONALLY
TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY OF PONTIAC), OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN,
AND PART OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 6, T. 2N., R. 10E., BLOOMFIELD
TOWNSHIP, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 5, T.
2N., R. 10E.; THENCE N.02°00'42"W., 698.60 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF
SAID SECTION 5 TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
TELEGRAPH ROAD (204 FEET WIDE), SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TELEGRAPH
ROAD N.50°40'54"W., 205.17 FEET; THENCE N.39°19'06"E., 125.00 FEET;
11
22121719.6
THENCE S.50°40'54"E., 91.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID
"BLOOMFIELD ACRES"; THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE N.02°13'10"W.,
768.44 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID "BLOOMFIELD
ACRES"; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID "BLOOMFIELD ACRES"
N.87°20'36"E., 890.40 FEET; THENCE N.02°0l 'OO"W., 608.32 FEET; THENCE
N.87°37'40"E., 362.35 FEET; THENCE S.04°10'40"E., 606.70 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SAID NORTH LINE OF "BLOOMFIELD ACRES"; THENCE N.87°54'40"E.,
1146.85 FEET; THENCE S.05°30'10"E., 120.14 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF "FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION" AS RECORDED IN LIBER 22,
PAGE 7, OAKLAND COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID "FAIR VIEW HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION" AND THE WEST
LINE OF "FRANKLIN GARDENS" A SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN LIBER 19,
PAGE 40, OAKLAND COUNTY RECORDS, S.05°21'37"E., 1527.35 FEET TO THE
CENTER OF SECTION 5; THENCE ALONG THE EAST-WEST 1/4 LINE OF SAID
SECTION 5, S.87°49'01 "W., 1018.13 FEET; THENCE N.02°32'58"W., 498.50 FEET;
THENCE S.87°10'18"W., 200.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 34
OF SAID "BLOOMFIELD ACRES"; THENCE S.85°26'04"W., 58.08 FEET TO THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 33; THENCE N.71 °29'42"W., 320.95 FEET
TO THE LOT LINE COMMON TO LOTS 30 AND 31 OF SAID "BLOOMFIELD
ACRES", THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S.39°19'10"W., 188.74 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE NORTH LINE OF HOOD ROAD (60 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID
LINE N.50°40'54"W., 352.08 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EXTENSION OF THE LOT
LINE COMMON TO LOTS 40, 41, 50 AND 51 OF SAID "BLOOMFIELD ACRES;
THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S.39°19'06"W., 359.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TELEGRAPH ROAD; THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE N.50°40'54"W., 405.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 3,478,923.67 SQUARE FEET OR 79.86 ACRES.
12
22121719.6
ATTACHMENT C
Project Description
The failure of the Bloomfield Park project in 2008 impacted the local real estate and
construction industries and is still detectable even though almost a decade has passed.
Since the time the original project was conceived the market has irreversibly shifted. The
incomplete and vacant structures left at the site have deteriorated to the point that the
majority are unsalvageable and are a burden to any developer.
As determined by the Oakland County Assessor, the property is burdened with over 1.5
million square feet of functionally obsolete structures. Bloomfield Village Owner LLC
("BVO"), having purchased the land assets securing the loans to the original developer,
and all development rights thereto, intends to demolish the majority ofthe incomplete
structures, while reusing and completing significant portions of the infrastructure (roads,
sanitary and storm sewer, water, electrical, hardscape and landscape, etc.) intended to
serve the original project. Additionally, BVO is pursuing the adaptive reuse of a 72,000
square foot commercial building and the 1,050 space parking deck that was constructed
as part of the original project. The new project will be called The Village at Bloomfield.
REDICO will be the master developer.
The master plan consists of nearly 900,000 square feet of development representing a
total investment of nearly $200,000,000, and will include the following uses:
• 350 apartments of varying type, with an average size of+/-900 square feet,
• 100 unit assisted living community, 120,000 square feet,
• 100 key select-service hotel, 60,000 square feet,
• 220,000 square foot home improvement retail anchor, and
• 170,000 square feet of additional retail and commercial.
The home improvement retail anchor will construct a two-story store, format that is
unique to this market, in order to minimize its footprint. This feat of planning will
encourage dense development elsewhere on the site, making use of the existing parking
deck and inviting a variety of other commercial users to the project. It is anticipated that
the commercial development will be jobs-intensive and include users uncommon in the
local geographic market, such as a specialty grocer.
The 350 unit multifamily development will be the largest market-rate new construction in
the local geographic market in recent memory, and the apartments will appeal to a broad
demographic. The majority of the multifamily housing stock in Oakland County has a
forty-year or greater vintage, falling far short of contemporary standards observed in
markets throughout the United States. Residents will be drawn to the community because
of its proximity to jobs and transit as well as the amenities of the Village at Bloomfield,
which will include a protected wetland buffer featuring a scenic public trail network for
active recreation.
13
22121719.6
The Village at Bloomfield is expected to act as a catalyst for further development along
Telegraph Road and in the City of Pontiac, providing a needed stimulus to an
economically stratified but predominantly disadvantaged section of Oakland County. It
is anticipated that the development will help stabilize residential and commercial
property values in the area while removing a large, vacant, eyesore. The placement of the
buildings on the property along the street network will enhance the pedestrian experience
by providing shade trees, pedestrian scaled lighting, and seating areas organized to create
a true mixed-use urban space. Wide sidewalks, shaded by canopies and awnings will
allow for outdoor dining, and sidewalks will be carefully aligned and connected with
wide crosswalks using the principals of Complete Street Planning Guidelines. The
Village at Bloomfield will target LEED criteria whenever possible and will continue
REDICO's policy to implement sustainable design practices for all major projects.
Critical regional issues identified by the U.S. Green Building Council will be given
special consideration, including sustainable site development and indoor environmental
quality.
The project is expected to generate approximately 465 direct full time equivalent (FTE)
constructionjobs and approximately 315 secondary indirect and induced jobs. Once
completed, the project estimates approximately 1,125 direct FTEjobs will be created, and
an additional 349 secondary indirect and induced jobs. The development site plan
preserves and protects multiple acres of wetlands, which will be incorporated in the
recreation plan for the project. The plan is conceived as occurring in either one or several
phases, depending on market conditions, and elements of the project can stand alone to
avoid the systemic risks that afflicted the prior development. BVO intends to use
brownfield redevelopment tax increment financing to reimburse the cost of eligible
activities needed to prepare the Property for redevelopment and reuse.
14
22121719.6
15
221217l9.6
ATTACHMENT D
Description of Expected Eligible Activities
Eligible activities currently are expected to include the following:
1. Preparation of a Brownfield Plan and Work Plan ("Plan") and submittal of the
Plan to the OCBRA for review and approval.
2. Baseline environmental assessment investigation activities such as sampling and
other site investigations conducted.
3. One or more baseline environmental assessments may be conducted on portions
of or the entire property that is the subject of the brownfield plan.
4. One or more documentations of due care compliance may be prepared for
portions of or the entire property that is the subject of the brownfield plan.
5. Qualified environmental professionals will observe and obtain samples of soils
and water encountered during construction in portions of the property where
hazardous substances may be present at levels exceeding unrestricted residential
criteria applicable to the property. Samples will be evaluated to determine if off-
site disposal or other additional response activities should be conducted.
6. One or more no further action reports or certificates of completion may be
prepared and submitted to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
depending upon the results of response activities conducted at the property.
7. Soils exceeding unrestricted residential criteria will be excavated from a portion
of the property that was previously used as an orchard and disposed of in an
appropriate disposal facility. Testing and reports will be prepared with respect to
this work.
8. Based upon the results of groundwater sampling, it is possible that extraordinary
construction dewatering techniques will be implemented to properly manage
groundwater during construction activities.
9. Due to the nature of previous filling activities, impacted soil and other material
will need to be excavated and disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable
laws.
10. Demolition, including a pre-demolition survey; demolition of the majority of
existing structures, demolition and removal of certain infrastructure; fill
compaction and rough grading to balance the site where improvements were
located; and engineering and design work directly associated with demolition
activities.
11. Site preparation, including geotechnical engineering; clearing and grubbing;
temporary construction access; temporary traffic control; temporary site control;
storm sewer relocations; and utility relocations and installation; engineering and
design work directly associated with site preparation.
12. Infrastructure improvements, including installation of parking lots and parking
structures, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and bus stops; engineering and design work
related to infrastructure improvement activities.
13. Project management and meetings.
16
22121719.6
Description of Eligible Activities Estimated Cost
Demolition 2,908,534
Site Preparation 11,308,237
Infrastructure 13,569,495
Parks, Streetscape, Sidewalks 2,149,156
Lightening 440,000
Roads 720,651
Parking 16,645,582
Engineering, Architect, Structural, Environmental 2,537,016 Fees
Permits and Review Fees 745,833
Testing 1,345,102
Interest 1,086,108
Contingency (15%) 7,816.592
Subtotal Site Eli2ible Activities 59,927,203
OCBRA Administrative Costs 150,000
Brownfield Plan and Work Plan Preparation 35,000
Total Estimated Costs to be Funded Through TIF 60,112,203
17
22121719.6
22121719.5
22121719.6
ATTACHMENT E
TIF Table
18
CITY OF PONTIAC
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM
Executive Branch
TO: Honorable Mayor, Council President and City Council Members
FROM: Jane Bais-DiSessa, Deputy Mayor
DATE: September 20, 2016
RE: 2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
For your review and consideration, attached is the new 2016 Brownfield Consortium
Agreement. This same agreement was approved by the City Council in 2013. Mr. Brad
Hanson, Business Development Representative from Oakland County will be in
attendance to address any questions regarding this item.
Approval of this agreement is recommended. The following resolution is suggested:
Resolves that the Pontiac City Council, after the review by the City Attorney and Finance
Director, and upon the recommendation of the Mayor, approves the 2016 Oakland County
Brownfield Consortium Agreement Oakland County as attached; and authorizes the
Mayor to sign and execute the agreement.
JBD
Attachments
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
OAKLAND COUNTY
AND
THE CITY OF PONTIAC, MICIDGAN
The 2016 Oakland County Brownfield Consortium Agreement ("the Agreement") is entered into
between the County of Oakland, a Constitutional and Municipal Corporation, 1200 North Telegraph,
Pontiac, Michigan 48341 ("County"), and the City of Pontiac, 47450 Woodward Avenue, Pontiac, MI,
48342, a Michigan Municipal Corporation ("Municipality"). In this Agreement the County and the
Municipality may also be referred to individually as "Party" or jointly as "Parties".
PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT. The County and the cities of Farmington Hills, Ferndale, Hazel Park,
Madison Heights, and Pontiac formed a coalition to apply for an the Environmental Protect Agency
("EPA") 2009 Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant. Subsequently, the City of Southfield joined the
Consortium, and the Consortium applied for the EPA 2013 Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant. The
consortium now consisting of the County and the cities of Farmington Hills, Ferndale, Hazel Park,
Madison Heights, Southfield, and Pontiac (collectively known as the "Oakland County Brownfield
Consortium") applied for the EPA 2016 Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant. Because the
Consortium is not a legal entity and because only one member of the Consortium could submit the grant
application and be the grant recipient, the County submitted the 2016 Brownfield Coalition Assessment
Grant on behalf of the members of the Consortium. Brownfield Assessment grants provide funding for
developing inventories of brownfields, prioritizing sites, conducting community involvement activities,
and conducting site assessments and clean-up planning related to brownfield sites.
The County was awarded a six hundred thousand dollar ($600,000.00) Brownfield Coalition Assessment
Grant to be used by the Consortium. On July 15, 2016, the EPA and the County entered into a
Cooperative Agreement, Number BF -OOE02004, with respect to the six hundred thousand dollar
($600,000.00) Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant.
The 2016 Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grants require that the Consortium members execute
an agreement documenting the site selection process, distribution of funds and the mechanisms for
implementing the work to be performed with grant funds.
Therefore, pursuant to the 2016 Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grant and pursuant to the Urban
Cooperation Act of 1967, 1967 PA 7, MCL 124.501, et seq., the County and the Municipality enter into
this Agreement for the purpose of delineating the relationship and responsibilities between the County
and the Municipality regarding the 2016 Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant and EPA Cooperative
Agreement Number BF-OOE02004.
In consideration of the mutual promises, obligations, representations, and assurances in this Agreement,
the Parties agree to the following:
Page 1
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
1. DEFINITIONS. The following words and expressions used throughout this Agreement, whether
used in the singular or plural, within or without quotation marks, or possessive or nonpossessive,
shall be defined, read, and interpreted as follows:
1.1. Agreement means the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Exhibits attached hereto,
and any other mutually agreed to written and executed modification, amendment, or
addendum.
1.2. Claim means any and all losses, complaints, demands for relief, damages, lawsuits, causes of
action, proceedings, judgments, deficiencies, penalties, costs and expenses arising under or
relating to this agreement, including, but not limited to, reimbursement for reasonable
attorney fees, witness fees, court costs, investigation, litigation expenses, amounts paid in
settlement, and/or any other amount for which either Party becomes legally and/or
contractually obligated to pay a third party, whether direct, indirect, or consequential,
whether based upon any alleged violation of the constitution (federal or state), any statute,
rule, regulation, or the common law, whether in law or equity, tort, contract, or otherwise,
and/or whether commenced or threatened.
1.3. Cooperative Agreement means the agreement awarded to the County by the Environmental
Protection Agency Number BF-OOE02004 and attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement.
1.4. County means the County of Oakland, a Constitutional and Municipal Corporation
including, but not limited to, its Board, any and all of its departments, divisions, elected and
appointed officials, directors, board members, council members, commissioners, authorities,
committees, employees, agents, volunteers, and/or any such persons successors.
1.5. Day means any calendar day beginning at 12:00 a.m. and ending at 11:59 p.m.
1.6. Municipality means the City of Pontiac, a Michigan Municipal Corporation including, but
not limited to, its Council, Board, any and all of its departments, its divisions, elected and
appointed officials, directors, board members, council members, commissioners, authorities,
committees, employees, agents, subcontractors, attorneys, volunteers, and/or any such
persons successors.
1.7. Oakland County Brownfield Consortium or Consortium means the coalition formed by
the County and the cities of Farmington Hills, Ferndale, Hazel Park, Madison Heights,
Pontiac, and Southfield for the purposes of applying for and performance of the 2016
Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant.
1.8. Project Manager means the individual designated by the Municipality to participate in the
Consortium and to be the contact person for this Agreement.
2. AGREEMENT EXHIBITS. The Exhibits listed below and their properly promulgated
amendments are incorporated and are part of this Agreement.
2.1. Exhibit A-Cooperative Agreement, Number BF-OOE02004, between the County and the
EPA
Page 2
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
3. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES.
3 .1. The County shall act as the fiscal agent/fiduciary for the Consortium relating only to receipt
and disbursement of grant funds for the 2016 Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant as
required by the Cooperative Agreement and this Agreement.
3.2. The County shall be responsible for the management of the Cooperative Agreement.
3.3. The County shall comply with all terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreement and all
applicable statutes and regulations.
3.4. The County shall follow the 2016 Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grants.
3.5. The County shall promptly inform all members of the Brownfield Consortium of any
changes to the Cooperative Agreement and how these changes may apply to the
Municipality. The County and EPA may make changes to the Cooperative Agreement
without the approval of the Municipality.
3.6. The County shall provide the Municipality with timely reports regarding the management of
the Cooperative Agreement.
3.7. The County shall have quarterly meetings for the Consortium.
3.8. The Project Manager and the County shall determine the brownfield sites for assessment.
3.9. The County shall select and retain the consultant to perform the assessment of the brownfield
site(s) chosen by the Project Manager and the County. The selection and retention of the
consultant shall include issuing request for proposals or request for qualifications for a
consultant and negotiating and executing a contract with the consultant.
4. MUNICIPALITY RESPONSIBILITIES.
4.1. The Municipality shall comply with all applicable terms and conditions of the Cooperative
Agreement and all applicable statutes and regulations.
4.2. The Municipality shall follow the 2016 Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grants.
4.3. The Municipality shall designate an individual and an alternate to act as a Project Manager.
This individual shall act as a liaison between the County and Municipality regarding this
Agreement and shall be responsible for the following: (1) meeting with the County to
determine brownfield sites to be assessed and (2) acting as a liaison with local or community
organizations involved with the application of the Brownfield Coalition Assessment Grant.
The names of these individuals shall be conveyed to the individuals listed in Section 17 .1.
5. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
5 .1. Any funds awarded to the County under the Cooperative Agreement shall be allocated and
expended only as provided for and permitted by this Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement,
Page 3
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
the 2016 Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grants, and any applicable statutes or
regulations.
5.2. The Municipality shall be allocated sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) to be used to assess
brownfield sites in its geographic area.
6. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT.
6 .1. The Agreement and any amendments hereto shall be effective when executed by both Parties,
with resolutions passed by the governing bodies of each Party and when the Agreement is
filed according to MCL 124.510.
6.2. This Agreement shall end September 30, 2019, unless terminated pursuant to Section 8 of
this Agreement or amended pursuant to this Agreement.
7. ASSURANCES/LIABILITY.
7 .1. Each Party shall comply with all federal, state, and local ordinances, regulations,
administrative rules, laws, and requirements applicable to its activities performed under this
Agreement, including but not limited to the Cooperative Agreement and the 2016 Guidelines
for Brownfield Assessment Grants.
7.2. Each Party shall be responsible for any Claims made against that Party by a third party, and
for the acts of its employees or agents, arising under or related to this Agreement.
7.3. In any Claims that may arise under or relate to this agreement, each Party shall seek its own
legal representation and bear the costs associated with such representation, including any
attorney fees.
7.4. A Party who is non-compliant with this Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement, the 2016
Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grants or any applicable federal, state, and local
ordinances, regulations, administrative rules or laws assumes sole risk and liability for its
non-compliance including but not limited to liability for any penalties imposed by the EPA or
other governmental entity or any other fines, fees or costs associated with its non-
compliance.
7.5. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, neither Party shall have any right under any
legal principle to be indemnified by the other Party or any of its employees or agents in
connection with any Claim.
7 .6. The Parties have taken all actions and secured all approvals necessary to authorize and
complete this Agreement. The persons signing this Agreement on behalf of each Party have
legal authority to sign this Agreement and bind the Parties to the terms and conditions
contained herein.
8. TERMINATION OR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT. Either Party may terminate and/or
cancel this Agreement upon thirty (30) Days notice to the other Party. The effective date of
termination and/or cancellation shall be clearly stated in the notice if this Agreement is terminated
Page4
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
and/or cancelled. Termination of this Agreement does not release any Party from any obligations
that Party has pursuant to the 2016 Guidelines for Brownfield Assessment Grants, the Cooperative
Agreement or as provided by law. If the Municipality terminates this Agreement, the grant funds
which were allocated to the Municipality, but not yet used shall be reallocated to other members of
the Consortium at the County's discretion.
9. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Except as provided for the benefit of the Parties, this
Agreement does not and is not intended to create any obligation, duty, promise, contractual right or
benefit, right to indemnification, right to subrogation, and/or any other right, in favor of any other
person or entity.
10. DISCRIMINATION. The Parties shall not discriminate against their employees, agents, applicants
for employment, or another persons or entities with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, and
privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment in violation of
any federal, state or local law.
11. PERMITS AND LICENSES. Each Party shall be responsible for obtaining and maintaining,
throughout the term of this Agreement, all licenses, permits, certificates, and governmental
authorizations necessary to carry out its obligations and duties pursuant to this Agreement.
12. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. This Agreement does not, and is not intended to waive, impair,
divest, delegate, or contravene any constitutional, statutory, and/or other legal right, privilege,
power, obligation, duty, or immunity of the Parties.
13. DELEGATION/SUBCONTRACT/ASSIGNMENT. Neither Party shall delegate, subcontract,
and/or assign any obligations or rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the
other Party.
14. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. Absent a written waiver, no act, failure, or delay by a Party to pursue or
enforce any rights or remedies under this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of those rights with
regard to any existing or subsequent breach ofthis Agreement. No waiver of any term, condition, or
provision of this Agreement, whether by conduct or otherwise, in one or more instances, shall be
deemed or construed as a continuing waiver of any term, condition, or provision of this Agreement.
No waiver by either Party shall subsequently affect its right to require strict performance of this
Agreement.
15. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds a term, or condition, of this Agreement
to be illegal or invalid, then the term, or condition, shall be deemed severed from this Agreement.
All other terms, conditions, and provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force.
16. CAPTIONS. The section and subsection numbers, captions, and any index to such sections and
subsections contained in this Agreement are intended for the convenience of the reader and are not
intended to have any substantive meaning. The numbers, captions, and indexes shall not be
interpreted or be considered as part of this Agreement. Any use of the singular or plural number,
any reference to the male, female, or neutral genders, and any possessive or nonpossessive use in
this Agreement shall be deemed the appropriate plurality, gender or possession as the context
requires.
Page 5
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
17. NOTICES. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally
delivered, sent by express delivery service, certified mail, or first class U.S. mail postage prepaid,
and addressed to the person listed below. Notice will be deemed given on the date when one of the
following first occur: (1) the date of actual receipt; (2) the next business day when notice is sent
express delivery service or personal delivery; or (3) three days after mailing first class or certified
U.S. mail.
17.1. If Notice is sent to the County, it shall be addressed and sent to: Oakland County Board of
Commissioners Chairperson, 1200 North Telegraph, Pontiac, Michigan 48341, with a copy
to Oakland County Economic Development and Community Affairs, Attention:
Environmental Program Coordinator, 2100 Pontiac Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan ,
48328.
17.2. IfNotice is sent to the Municipality, it shall be addressed to: Dr. Deirdre Waterman, Mayor,
City of Pontiac.
17.3. Either Party may change the address and/or individual to which Notice is sent by notifying
the other Party in writing of the change.
18. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed, interpreted, and enforced by the laws of
the State of Michigan.
19. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS OR AMENDMENTS. Any modifications, amendments,
rescissions, waivers, or releases to this Agreement must be in writing and executed by both Parties.
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire agreement and understanding
between the Parties. This Agreement supersedes all other oral or written agreements between the
Parties. The language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning,
and not construed strictly for or against any Party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Michael J. Gingell, Chairperson, Oakland County Board of
Commissioners, hereby acknowledges that he has been authorized by a resolution of the Oakland
County Board of Commissioners, a certified copy of which is attached, to execute this Agreement on
behalf of the Oakland County, and hereby accepts and binds the Oakland County to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
EXECUTED: -------------------------------Chairperson
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
WITNESSED: ______________ _
Clerk/Register of Deeds
County of Oakland
Page 6
DATE: __________ _
DATE: -----------
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
EXECUTED: __________________________ _
Dr. Deirdre Waterman, Mayor, City of Pontiac
Oakland County Board of Commissioners
WITNESSED: _________________________ _
Sherikia Hawkins, City Clerk
City of Pontiac
Page 7
DATE: _________ _
DATE:, __________ _
2016 OAKLAND COUNTY BROWNFIELD CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT-FINAL
Date:
To:
From:
Through:
Re:
Background:
City of Pontiac
Department of Planning
September 16, 2016
Honorable Mayor and City Council
C. James Sabo, AICP
Professional Planner
Jane Bais-Disessa, Deputy Mayor
State Mandated 63-Day Review Period-Request to Distribute Master Plan
Under state statute, Planning Commissions are authorized to approve Master Plan documents
for Cities and Villages in Michigan. In October 2014, the Pontiac Planning Commission approved
the 2014 Pontiac Master Plan Update. The plan included a recommendation to adopt the
concept for ucomplete Streets" as part ofthe Pontiac Master Plan.
On August 3, 2016, Oakland County Planning and Norm Cox presented a draft Complete Streets
master plan amendment to the Pontiac Planning Commission for consideration. The proposed
amendment to the master plan is electronically website based (i.e. the website is the plan).
To further clarify, Oakland County obtained a Federal grant to prepare a Complete Streets
amendment for Pontiac. Additionally, they facilitated many Community Vision Sessions to gain
valuable public input during the Complete Streets process.
On September 7, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of support for the
Complete Streets amendment to the Master Plan and acted to request the City Council to
authorize distribution of the proposed amendment in accordance with state statutes. The
resolution is attached for review.
City Council Action Requested:
The purpose of this correspondence is to request official action by City Council. In accordance
with Section 41 of P.A. 33 of 2008, Michigan Planning Act, the Planning Commission is required
to present a Master Plan Update to the local legislative body for review and authorization to
distribute. The Act requires City Council authorization to distribute the Draft Master Plan
Update document to adjacent jurisdictions.
After City Council authorization, the Master Plan Draft will be distributed to the adjacent
jurisdictions and Oakland County Planning Division and each Public Utility Company, Railroad
Company, and Public Transportation Authority for a State mandated 63-day comment and
review period. Importantly, during the 63-day comment period, the City Council is able to
provide additional comment and input prior to adoption of the Master Plan Update.
Following the comment period, the Planning Department will present the final Complete
Streets Master Plan Update draft based on comments received. It is anticipated that the
Planning Commission will schedule a Public Hearing in December or January to officially adopt
the Complete Streets Master Plan Update. The update process will then be complete.
City Council is requested to adopt the following resolution to authorize distribution of the draft
2016 Complete Streets Master Plan Amendment and Update:
Whereas, on August 3, 2016, the Oakland County Planning Department presented a
proposed Master Plan amendment for Complete Streets to the Pontiac Planning
Commission for consideration and to update the Pontiac Master Plan; and,
Whereas, the proposed Master Plan update seeks to enhance economic development
and community development activity and promote "best practices" for appropriate land
uses within the City; and,
Whereas, the Oakland County Planning Department facilitated many community
outreach meetings to gather valuable public input for the proposed Complete Streets
Master Plan update; and,
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Pontiac City Council authorizes distribution of the draft
2016 Complete Streets Master Plan to adjacent jurisdictions, Oakland County Planning Division,
Public Utility Companies, Railroad Companies, and Public Transportation Authorities for the
State mandated 63-day review and comment period.
CITY OF PONTIAC
RESOLUTION
Adopting the Pontiac Complete Streets Plan
WHEREAS, the City of Pontiac recognizes the value of creating a safe and connected multi-modal
transportation network that provides a range of transportation options for residents of all ages and
abilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pontiac has adopted a goal from the 2014 Master Plan Update to create a
Complete Streets Plan that identifies both locations for specific non-motorized improvements and
standards for various types of non-motorized facilities; and
WHEREAS, Oakland University was awarded a grant though the Centers for Disease Control to create a
Complete Streets Plan and support public health efforts that reduce chronic diseases, promote healthier
lifestyles, address health disparities and control health care spending in the City of Pontiac; and
WHEREAS, non-motorized transportation facilities can reduce the use of scarce resources, reduce
vehicular congestion and emissions, and thereby improve air and water quality, in addition to fostering
energy conservation; and
WHEREAS, non-motorized transportation promotes the benefits of active and healthy lifestyles to
residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, a Complete Streets network provides social benefits by encouraging links between
neighborhoods and schools, historic downtown, civic buildings, cultural destinations and commercial
centers; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive Complete Streets system can broaden options for non-drivers, better
accommodate people with disabilities and reduce conflicts between motorists and other legal users of
the roadway; and
WHEREAS, non-motorized facilities are essential to the economic development of the Downtown and
commercial centers, in addition to encouraging redevelopment in the neighborhoods by promoting
pedestrian related facilities that create a bikeable and walkable community and attract residents and
visitors; and
WHEREAS, seven public meetings have been hosted throughout the City of Pontiac to determine the key
issues regarding non-motorized transportation and incorporated those public comments into the
Complete Streets Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the members of the City of Pontiac Planning Commission, do hereby
request the Mayor and City Council to review the Complete Streets Pontiac Plan ===="'"'"'~"m'"''m"''"~'-"~'===
(website is the plan), including the specific recommendations for on-road bike and walkable sidewalk
facilities for the major roads, neighborhood connectors and regional trail network, and Multi-Modal
Network Map; and to authorize the distribution of the plan to local jurisdictions and authorities for the
required 63-day comment period in accordance with Section 41 of Public Act 33 of 2008.
AVES: Payne, Northcross, Mayor Waterman, Fegley, Cadd, Parlove, Thomas
NAYS:
ABSENT:
I, C. James Sabo, Secretary of the City of Pontiac Planning Commission, do hereby certify the foregoing to
be a true and correct copy of a resolution that was offered by the City of Pontiac Planning Commission at
their regular meeting held on September 7, 2016.
___________ .J Secretary of the Pontiac Planning Commission.
COMPLETE STREETS PONTIAC
Near Term Corridors Map 5/27/2016
In addition to these corridors ...
Telegraph, Huron Perry and
Baldwin should be top priorities
for road crossing and sidewalk
improvements. These corridors
experience high numbers of
bicycle and pedestrian crashes
and additional safety measures
need to be implemented.
Telegraph
US-24
Clinton
River Trail
and West
Bloomfield
Trail
Great lakes Crossing
Bloomfield
Town Square ·
Shopping
Center
5 minute bike
17 minute walk
Oakland
University
Improvements lndude:
* Shared-use Pathways
" On-road Bikeways
(buffered bike lanes, etc.)
" Signed Bike Routes on
Local roads
* Road Crossing
Improvements
* Critical Sidewalk Gaps
(see mutli-modal network map)
New Temporary
Route for the
Clinton River Trail
-.IIIIIIIIU. s-= "' -""" l ...
~11111111111111\1,..
Clinton River
Trail and
Downtown
Auburn
Hills
Near term improvements will focus on establishing a
core network that creates connections across the City
and provides a framework for the mulit-modal system.
This map highlights the near term corridors. Refer to
the Multi-Modal Network Map for a complete overview
of all proposed improvements.
COMPLETE STREETS PONTIAC
Building COMMUNITY by remaking the STREETS of Pontiac .... for the PEOPLE of Pontiac
Complete Streets Pontiac is a plan to make Pontiac more
walkable and bikeable for transportation, fitness and fun!
Check out some of the preliminary recommendations and
let us know what you think! Visit www.WalkBike.info/
Pontiac for more information and to share your ideas.
Recornend ons:
SET POLICIES
" Community First Streets Resolution
" Sidewalk condition inventory and
privatization plan
.. Road millage with funding for ped. &
bike facilities and maintenance
.. Priority snow clearance on main
streets and bus routes
" Street light monitoring program
" Better coordination with county on
animal control
" Site plan approval checklist for
pedestrian and bike facilities
" Focused enforcement ties to crashes
and new facilities
" Expand bike parking program and
new parking ordinance
BUILD
o 80 Crosswalk Improvements
" 5 Miles of Critical Sidewalk Gaps
" 20 Miles of Shared Use Pathways and
Trails
" 26 Miles of Neighborhood Connector
Routes
" 12 Miles of Bike Lanes
" 41 Miles of Buffered Bike Lanes
" 4 Miles of Shared Lane Markings
.. 0.6 Miles of Cycle Tracks
PROMOTE
" Grand opening events, banners and
outreach when new facilities are built
" Wayfinding and interpretive kiosks at
key locations linked by routes
" Website with resources
" Community fun runs, walks and rides
" Support for business and congregation
based walking and bicycling groups
" Safe routes to school programs
" Wei/ness focused commuter challenge
program
EVALUATE
.. Yearly ped. & bicycle crash analysis
* Established yearly ped. & bike counts
" Before and after counts
The complete streets Pontiac is an interactive please use your tablets and go to:
The Economic and Societal Impact of Crashes in Pontiac
May 27,2016
Source Data
All values in 2010 value
2004 through 2014 Data
Cost of Crashes Fatal Incapacitating Nonlncapacitating Possible No
(K) injury (A) Injury (B) Injury (C) Injury
Economic Cost $ 1,398,916 $ 82,048 $ 23,742 $ 19,492 $ 10,439
Comprehensive Total $ 5,348,855 $ 1,001,206 $ 276,010 $ 127,768 $ 42,298
Pedestrian Fatal Incapacitating Nonincapacltatlng Possible No
(K) injury (A) lnjury(B) Injury (C) Injury
No pedestrian Involved 42 331 926 2,978 14,922
Pedestrian Involved 19 67 97 105 18
61 398 1,023 3,083 14,940
All Crashes Econ. Cost $ 85,333,876 $ 32,655,104 $ 24,288,066 $ 60,093,836 $ 155,958,660
All Crashes Comp. Cost $ 326,280,155 $ 398,479,988 $ 282,358,230 $ 393,908,744 $ 631,932,120
Ped. Econ. Cost $ 26,579,404 $ 5,497,216 $ 2,302,974 $ 2,046,660 $ 187,902
Ped Comp. Cost $ 101,628,245 $ 67,080,802 $ 26,772,970 $ 13,415,640 $ 761,364
Ped % of All Crashes 1.6%
Ped % of Fatal Crashes 31.1% over twice the state average
Ped. % of A Crashes 16.8% over twice the state average
Ped. % of K/ A Crashes 18.7%
% of All Crashes Fatal 0.3%
%of Ped. Crashes Fatal 6.2%
Bicyclist Fatal Incapacitating Nonincapacitating Possible No injury
(K) injury (A) Injury (B) Injury (C)
No bicyclist 58 378 965 3,010 14,911
Bicyclist Involved 3 20 58 73 29
61 398 1,023 3,083 14,940
All Crashes Econ. Cost 85,333,876 32,655,104 24,288,066 60,093,836 155,958,660
All Crashes Comp. Cost $ 326,280,155 $ 398,479,988 $ 282,358,230 $ 393,908,744 $ 631,932,120
Bike Econ. Cost $ 4,196,748 $ 1,640,960 $ 1,377,036 $ 1,422,916 $ 302,731
Bike Comp. Cost $ 16,046,565 $ 20,024,120 $ 16,008,580 $ 9,327,064 $ 1,226,642
Bike % of All Crashes 0.9%
Bike % of Fatal Crashes 4.9% almost twice the state average
Bike% of A Crashes 5.0% 143% the state average
Bike. % of K/ A Crashes 5.0%
% of Bike Crashes Fatal 1.6%
Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Ped. & Bike % of All Crashes 2.5%
Ped. & Bike% of Fatal Crashes 36.1%
Ped. & Bike % of A Crashes 21.9%
Ped. & Bike% of K/A Crashes 23.7%
Ped. & Bike Economic Costs $ 45,554,547 $ 45.55 Million $ 4.14 Million per year
Ped. & Bike Comp .. Costs $272,291,992 $ 272.29 Million $ 24.75 Million per year
Total
19,199
306
19,505
$ 358,329,542
$ 2,032,959,237
$ 36,614,156 $ 36.61 Million
$ 209,659,021 $ 209.66 Million
19,322
183
19,505
$ 358,329,542
$ 2,032,959,237
$ 8,940,391 $ 8.94 Million
$ 62,632,971 $ 62.63 Million
COMPLETE STREETS PONTIAC
Building COMMUNITY by remaking the STREETS of Pontiac .... for the PEOPLE of Pontiac
Draft Policy Recommendations
Updated 7/14/2016
The following are the top twelve recommended policies to be implemented by the City of Pontiac over
the next few years. Most may be implemented at a very low cost in the immediate future and a number
of them build on existing partnerships.
1. Community First Streets Policy
2. Sidewalk Audit
3. Sidewalk Gap Prioritization Methodology
4. Better Coordination with County on Animal Control
5. Priority Snow Clearance Policy
6. Site Plan Approval Checklist
7. Focused Enforcement
8. Expanded Bike Parking Program
9. Promote Issue Reporting Tool
10. Local Direct Road Funding Mechanism
11. Transit Stop Facility Audit
12. Transit System Analysis
1. COMMUNITY FIRST STREETS POLICY
A resounding overarching theme in the public input was that the people of Pontiac feel that the mobility
and convenience of the people who drive through Pontiac has been given preference over the safety,
mobility and economic interests of those who live in Pontiac. In short, they are tired of Pontiac being a
drive-through City. This perception is backed up by data. Looking back over ten years of crash reports,
the unescapable conclusion is Pontiac is one of the most dangerous Cities in the country to walk and
bike in. Being a mid-size city with a population of about 60,000 keeps Pontiac off the lists of the most
dangerous places to walk or bicycle in the country however, the City's crash statistics tell a startling
story.
• 31.1% of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians; this is twice the state's average.
• Pontiac's rate of pedestrians killed in crashes with motor vehicles per 100,000 residents is 2.64
people each year; the most dangerous metropolitan area in the country, Orlando-Kissimmee,
Florida's rate is 2.75.
• 4.9% of traffic fatalities are bicyclists; this is twice the state's average.
• Pontiac's rate of bicyclists killed in crashes with motor vehicles per 100,000 residents is 0.42
people each year; this is 168% higher than the state rate of 0.25 per 100,000.1
Clearly, when over 36% of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians and bicyclists, there is a glaring issue that
demands action. The impetus for Complete Streets Pontiac was to improve community health by
removing the barriers that prevent people from integrating physical activity in their daily routine.
Physical activity is a key part of healthy a lifestyle that reduces the risk of many chronic diseases such as
diabetes, obesity and heart disease. The analysis of traffic crashes brought up a second public health
issue. By making Pontiac's streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, we can address two community
health crises at once.
A point that is often overlooked in transportation planning is that the mobility of people who drive
comes at the expense of the lives of people who walk and ride their bike. Many of the people who walk
and bike do so out of necessity in part due to their age, financial circumstance, physical or cognitive
abilities. No one should die simply because they don't drive a car. In some neighborhoods over 14% of
the homes do not have a vehicle, 30% of the population start their trip to work by walking to the bus
stop and 8% of the population bike to work. 2
To address the identified public health concerns, the City of Pontiac should draft and adopt a
"Community First Streets Policy" that combines the key elements of a Vision Zero 3 policy and a
Complete Streets4 policy.
COMMUNITY FIRST STREETS POLICY OUTLINE
The public rights-of-ways and streets of Pontiac should be planned, designed, engineered, maintained,
regulated and policed base on the following ten principles:
1. That most traffic deaths and injuries are preventable and the City of Pontic does not consider
any traffic fatalities acceptable.
2. That all users of the roadway including pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users be
accommodated not only in new construction but also in reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation and preventive maintenance projects to the fullest degree possible based on the
scope of the work.
3. That the City of Pontiac encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive,
integrated, connected network for all modes of travel.
4. That flexibility in the design of the roadway be employed and integrates current best practices,
such as those included in the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
design guidelines, and also allows for innovative design approaches to be implemented and
evaluated.
1 Source: Michigan Traffic Crash Facts. Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, Web; and Dangerous By
Design. Publication. Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets Coalition, May 2014. Web.
2 Online GIS Maps I PolicvMap. PolicyMap, n.d. Web. 14 July 2016.
3 Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project that aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities
or serious injuries in road traffic.
4 Complete Streets are street for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and ability.
5. That the City of Pontiac places human life and health paramount in the decision making process
and concerns regarding motorized vehicle level of service, congestion, mobility, etc. are
secondary concerns.
6. That traffic safety solutions must be addressed holistically and take into consideration social
issues.
7. That the people using roadways in the City of Pontiac will make mistakes and the City's
transportation system should be designed such that when mistakes happen they do not result in
fatalities or serious injuries.
8. That the City of Pontiac's Department of Public Works, Road Commission for Oakland County,
Michigan Department ofTransportation, Oakland County Sherriff's Office and the Michigan
State Police share responsibility with users ofthe roadway system in creating a transportation
system that is safe for all users of the roadway and these providers and regulators must do their
utmost to guarantee the safety of all citizens; cooperate with road users; and be ready to
change as necessary to achieve safety.
9. That the City should set performance standards for the transportation system with measurable
outcomes and evaluate progress on an annual basis.
10. That any exceptions to this policy be documented in writing and approved by City Council.
2. SIDEWALK AUDIT
Large gaps and deteriorating conditions of the existing sidewalk network were issues frequently raised in
public meetings. The first step in addressing these concerns is to understand the scope of the problem.
A graduate student at Oakland University is working to develop a process that will evaluate the sidewalk
system throughout the City. This audit is currently underway and the sidewalk assessment team will
collect GPS points, record infrastructure conditions and other related information in order to create a
geographic information system (GIS) database. The audit will prioritize the sidewalk network using the
following roadway criteria as identified on the Multi-Modal Network Map.
Inventory Prioritization
1. Arterials and Collectors with transit
2. Corridors identified as near-term opportunities in the Complete Streets Plan
3. Arterials without transit
4. Collectors without transit
5. Corridors identified as neighborhood connector routes in the Complete Streets Plan
6. Local streets in neighborhoods with high percentage of residents who do not own a car
7. All remaining local streets
It is anticipated that in 2016 the inventory process will be developed, the attributes in the GIS database
will be defined, and the Roadway Priorities 1 and 2 will be completed. Based on the progress in 2016,
goals for 2017 and into the future will be established.
Once the initial sidewalk audit is completed, the long-term goal is for the City to continue to evaluate
the sidewalk system on an annual basis. Each year a sector of the community, perhaps corresponding
with City Council Districts, will be evaluated.
3. SIDEWALK GAP PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY
After the sidewalk audit is complete; the City will need to prioritize improvements. The first set of
prioritizations has been identified in the Pontiac Complete Streets Plan. These priority areas are typically
along major roadways with transit, connect senior housing with near-by amenities, link transit hubs, or
are in response to public input. Once these obvious gaps have been filled, the City should analyize the
information from the sidewalk audit and create sidewalk gap prioritization methodology to identify
which gaps should be completed next.
The following information is from the sidewalk gap priotization project developed by the City of Ann
Arbor in collaboration with the Pedestrian Safety and Access Task Force. The City looked at a number of
examples from around the country and based their approach on a system developed by Austin, Texas.
The objective was to have a decision support tool that used readily available GIS data and was not too
onerous.
The following pages outline the approach.
I SIDEWALK GAP CRITERIA WEIGHTING
A GIS-based model was created and used to evaluate sidewalk gaps in the City of Ann Arbor. Each gap
was individually scored based on the following table. The scores were then weighted based on
proximity to related values. Proximity to schools and transit are the most heavily weighted. Since
Oakland Unviersity developed the sidewalk audit, it is recommended that the City partner with them on
the next step and create the prioritization model.
SCORING Sidewalk Gap Prioritization Criteria
Relative Value Threshold Score Weight ..•
Greater than Y, mile from a school 1 100%
1 Greater than X mile toY, mile from a school 3 100%
Proximity to Ys mile to X mile from a school 6 100%
Schools Less than Ys mile from a school 10 100%
Subtotal possible 10
2 Greater than X mile from an AAATA or school
bus stop or train station 1 90%
Greater than Ys mile to X mile from an AAATA or 3 90% school bus stop or train station
Proximity to 300 feet toYs mile from an AAATA or school Transit bus stop or train station 6 90%
Less than 300 feet from an AAATA or school bus 10 90% stop or train station
•< / Subtotal possible 10
3 Greater than X mile from an affordable 1 60% housing facility
Proximity to Greater than X mile to X mile from an 3 60%
affordable · affordable housing facility
Housing Ys to X mile from an affordable housing 6 60%
Less than Ys mile from an affordable housing 10 60%
Subtotal possible 10
4 Greater than X mile from a library, 1 80% government office, major commercial
Proximity to a Greater than X mile to X mile from a library, 3 80% Library, government office, major commercial Government,
Office, Major Ys mile to X mile from a library, government 6 80% Commercial office, major commercial attractor, or park Attractor, or
Park Less than Ys mile from a library, government 10 office, major commercial attractor, or park 80%
Subtotal possible 10
5 Adjacent to a local street 1 55%
Classification Adjacent to an Urban Collector 6 55%
of Adjacent
Adjacent to an Arterial Street 10 55% Road
Subtotal possible 10
6 No petition 0 40%
Requested By Requested by citizen or general citizen 7 40%
Citizen or Requested by an individual or group which
Other. Group represents the barrier-free community 10 40%
Subtotal possible 10
7 Near~ Term Not identified in Figure 5.1E. in Plan as a 1 30% Opportunity Near-Term Opportunity in City's Non-
. motorized Identified in Figure 5.1E Plan as a Near-Term 10 30% Transportatio Opportunity n Plan
Subtotal possible 10
8 Total length created by adjacent 1 35%
Total length created by adjacent gaps is 5 35%
Gap Length greater than 150 feet and less than 330
Total length created by adjacent gaps is 10 35% less than 150 feet
Subtotal possible 10
9 City~owned Not adjacent to a City-owned parcel 0 35%
Parcels Adjacent to a City-owned parcel 10 35% .·
Subtotal possible 10
10 No pedestrian/automobile incidents within the 0 30% past 5 years within 300 feet of gap
Within 300 feet of One (1) 5 30% Pedestrian pedestrian/automobile incident within the
/Auto Within 300 feet of more than 1 Incidents
pedestrian/automobile Incident within the 10 30%
past 5 years
Subtotal possible 10
4. BETTER COORDINATION WITH COUNTY ON ANIMAL CONTROL
The fear of being attacked by a stray dog was brought up at practically every public meeting with many
personal stories shared. With Oakland County taking over animal control responsibilities, the primary
issue seems to be communication -residents simply do not know what number to call. Over the course
of the project, the City has made the Oakland County Animal Control number more prominent on its
website and integrated into its community "Request For Action" button on the website.
Recent reports have noted that once the number has been called, the Oakland County Sheriff and
Animal Control officers have been very responsive. To continue to address this issue, the City and
County should work together on the following two point strategy.
1. Promote Using the County Animal Control Number. Through meetings with community
groups, flyers, business cards, refrigerator magnets, etc. the Oakland County Animal Control
phone number should be promoted. The information should be clear letting people know that
residents of Pontiac should call the County Animal Control to report stray dogs, indicate what
dog owner responsibilities are and fines for not properly controlling pets.
2. Pro-Active Neighborhood Sweeps. Given the importance of this issue, the County should
routinely patrol neighborhoods looking for stray dogs. The officers should be encouraged to
strike up casual conversations with residents to better understand if there are some chronic
issues with particular dogs or areas.
5. PRIORITY SNOW CLEARANCE POLICY
The City of Pontiac's current codes in regards to snow clearance are fairly typical. While it may be
desirable to reduce the time period between the end of the snow and the time that the snow is
removed from 24 to 12 hours, the real concern is enforcement of the current ordinance.
Proactive Enforcement. The City should take a pro-active role in the enforcement of snow removal
based on the following priorities:
1. Arterials with transit
2. Collectors with transit
3. Within a X mile of a school
Community Education. Paired with enforcement, community education needs to be an outreach effort
that identifies winter maintenance as the home owner's and business owner's responsibility and
stresses why sidewalk snow removal is so important for the community as a whole. The outreach could
be in the form of community newsletters, City website and public service announcements.
The goal is to reduce the occurrence of people walking in the City's busiest roadways because the
sidewalks are impassible.
6. SITE PLAN APPROVAL CHECKLIST
A site design checklist or similar tool should be provided to developers and used by the City in the
review of site plans to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian issues are being adequately addressed and
planned for. The following checklist was adapted with minor modifications from the Canadian Guide to
Promoting Sustainable Transportation through Site Design by the Canadian Institute of Traffic Engineers.
It is a part of a larger publication that examines a variety of policies and actions related to site plan
design standards that promote a sustainable transportation network.
land Use & Urban Form Checklist:
o Densities are sufficient to support transit (3 to 7 households an acre I 4 to 7 jobs an acre)
o Highest density land uses are located close to activity nodes such as transit corridors and
intersections.
o Proposed use provides or adds to a diversity of land uses in the surrounding area and does not
result in large tracts of similar uses.
o Proposed use is compatible with adjacent land uses and with long term land use plans for the
area.
o Adjacent street network provides for connectivity of transit, cycling and pedestrian routes.
o Mixed uses help support non-motorized transportation.
Safety & Security Checklist:
o Overall site design attempts to minimize conflict points between vehicles, pedestrians and
cyclists.
o Sight distances have been considered in overall site design and in the placement of entry signs
and landscaping.
o Consideration has been given to personal security for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.
o Buildings are located close to the street, but provide adequate clearance for pedestrian
activities along street frontage.
o Where appropriate, retail, restaurants and other pedestrian oriented uses animate the street
frontage.
Building Entrances Checklist:
o Building entrances are located close to the street, with direct pedestrian access.
o Potential conflict points between users arriving by different modes are minimized.
Internal Transportation Network Checklist:
o Roads and paths match up with surrounding networks and ensure direct connections through
the sit~ for cyclists and pedestrians.
o Block lengths are limited and mid-block crosswalks are provided where appropriate.
o Traffic-calming principles are applied, where appropriate (proper site design should avoid the
need to apply extensive traffic calming).
o Appropriate· measures have been taken to ensure easy progress of transit through the site.
Desired Pedestrian & Cyclist Routes Checklist:
o Safe, continuous and clearly defined routes for pedestrians and cyclists are provided along
desire lines including links to surrounding residential areas.
o Weather protection and amenities such as trees are provided.
o Intersections are designated to facilitate pedestrian and cyclist crossings.
Transit Stops Checklist:
o Walking distances to stops do not exceed 1300 feet; and pathways to stops are safe and direct.
o Waiting areas are well lit and attractive.
Site Grading Checklist:
o Terrain along pathways is kept reasonably level, and ramps are also provided wherever stairs
are necessary.
o Slopes along pathways are designed to avoid the ponding of slush and water.
Motor Vehicle Parking Configuration & Treatment Checklist:
o Off-street parking is located away from the street, preferably behind buildings or underground.
o Vehicle access is separate from pedestrian access, and access and egress controls are designed
so vehicles do not block pedestrian ways.
o Parking lots are kept small and designed to prevent speeding.
o Pedestrians have protected walkways through the lots.
Motor Vehicle Parking Supply & Management Checklist:
o Off-street parking should be provided, where necessary, at the sides and rear of buildings.
Bicycle Parking Checklist:
o Bicycle parking is located near entrance for short term users in a high visibility location.
o Weather protected bicycle parking for longer term users is provided in a secure area. Storage
possibilities for gear are considered.
o Showers, changing rooms and lockers are provided within employment centers.
Passenger Pick-up & Drop-off Areas Checklist:
o Passenger pick-up and drop-off areas are located to the side or rear of buildings/ downstream
from the entrance/ but no more than 100 feet away from it.
Loading Areas Checklist:
o Loading areas are located off the street/ and are screened from public view.
o Loading area access is designed so that pedestrian/ cyclist1 and transit routes are never severed.
Internal Road Design Checklist:
o Appropriate traffic signals and compact geometry of intersections control speeds and allow for
safe passage of cyclists. Roads are designed to cross at right angles. Sight lines are respected.
o Lanes are designed to accommodate motor vehicles and cyclists/ and remind users of the other
networks on the site.
o Facilities for cyclists and sustainable modes are provided and continued across the site.
Pedestrian Facilities Checklist:
o Sidewalks are provided along all roads1 and follow pedestrian desire lines where possible.
o Properly signed crossings are provided wherever a path or sidewalk crosses a road.
o Pathways are clearly defined/ delineated/ and are of a sufficient unobstructed width.
Appropriate amenities such as lighting and weather protection are provided and safety along
path is addressed.
Transit Facilities Checklist:
o Stops are located close to the main entrances of activity generators. Crosswalks are provided
at all stops.
o Stops and waiting areas are properly illuminated/ visible from a distance/ and have warranted
amenities such as shelters and benches.
o Spacing between stops is minimized.
o Shelters and rest areas are provided at transit stops and locations where there is a high number
of users1 the elderly or the disabled.
o Shelters and rest areas are identifiable/ accessible1 placed appropriately/ and are comfortable.
Wayfinding Checklist:
o Appropriate signage and physical features are provided for users of all networks to determine
their location/ identify their destination/ and progress towards it.
Street Furniture & Amenities Checklist:
o Amenities are provided to create a comfortable and appealing environment/ pre-empting litter
and responding to user needs.
Landscaping Checklist:
o Landscaping does not compromise user security and safety.
o Amenities
o Landscaping
7. FOCUSED ENFORCEMENT
Strict enforcement of unfamiliar laws or unknown dangers accompanied by steep fines is a losing
proposition for everyone involved. The reality is that many people do not know what the rules are when
it comes to yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks and who yields to whom when a car turns across a bike
lane. Thus enforcement is best done hand in hand with educational campaigns.
When new facilities are completed, they should be promoted through grand opening events and
community outreach (see items 1 and 2 under Promotion). These efforts should be accompanied by a
targeted educational enforcement program. Immediately after the completion of a new facility, the
Sheriff's Office should perform a number of high profile enforcement actions at that location at various
times of the day and days of the week. When a vehicle, pedestrian or bicyclist is in violation of the
traffic code, he or she will be pulled aside and informed of the violation and the underlying safety
concern, be issued a simple document that further explains the issue and let off with a warning.
Law enforcement officers often prefer this type of non-confrontational approach to address what are
often minor traffic violations. Typically, very few tickets are issued for offences such as failure of a
motor vehicle to yield to a bicycle in a bike lane or failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. The
odds of a patrolling officer spotting an infraction are pretty low and the enforcement action is likely to
be considered a low priority by the officer. But the consequences of users of the roadway having an
uneven understanding the laws can be deadly. These targeted enforcements also provide the
opportunity to educate law enforcement officers on some pedestrian and bicycle related safety issues
and laws that they may not themselves be familiar with.
8. EXPANDED BIKE PARKING PROGRAM
The City of Pontiac, in conjunction with Oakland County and Oakland University, should continue their
efforts to install bike parking at key destinations. The bike parking rack design, placement, number of
spaces, sign age, etc. should be in accordance with the latest edition of the Association of Pedestrian
and Bicycle Professional's Bicycle Parking Guidelines available at www.apbp.org.
For new construction, the City should update its zoning ordinances, to not only address short-term bike
parking requirements, but also long-term bike parking that provides secure and sheltered facilities.
9. PROMOTE ISSUE REPORTING TOOL
Currently the City uses "Request For Action" through www.AccessMyGov.com as a tool for citizens to
report issues. The City should promote the use of the tool to highlight pedestrian and bicycle issues.
Stickers with the website link and some basic information about the tool could be provided at bus stop
crosswalks, bike racks, and other locations across town.
10. LOCAL DIRECT ROAD FUNDING MECHANISM
The reality today is a city in Michigan cannot maintain, let alone improve, a transportation system based
solely on funds distributed from the State through Act 51, even with the increase in gas taxes. In many
Michigan cities, local funding accounts for about half of the budget used to improve local roadways.
Given the poor condition of many of Pontiac's roads, without any significant increases of funds beyond
Act 51 money, the roads will continue to degrade and crumbling roads are unsafe for all users. Also,
while there are state and federal funding sources available for some projects, most all of them require a
local match.
Given the recent financial challenges of the City, this recommendation does not come lightly. But the
history does not change the equation. The City needs to identify a direct funding mechanism for its
roads. This could come in many forms and may likely require a charter amendment. But each year that
the roads deteriorate further, the cost of bringing the system to an acceptable level increase.
As various direct local funding scenarios are evaluated, they should look well beyond simply the cost of
resurfacing the roadways. A holistic view of the transportation system and its role in community health
and economic vitality is necessary. Grand Rapids Vital Streets program is one Michigan example that
should be referenced.
The specifics of a local funding mechanism are well beyond the scope of this project. It is recommended
that a task force be developed to look at this issue in more detail. As part of that discussion, pedestrian
and bicycle issues should be at the forefront given safety concerns discussed earlier. The discussion
should include:
• Standalone pedestrian and bicycle safety projects
• Seasonal maintenance such a snow clearance of sidewalks along major roadways and
sweeping bike lanes of debris
• Long-term maintenance programs for sidewalks, crossing islands and bike lanes
• Community outreach and education
• Transit routes, stops and support structures
• Green street approaches
11. TRANSIT STOP FACILITY AUDIT
An inventory and analysis of Pontiac's transit stops should be conducted to determine the condition and
amenities at each stop. This could be done in partnership with Oakland University and the Suburban
Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART). The audit should look at the following
elements:
• Current Bus Route Map
• Current Schedule Posting
• Concreate Access Pad
• Benches
• Trash and Recycling Receptacles
• Existing Shelter Structure Condition
• Bike Racks
12. TRANSIT SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The City of Pontiac should petition the Regional Transit Authority to conduct an analysis of the current
transit routes. The purpose of the analysis would be to see if there are neighborhoods that currently
underserved by transit. Also, bus stop use could be compared to the transit stop facility audit to help
prioritize improvements.
More information on P.I.L.O.T. for Newman
Court and Colonial Meadows are forthcoming
July 12, 2017
Michigan Department of State
Office of the Great Seal Richard H. Austin Building, 1st Floor
430 W. Allegan Lansing, MI 48918
Dear Office of the Great Seal:
On August 31, 2016 the Board of Commissioners for Oakland County entered into an agreement per MR #16190 – Board
of Commissioners – Pilot Local Road Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriation – City of Pontiac – Resurfacing Franklin Road – Project No. 2016-25.
As required by Urban Cooperation Act 7 of 1967 - MCL 124.510(4), a copy of the signed agreement with the County of
Oakland and the City of Pontiac, and the authorizing Board of Commissioners Resolution are enclosed for filing by your office.
Send confirmation of receipt of this agreement to:
Mr. Joseph Rozell, Director of Elections
Oakland County Clerk/Register of Deeds County Service Center, Building #14 East
1200 N. Telegraph Rd. Pontiac, MI 48341
(Please include our Miscellaneous Resolution number on the confirmation of receipt letter for filing purposes.)
Contact our office at (248) 858-0564 if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
COUNTY OF OAKLAND
Joseph J. Rozell, CERA Director of Elections
Cc: Pat Davis, Corporation Counsel, Oakland County
Deanna Fett-Hylla, Corporation Counsel, Oakland County Shannon Miller, Deputy Clerk of the Board, Oakland County Road Commission
Sharikia Hawkins, Clerk, City of Pontiac
Enclosures