Livonia council votes: minutes, consent agenda and a string of approvals and denials
Loading...
Summary
The Livonia City Council approved minutes and a consent agenda, denied two street‑lighting special assessments and approved a series of development, engineering and easement items during its regular meeting; most motions passed unanimously, 6–0.
At the regular Livonia City Council meeting the council recorded several formal roll‑call votes. Most motions passed unanimously; two neighborhood street‑lighting special‑assessment proposals were denied after public hearings.
Votes at a glance
- Approval of minutes (regular meeting of 03/31/2025) Motion: Approve minutes of the 03/31/2025 regular meeting. Mover: Council Member Toye; Second: Vice President Tashnick (support recorded). Vote: Shield — yes; Morgan — yes; Toye — yes; Donovan — yes; Vice President Tashnick — yes; President McCullough — yes. Outcome: Approved (6–0).
- Consent agenda (Items 1–4) Motion: Approve consent agenda items 1 through 4 (items previously discussed at study meeting and deemed noncontroversial). Mover: Council Member Morgan; Second: Council Member Donovic (support recorded). Vote: All council members — yes. Outcome: Approved (6–0).
- Second reading and passage: Amendment to Livonia Code of Ordinances, Title 5 Chapter 42 (Item 10) Motion: Approve amendment to Title 5, Chapter 42 (simplify language) — second reading. Mover: Council Member Donovic; Second: support recorded (name not specified in record). Vote: All council members — yes. Outcome: Approved (6–0).
- Denial of special assessment: Bocce Estates condominium street‑lighting project (Item 11) Motion: Deny proposed special assessment for street lights on Parkdale Avenue (Bocce Estates). Mover: Council Member Morgan; Second: support recorded. Vote: All council members — yes (denial motion carried 6–0). Outcome: Denied (6–0).
- Denial of special assessment: Sunset View Site Condominium / Sunset Subdivision (Item 12) Motion: Deny proposed special assessment for street lights on Sunset Avenue north of Kenwood Court. Mover: Council Member Morgan; Second: support recorded. Vote: All council members — yes (denial motion carried 6–0). Outcome: Denied (6–0).
- Approval: Amendment to Shops at College Park general development agreement (Item 13) Motion: Approve amendment to timing of construction for Shops at College Park development agreement. Mover: President McCullough (moved on the floor); Second: support recorded. Vote: All council members — yes. Outcome: Approved (6–0).
- Approval: OHM Advisors engineering contract amendment for Newberg Road reconstruction (Item 14) Motion: Approve contract amendment for preliminary engineering/design services (Newberg Road reconstruction, Ann Arbor Trail to Plymouth Road) via QBS selection. Mover: motion offered on floor; Second: support recorded. Vote: All council members — yes. Outcome: Approved (6–0).
- Approval: Release of development bonds for Laurel Manor 3 site condominium (Item 15) Motion: Release development bonds for Laurel Manor 3 site condominium. Mover: Council Member Morgan; Second: support recorded. Vote: All council members — yes. Outcome: Approved (6–0).
- Approvals: Acceptance of public utility easements for multiple Newberg Road and other developments (Items 16–19) Motion: Accept grants of public utility easements related to Scooter’s Coffee (Parkside development) and three parcels on Newberg Road (19400, 19414, 19428 Newberg Road). Mover: motions offered on floor; Second: support recorded. Vote: All council members — yes on each item. Outcome: Approved (6–0) for each easement.
Roll‑call format: For each roll call the clerk recorded Council Members Shield, Morgan, Toye, Donovan, Vice President Tashnick and President McCullough voting in the affirmative on approved items; denials were recorded as unanimous ayes for the denial motions.
What to watch next: The council left the Civic Center Campus/millage language in committee but asked the administration to present formal ballot language at an upcoming study meeting; that item will be discussed in more detail and may require future roll‑call votes if council elects to place the proposal before voters.
