Macomb Township residents press board over new sidewalk maintenance program as officials cite legal risk

Macomb Township opened a public hearing on June 25 for its newly implemented sidewalk maintenance program after the township sent letters identifying slabs that need repair or replacement. Supervisor Viviano said the township’s ordinance places responsibility for sidewalk upkeep with homeowners and that a recent change in state law and court precedent has increased municipal liability.

The program matters because, officials said, the township can face lawsuits if sidewalks are not maintained. “All municipalities such as cities, villages, and townships are required to maintain their sidewalks,” the township’s counsel said at the hearing, describing how the Michigan Supreme Court’s rejection of the “open and obvious” defense has led to more trip-and-fall litigation against local governments.

At the public hearing, more than a dozen residents described wide cost differences between bills, concerns about how contractors were selected, and hardship for elderly homeowners on fixed incomes. “I have elderly neighbors that are crying,” said Valerie Folkes McCreary, who identified herself as a district precinct delegate. Sam Marasco, a resident on Valerie and Hayes, told the board: “I don’t understand why we’re doing that,” and questioned why five adjacent properties received markedly different price estimates.

Township staff and the DPW director, identified in the record as Mr. Johnson, explained the program mechanics and the procurement process used to select contractors. Johnson said the township used an RFP process posted via BidNet and received five proposals; the review committee scored proposals on experience, schedule and price, interviewed the finalist, and recommended the lowest-scoring qualified bidder for award. Staff reported that the contractor who performed the 2024 work offered to hold 2024 prices for the 2025 pathway program and that engineering staff estimated doing so would save roughly $50,000 compared with rebidding.

The board approved Change Order No. 2 for the 2024 Pathway Gap Closure Program, which staff said would extend the prior contractor’s work so the township could complete outstanding sidewalk gaps this construction season. The motion to approve Change Order No. 2 passed unanimously.

Officials also answered resident questions about how charges were computed. Staff said sidewalk slabs are measured individually — many are roughly 5 feet by 5 feet but actual dimensions vary — and that slabs across driveways are poured 6 inches thick (drive approach) rather than the typical 4-inch sidewalk, which raises unit cost. Staff added that 8-foot sidewalks on main roads are assessed at half cost to a single homeowner, because the sidewalk widths are shared by adjacent properties. Engineering consultant Jack Fox was identified in letters and on the township website as the contact for homeowners who want slab-by-slab explanations; staff said Fox had captured video of every stretch of sidewalk and could review specific cases.

Several residents pressed the board to provide clearer, itemized notices and the list of bidders the township contacted. Neil Kaffenberger asked why letters did not show how many individual slabs ("pieces") were marked for each house; Mr. Johnson acknowledged the letters could have been clearer and pointed commenters to the engineering consultant for slab-level detail. The board said residents who complete repairs themselves and notify the township before the contractor mobilizes (staff cited a contractor mobilization date after August 25) will be inspected and removed from the contractor list if the work meets standards.

Several speakers raised related maintenance issues — tree roots lifting sidewalks and repeated failures after earlier repairs, and who is responsible for trees in the county right-of-way. The board said many boulevard trees were originally planted by developers and have historically been inherited by homeowners; a county representative present said the county’s newer policy does not allow trees in new subdivisions’ rights of way, but existing trees had been planted by prior developers.

Board members said the township had previously replaced sidewalks but found that approach fiscally unsustainable and that the two common municipal approaches are (a) a program that assigns repair costs to abutting owners (the path adopted by Macomb Township) or (b) a permanent dedicated tax to fund ongoing sidewalk repairs. Trustee Lucido urged residents to compare the township’s tax burden with neighboring jurisdictions and reiterated the board’s position that shifting all sidewalk obligations onto the township’s general fund would require a long-term revenue source.

Beyond the hearing, the board voted unanimously to award the fiscal-year 2024 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) sidewalk ramp project to Luigi Ferriagnani & Sun Cement Company for $62,170; staff said $56,344 would be paid by the CDBG award and $5,826 would be the township’s share. The board also approved the procurement path that staff recommended to complete the pathway gap work this season.

Residents who said they planned repairs were told to contact AEW at the email listed in the letters (sidewalks@macombmi.gov as printed in the township communications) or use the phone number in the notice; staff said a permit must be pulled through the township building department for any contractor work. The board invited residents with unresolved questions to meet with staff after the meeting and to submit FOIA requests for bidding documents.

The public hearing closed at 7:10 p.m.; trustees approved the associated change order and the CDBG ramp award later in the meeting. The board said it would use resident feedback from the rollout to improve notices and FAQs for future phases of the program.

Ending — The board signaled it will continue to implement the multi-year sidewalk program in phases and encouraged homeowners to contact the engineering consultant for slab-level evidence and the clerk’s office for procurement documents. Residents said they will press for clearer itemization, more time to pay, and clarification about tree/root responsibilities before future phases roll out.