Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge review of water minimum charge, warn on senior-center move and raise ethics questions about developer donations
Summary
Three residents spoke during public comment Dec. 8: a resident called for a review of Farmington Hills’ 16-unit minimum quarterly water charge, a longtime resident urged the council to involve seniors before moving the senior center, and another resident accused council members of potential influence by developer donations and opposed placing the caustic center at the Hawk.
Three members of the public addressed the council during the Dec. 8 public-comment period, raising separate concerns about utility billing, senior programming and council ethics.
Bill Stever, a resident of the Kimberly subdivision, told council the city’s minimum water charge (16 units per quarter) is unfair to older residents and others who regularly use far less water. Stever said he has spoken with staff (Tammy Gussard and Karen) who told him the city would hire a consultant to study the charge; he asked that the issue be prioritized for the June assessment update. "Water should be charged for actual usage like gas and electric are charged," he said.
Tim Parvin, a 33-year resident, criticized how the council’s prior 4–3 vote on the senior-center item was interpreted and expressed strong opposition to moving the caustic center to the Hawk campus. Parvin questioned parking capacity, food-service quality if meals were trucked in, and senior access; he suggested appointing a representative from the council on aging to act as an ombudsman to keep seniors informed during the study process.
Eric Schmidt asked the mayor to make a statement addressing comments made by Chaldean community representatives (calling for clarity and protection of residents), invited council members to walk the 13 Mile PUD site, and raised a concern that campaign contributions from developers could be influencing votes on PUDs. He urged the city attorney and council to examine whether members who accept developer donations should recuse themselves from related votes.
No council action was taken during the public-comment period; council items later in the agenda included a postponed PUD hearing and previously approved consent items.
