Affirmation of Charles Yon as Chief of Police and Director of Public Safety was well attended and supported. Charles Yon was described as Accomplished, Committed, Worthy and Well Qualified. Wixom is fortunate to have Chief Yon in our community.
The Affirmation of Charles Yon as Police Chef and Director of Public Safety was a gathering of many residents, Honorable guests, and many supporting Police Officers from local and surrounding Police Departments who gathered in the City Hall chambers to witness the Affirmation.
In attendance were 52-1 Court Judges: Robert Bondy, Travis Reeds and David Law. State Representative, Klint Kesto, had prepared and presented Chief Yon, with a proclamation noting his dedication to Public Service of the community. After the Affirmation of Chief Yon, the Council broke for a short festive gathering, allowing all to eat cake, and meet and greet the community’s new Police Chief and Director of Public Safety, Mr. Yon.
Residents also gathered to understand what the Council’s intentions were with the proposed TRADE of Gunnar Mettala Park for an Engineered Athletic Complex. Mr. Sever, former Mayor and Councilman from Farmington, Mi., made a previous presentation to a Joint Meeting of Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission on January 11,2016.
The issue of a TRADE of Gunnar Mettala Park for an Engineered Athletic Complex drew many serious concerns from the public because previous minutes were unavailable of the “Joint Meeting’s’ details. Minutes were not approved or available to the public. Nobody knew what what was going on, and of this writing, there are many serious questions that remain unanswered.
The present state of the Administration’s and Council’s discussions is to have a “Concerned and Interested Committee” organized to review the Trade to Athletic Complex Park proposal for understanding details of prevailing park needs and assess concerns, develop and prepare a recommendation for the assessment and issues of concern preparing a report. The report is to give a guidance for a conclusions to what is wanted, not wanted, and present their findings to the Council and the community.
The Planning Commission has their work to do. There needs to be a review of housing density, type of housing, ingress and egress for the housing development, traffic issues, zoning, and to the merits and liabilities of the TRADE and the potential needs for infrastructure for 90-130 homes constructed on the grounds of Gunnar Mettala Park.
Specifically, where does the new Gunnar Mettala Park end and the housing development begin? Mr. Sever stated that, “he thought we would be trading ten-acres for 20 to 30 acres.” In exchange for the Gunnar Mettala Park land, Mr. Sever’s $2.0 million-dollar expenditure for an Engineered Athletic Field is on the table for discussion, and the Council has introduced and directed the City Manager to instruct the attorneys to prepare a ballot question language, if and when, it is potentially needed.
A decision has to be made for a ballot proposal deadline of May 10, 2016 to make an election date in August. Council appeared to be more concerned about development questions than the pursuit of a quick ballot question. Good Choice!
The Cavallaros property is the property to be considered for trade. It was noted by Mr. Sever that the Cavallaros may not want to wait another year with pushing the ballot question out to a November 2016 ballot.
The Council has taken the correct approach to get the community involved and to define all the aspects of the Trade before entering into any final decision as to implementation of trading the Gunnar Park property for an Engineered Athletic Complex. The impact of 90 to 130 homes with 60 foot lots build on existing Gunnar Park land will bring a boost to the tax base, but at what cost to the community is the unanswered question.
A considerable amount of details and information has to be gathered and digested before any decision on the trade can be made. The Planning Commission in particular has their work cut out for them as there is much to consider in this development. The impact on the area of Beck and Maple roads and upon the existing residents in the area is of concern. Road ingress and egress through the downtown area is also of concern for flow-through traffic. Is the present north entrance to the G.M. Park off Maple to remain the Park’s entrance as well as an access road into the new residential development is not clear.
Another question is, “Why would the City want “commercial development” in this area off Beck Road?This would be potentially spot-zoning in a residential area and commercial development could eventually creep down Beck Road. A party-store near the school?
It is essential that the Council’s “Committee,” Parks and Recreation, and specifically the Planning Commission understand that the Devils that are potentially in the details. Their work will be difficult when presently the outline for development has many potentials as well as pitfalls.
Council has shown a sincere interest in bringing clarity of the details of the TRADE to the public. That transparency of details is essential before the community could ever begin to considered the TRADE as a ballot question.