Locals want help with infrastructure
PLYMOUTH — Among the items included in the Monday night meeting of the Plymouth Common Council was the first reading of an ordinance to amend an existing ordinance concerning the Community Improvement Commission and delineating its responsibilities.
Presenting the proposed revision was City Attorney Nelson Chipman, who said, “This is to clean up and straighten out some of the rules.”
Councilman Chuck Ripley sought to have the matter tabled. Ripley shared his belief that previous criteria used to determine if a business in the downtown could receive 20 percent reimbursement of renovation costs was for facade work.
Two downtown businesses were listed on the agenda as well to approve their application as recommended by the Community Improvement Commission for the Rehabilitation Interest Subsidy Grant.
Phillip Cook told the board that he was in an emergency situation when a portion of the roof of his building located at the corner of Garro Street and Michigan Street caved in.
Cook said, “The rear part of the building fell in and the water was coming in pretty substantially.”
There are rental units in the top of the building that were affected. The grant money is usually only granted by obtaining approval prior to work being completed. Mayor Mark Senter indicated that the application did come in after the work was in progress, but referred to it as an emergency.
Also entering an application was Gary Treat of Treat’s Squire and Treat’s Bridal shops.
Cook and Treat are both seeking the reimbursement for roofing projects. Quotes for the work at the Cook owned building were more than $11,000 and for the Treat project, more than $12,000. The proposed Treat renovation also includes some gutters and downspouts.
Councilman Don Gardner said, “We are trying to improve our downtown.”
Mike Delp, who also sits on the council, said he was reimbursed at one time for roofing done on a building he owns in the downtown area.
Ripley said, “This is a completely different animal with entire roofs going on.”
However, no fellow councilman seconded his motion to table. The matter must still come before the board for second and third readings.