|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 AT 8:00 PM EST COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE ROAD
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM with Mayor McLallen presiding.
Council pledged allegiance to the flag.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Crawford (present), Mason (absent), Mitzel (present), Pope (present), Schmid (present), Toth (present), and Mayor McLallen
Present (6) Absent (1-*Mason)
*Councilwoman Mason arrived at 8:10 PM
-ooo-
ALSO PRESENT: Edward S. Kriewall - City Manager Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager David Fried - City Attorney Brandon Rogers - City Planner James Wahl - Director of Community Development Joseph Kapelczak - JCK & Associates Tony Nowicki - Director of Department of Public Services Geraldine Stipp - City Clerk
-ooo-
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor McLallen added Item #6A, Warrant #433A, concerning a lease for a front end loader.
Councilman Mitzel added Item #8, Budget Study Session Meeting schedule and locations.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Toth Seconded by Councilman Crawford
That the agenda be approved as amended.
Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Mason) Motion carried
PROCLAMATION - Records Management Week
Mayor McLallen said this was to the good people from the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, Inc. She said the City is probably one of the biggest users of records and information and we really appreciate what our City Staff does. She said that these people are holding a meeting at the Sheraton during the Records Management Week which is March 13th through 17th. Mayor McLallen said she would like to welcome them to the community and thank them for all their efforts on their members behalf. She then introduced their Representative, Mr. Chuck Herbert and on behalf of the Novi City Council presented him with the Proclamation declaring March 13th to the 17th Records Management Week.
Mr. Herbert thanked the City for the proclamation and expressed how pleased they were to be holding their conference in the City of Novi.
WHEREAS, the City of Novi is proud to welcome the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, Inc. to Novi for their annual seminar; and
WHEREAS, the Association of Records Managers and Adminis- trators, Inc. is a professional organization that has taken a leading role in promoting the importance of records and information management; and
WHEREAS, the Association seeks to educate individuals in the systematic creation, control and retrieval of records and information; and
WHEREAS, to fulfill its role and aid in the education of individuals in the area of records management, the Detroit Chapter of ARMA International, Inc. sponsors a seminar each year; and
WHEREAS, this year's seminar will be held March 15, 1995 at the Sheraton Oaks in Novi, and is entitled "Legal Requirements for Records and Information Management Pro- grams".
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the City of Novi, issue this proclamation which declares March 13-17, 1995 as Records Management Week in Novi.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council salutes the Association of Records Managers and Administrators, Detroit Chapter for its work in the field of records and information management and welcomes them to Novi.
SPECIAL REPORTS
Mayor McLallen said there were two special reports and they were both from components of our community. She said special reports typically are informational and are limited to approximately 15 minutes.
1. Senior Housing Committee
Mr. Capello, representing the Senior Housing Committee, presented a presentation of the status of the findings of the Committee. He said with all the information accumulated over the years they now thought it was time to move forward with Senior Housing in Novi. He said the initial decision was to determine if Novi needed senior housing and this was determined in 1986.
He said today there is even more of a need for senior housing. Mr. Capello said we have seen how our property values rise, cost of land in Novi has risen and the lack of affordable first time housing has become depleted. Mr. Capello said the seniors are caught in this crunch more than anyone else. He said as property values rise the cost for senior housing also rises and the senior citizens income is not rising enough to keep up with the rising property values in Novi.
Mr. Capello said that surrounding communities have tried and accomplished providing housing to their senior citizens. He said Northville, Plymouth, Walled Lake and Livonia all have senior housing. He said Novi needs senior housing.
Mr. Capello said Councilman Toth asked a couple meetings ago if senior housing could support itself. Mr. Capello said in the packets to Council they would see information from other senior housing projects that senior housing can stand on its own without any subsidy whatsoever. He thought they had established that with a project cost of $8.1 Million, which included the cost of land. Therefore, not asking for any contribution of land from the City and keeping rents between $449.00 and $511.00 per month for 1 and 2 bedroom units. These rental figures are inclusive of operating expenses which are referred to in these types of projects as maintenance.
Mr. Capello said the bond interest rate is estimated at 6.5%. Mr. Robert Bendzinski, Bendzinski & Co. Municipal Finance Advisors, had supplied that information and thought in todays current market bonds could be sold at that rate and they would be 25 year terms.
Mr. Capello said they believed they had established and showed Council a need for senior housing and had showed Councilman Toth that it can stand on its own and the next step was what do we do from here.
Mr. Capello said in Council's packet was a resolution prepared by Bond Counsel, Dennis Neiman. He said the resolution incorporates Articles of Incorporation for a Building Authority. He said they were asking Council to review the additional information, ask whatever additional questions on the new information Council might have and move forward tonight with adoption of the resolution and establishment of the Building Authority.
Mr. Capello said if Council would review the Articles of Incorporation for the Building Authority, Page 5 Article 5, Council would see that the City Council totally controls that Authority. Mr. Capello said they had asked to have 3 employees of the City to be placed on the Building Authority and they would report back to Council with additional reports and for approval for any decisions that they might make. He said approval that would be needed would be for location, size of the project and architectural or engineering studies that would be needed. He said by establishing a Building Authority tonight Council would not be giving up any control, all they would be doing is taking one more step forward to give that Authority additional authority to make some decisions that this City needs.
2. Providence Hospital - Community Health Education
Mayor McLallen said the second report would be brought to Council by Marie Baloga, Community Health Education Director for Providence Hospital now known as Mission Health.
Marie Baloga brought a video presentation for Council that would share many of the initiatives of Providence Hospital Medical Centers in terms of getting out of the boundaries of the hospital walls and into the community more. She showed Council the video. Mayor McLallen thanked Ms. Baloga for bringing the video and said the Council would not respond at this time. She said the video was a terrific piece of information on the impact of a very significant factor in our community and it brought forward a lot of positive information.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Ruth Ann Jurasik, 23624 Willowbrook, said she was also a member of the Senior Citizens Housing Committee. She said she was asked to read a letter from Ruth Sill who could not attend this evening.
"As I am unable to be at the meeting this evening I am taking a moment now expressing my support for Senior Housing in Novi. As a Providence Hospital Homecare Nurse I have the opportunity to visit many senior housing complexes in surrounding communities. They are wonderful for seniors providing opportunities for socialization and services that they wouldn't have living here alone in the community. I feel that adequate, affordable senior housing is part of any well rounded community which as a citizen for 23 years, I have watched Novi struggling to become. I ask you to please stop procrastinating and do the right thing. Facilitate getting affordable senior housing into Novi as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration."
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Condemnation Resolution - Part of Parcel 22-01-400-010 - Sidney and Harriet Hiller
WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan, necessitate the relocation and improve- ment of Thirteen Mile Road near Haggerty Road in the City of Novi;
WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said relocation and improve- ment have been prepared by the City Engineer and are attached hereto as Appendix A;
WHEREAS, after evaluating the plans, it has been determined that said relocation and improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the authority vested in the City of Novi by law, that it is hereby declared and determined that it is necessary to relocate and improve Thirteen Mile Road in the vicinity of Haggerty Road within the City of Novi in accordance with the plans attached hereto as Appendix A, and that said improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Declaration of Taking, which is attached hereto;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Law Firm of FRIED, WATSON & BUGBEE, P.C., is hereby authorized and directed to institute condemnation proceedings pursuant to MCL 213.51, et seq.; MSA 8.265(1), as amended, for and on behalf of the City of Novi, against the owner(s) and other parties in the interest in said property necessary for relocating and improving Thirteen Mile Road as hereinbefore described.
2. Condemnation Resolution - Part of Parcel 22-20-301-013 - Michael and Kathy Dinser
WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan, necessitate the relocation and improvement of Wixom Road near Ten Mile Road in the City of Novi; and
WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said relocation and improve- ment have been prepared by the City Engineer and are attached hereto as Appendix A; and
WHEREAS, after evaluating the plans, it has been determined that said relocation and improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the authority vested in the City of Novi by law, that it is hereby declared and deter- mined that it is necessary to relocate and improve Wixom Road in the vicinity of Ten Mile Road within the City of Novi in accordance with the plans attached hereto as Appendix A, and that said improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Declaration of Taking, which is attached hereto;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Law Firm of FRIED, WATSON & BUGBEE, P.C., is hereby authorized and directed to institute condemnation proceedings pursuant to MCL 213.51, et seq.; MSA 8.265(1), as amended, for and on behalf of the City of Novi, against the owner(s) and other parties in the interest in said property necessary for relocating and improving Wixom Road as hereinbefore described.
3. Condemnation Resolution - Dinser's Greenhouse, Inc. - Part of Parcel 22-20-301-011
WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland County, Michigan, necessitate the relocation and improvement of Wixom Road near Ten Mile Road in the City of Novi; and
WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said relocation and improve- ment have been prepared by the City Engineer and are attached hereto as Appendix A; and
WHEREAS, after evaluating the plans, it has been determined that said relocation and improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the authority vested in the City of Novi by law, that it is hereby declared and deter- mined that it is necessary to relocate and improve Wixom Road in the vicinity of Ten Mile Road within the City of Novi in accordance with the plans attached hereto as Appendix A, and that said improvement is necessary for the use and benefit of the public; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Declaration of Taking, which is attached hereto;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Law Firm of FRIED, WATSON & BUGBEE, P.C., is hereby authorized and directed to institute condemnation proceedings pursuant to MCL 213.51, et seq.; MSA 8.265(1), as amended, for and on behalf of the City of Novi, against the owner(s) and other parties in the interest in said property necessary for relocating and improving Wixom Road as hereinbefore described.
4. Approval to prepare draft agreement between the City and the low bidder, JCK & Associates for Preliminary Engineering Services associated with the Crescent Boulevard Extension (Expo Center Drive) Project - Grand River Avenue northerly, approximately 600 feet. 5. Approval of application for STP (Surface Transportation Project) Grant - Ring Road Connector Bridge, N.W. Quadrant of Grand River and Novi Road 6. Approval to prepare draft agreement between the City and the low bidder, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout for preliminary engineering services associated with the Twelve Mile Road Improvements Project - Dixon Road to Meadowbrook Road
Councilman Toth removed Item #6.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Crawford Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That Items # 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 be approved.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I
1. Resolution - Establishment of Building Authority
Mr. Dennis Neiman, Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C., said he did not have a presentation but would answer any questions that Council might have. He said they have prepared and revised the documents in Council's packets and they had also been reviewed by Fried, Watson & Bugbee, P.C.
Mayor McLallen said this was a multi step process and this was step one in the process tonight, creation of the Building Authority. She said any further action by the Building Authority would then come back through the Council.
Mr. Neiman said documents that Council had would establish the Building Authority by approving the Articles of Incorporation. He said the Articles do contain the three of the five members of the Building Authority in terms of their office. He said anything that the Building Authority wishes to do would have to come back to the City Council for approval and he assumed that the Building Authority would consult with Council on a regular basis. He said this is merely a first and preliminary step in the process.
Councilman Toth asked questions regarding the Articles of Incorporation, Page 1 Article III. He read Article III regarding automobile parking lots and asked if this was a for profit or non-profit corporation.
Mr. Neiman said if you would read the Building Authority Act, Act 31 of 1948 first extra session, the Article III parrots the powers provision of Act 31. He said there was one exception which was it allowed stadiums. He said this could not be a profit organization and still maintain its Municipal Tax Exemption under Federal law. He said under Michigan Law this is a separate municipal corporation much like the ADC Act. He said it has its own tax identification number, it does not pay income tax, it does not have unrelated business income. He said if your question was regarding automobile parking lots, that can be stricken if Council wishes, in the statute it is an inclusive power it did not mean that it had to be done. It just said the Building Authority had the power if down the road they want to build a municipal parking structure it could be done.
Councilman Toth asked if this could be used just for constructing senior housing.
Mr. Neiman said that was correct.
Councilman Toth said that is to one extreme and the other end of this Article III is wide open.
Mr. Neiman said that Council had control over what the Building Authority financed and they cannot finance anything that Council did not approve. He said by putting it in the Articles it did not give them anymore power than having them amend the Articles later on to add a power.
Councilman Toth said under Article IV, Page 2, Section 2 it said "by the terms of the enabling act and lease said property to the incorporating unit for a period of not to exceed fifty (50) years." He asked if this meant that there is a limitation of 50 years on any project.
Mr. Neiman said these are intended to mirror the statute. He said as a practical matter the project would not be 50 years it would be aid of the useful life (Act 202), or whatever the state law allows. He said assuming it is Bond financed there is a provision of 30 years on buildings in the State of Michigan that can be financed. He said as a practical matter it can't go above 30 years.
Councilman Toth read the last sentence on Page 2 which said "the incorporating unit shall have such rights to sublet or assign property leased from the Authority as provided in the aforesaid Act 31, as now or hereafter amended". He said that means the incorporating unit, the City Council in this case, can then sublet or reassign that property to another identity to control or operate the property.
Mr. Neiman said the Building Authority is the one who leases the property to the City. The City then could sub lease the property to the people actually using the facility. He said that would be the most likely situation where there would be a sub lease. He said another example, Tiger Stadium was done with a Building Authority and was sub leased to the Tigers but this could not be done with the laws that exist today. The more likely situation today would be the actual occupant, the renter, is a sub lessee of the City because the City is a lessee of the Building Authority.
Councilman Toth said if the Building Authority constructs a senior housing complex can the City Council then assign the property management to another property management organization.
Mr. Neiman said yes but you are really contracting for management. He said lets take the senior project since that is the issue. He said the Building Authority would be the punitive landlord in name only and the City would be the lessee but the City would have control of the property. He said the City would have the operation and maintenance responsibilities and the lease hold responsibilities. He said if the City wanted to enter into a contract with a professional property manager, which he would encourage, that would not be an assignment. Mr. Neiman said an assignment is meant as assigning your rights and this would not be assigning your rights. He said Council would not be assigning their lease hold interest by entering into a property management agreement.
Councilman Toth said on Article 5, Page 5, states that "The Authority shall be directed and governed by a Board of Commissioners of five (5) members known as the "Commission", one member to be the City Manager, one member the Finance Director, one member to be the Building Official and two members to be elected by City Council of the City of Novi." He said with five members and three of them on City staff this is also a City Administration Building Authority. He asked why that much power would be given to the Building Authority in terms of staff and why not the other way around.
Mr. Neiman said there is no reason and he would speak to what he thought the Committee's view was. He said Mr. Watson and Mr. Klaver were involved in this when they met a couple months ago. He said the thought was that the Building Authority can't do anything that the Council didn't want it to do. He said there are many situation he had worked with where the Building Authority was the Administration. He said Kalamazoo, Cadillac are examples of this and there are several others. Mr. Neiman said it was felt that they have a more cooperative view with the governing body because they knew what that body wanted. He said it was easier to get things done quickly, which is sometimes important in terms of finance and projects. He said there was no legal reason it was done that way. Mr. Neiman said it was done at the suggestion of the group to make it more apparent to the City Council that the Administration would be more in tune to the wishes and concerns of the City Council.
Councilman Toth said the Senior Citizen Housing Committee Report their survey for Redford Township, had five citizens on their Authority and no City officials. He said Livonia had three City officials.
Mr. Neiman said he thought that it depended on what each City wanted and was done to make it more congenial so there was less likelihood that they would be doing anything way out in left field or ahead or behind of Council. They were trying to be more in sync with the Council.
Councilman Toth asked if in his experience and knowledge he would say that it didn't really tend to go either way.
Mr. Neiman said he felt that was correct. He said his suggestion was to have three members from the Administration because it was easier.
Councilman Toth said further on it says "and two members to be elected by the City Council." He said it did not state that they had to be Novi residents, they could be anybody.
Mr. Neiman said there was nothing in the Building Authority Act that said the members had to be residents although he had always interpreted it to mean residents. He said the reason for that was they would be making decisions on City projects, City funds and implicit in that was a residency requirement. He said it could be read the other way but he had never read it that way.
Councilwoman Mason said she was surprised that this was a general Novi Building Authority because she expected to vote for a Building Authority Resolution for Senior Citizen Housing. She did not remember discussing anything like this. She asked how it got to be a general Building Authority when our main concern was senior citizen housing.
Mr. Neiman said he was directed by the City Attorney, the Committee and the Assistant City Manager, to prepare Articles of Incorporation for a Building Authority. He said he was not directed to make them restrictive to senior citizen housing. He said the thought was that the only time a General Building Authority can do anything was with absolute approval and consent of the City Council. They have no independent authority to do anything that Council did not want them to do. He said if Council desired to make the Articles more restrictive that could be done. He said granting them the powers of Article III didn't give them the ability beyond what Council wanted them to do. He said the City Council had absolute control in a real sense, practical sense, legal sense and economic sense over anything that the Building Authority did. Mr. Neiman said the Building Authority couldn't contract with any other body but City Council.
Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Kriewall who decided this should be a general Building Authority instead of a Building Authority for Senior Citizen Housing.
Mr. Kriewall said typically in most communities when they create a Building Authority they would create it after that pattern which is a standard Building Authority. He said it was decided on the recommendation of the Committee.
Mr. Neiman said they had a meeting with the Committee in January and the request was made to create Building Authority Articles to present to Council.
Councilwoman Mason said for Senior Citizen Housing. She felt that a lot of people on the Committee did not know this was a carte blanche Novi Building Authority.
Mr. Neiman said the thought was to create a Building Authority and no one said to make it restrictive to senior citizen housing so he created a Building Authority for review of this Council. He said the only Committee he could think of that had a Building Authority that was project specific around the state, and there are hundreds of Authorities, was probably the City of Pontiac. He said they had a Stadium Authority for the Pontiac Silverdome.
Councilwoman Mason said on Page 2, it said they would release the property and so forth, "full faith and credit general obligation of the incorporating unit and the responsibility is with the Building Authority." She said lets say we have this expansive thing and then they decide to build a parking garage and then we lease that and it goes bankrupt. She said then we don't have the money to pay the bond.
Mr. Neiman said it could not be leased because it wouldn't be allowed from a tax standpoint. He said the City can't issue bonds and then turn over a project to a private enterprise because then it loses its tax exempt status.
Councilwoman Mason asked what if we build a parking garage and we don't get enough money back in to pay those bonds.
Mr. Neiman said then the difference comes out of the General Fund.
Councilwoman Mason said that is what she is leery about with the Novi Building Authority. She said if we do bond a parking lot and expect money to come back and pay the bonds and it doesn't work out the people should be aware the money then comes out of the General Fund. She said if the money is not in the General Fund then that means an increase in taxes.
Mr. Neiman said all the senior citizen projects they have done, probably 15 or 20 of them, they have all paid off plus some, they are producing surpluses and they are self liquidating. He said even if the General Fund had been pledged the General Fund had never been used in any of the projects they had dealt with. He said a Building Authority project had to be financially sound and the General Fund could be at risk with respect to a portion of the debt service.
Councilwoman Mason said then it can't be rented to anyone outside.
Mr. Neiman said he didn't want to make a blanket statement that it couldn't be but there are substantial restrictions under Federal law and there are many regulations.
Councilman Mason asked if a parking garage could be built on a Building Authority and rented to a private developer even with all the regulations.
Mr. Neiman said you can issue taxes on bonds and build a parking garage which is available to the general public on a fee basis or otherwise where a shopping center would avail itself just like the general public would. He said you could not build a facility and lease it to Bendzinski Enterprises which is a manufacturing facility, and let them use it in their trader business. He said you would lose the tax exempt status and that it could be done legally but not with tax exempt bonds.
Councilwoman Mason said also on Page 5, she was not comfortable with three from the City and two Novi residents. She thought it should be two and three. She said on Page 7, Section 8 it said "the Treasure shall have custody of all the funds and securities of the Authority which may come into his or her hands or possession." She asked if it was one of the five people on the Building Authority Commissioners who becomes the treasurer of the Building Authority.
Mr. Neiman said it was and his assumption was that the Finance Director would be the treasurer, which would be logical.
Councilwoman Mason asked if that would be all the time.
Mr. Neiman said he thought it made sense that the Chief Financial Officer of the City would also be the Chief Financial Officer of the Building Authority.
Councilwoman Mason asked what if one of the other three people was a citizen and a CPA and was the treasurer.
Mr. Neiman said his or her possession means in a custodial and official capacity not an individual capacity.
Councilwoman Mason said that she was prepared to vote tonight on a Senior Citizen Housing Building Authority but not for a general Building Authority.
Mayor McLallen said Council was questioning the Bond Attorney for information purposes and when it comes time to make a motion the issues that have been brought up are residency, make up of the Board of Directors and whether to keep the broad definition of the Building Authority or to narrow it down. She said these can be addressed in the resolution.
Councilman Pope said he had three questions for Mr. Neiman and Mr. Bendzinski and five amendments he wanted to offer to the Building Authority. He asked to be recognized at the time that a motion is made. He said depending on the outcome of those amendments he was prepared to support this item.
Councilman Pope said if we restricted this to a senior facility no where in this document does it say what a senior is, what the age limit would be or what the income level would be. He said if that is not in the Articles of Incorporation where does that go.
Mr. Neiman said those are questions left to the City Council. He assured Council they had researched this very carefully in terms of what is a senior because it varies from community to community, some are 50, 55 and 60. He said income levels were up to the community and Council can set the criteria.
Councilman Pope asked where would the Council place that information if it wished to have discretion. He asked what document should be created and if it should be within the Articles of Incorporation.
Mr. Neiman said it should not be in the Articles. He said remember the way this works. He said the City is the Lessee of the facility, the Building Authority is the Lessor and Council is the body that is going to sub lease to a number of individuals who will be occupying the facility. He said at the time Council is putting this together it would seem appropriate for the Council to determine what the criteria are for those people who would be eligible to be residents in the facility. He said as in most other communities, he would envision that Council would, with whatever input they want with whatever group they want, arrive at the criteria that should be employed in order to determine eligibility for residence in the facility. He said Council would create Rules for Eligibility. Mr. Neiman said if these rules would ever be changed it would be a lot easier to change the Rules than to change the Articles.
Councilman Pope asked if the City could discriminate and say that only folks who are seniors can live in a facility like that.
Mr. Neiman said absolutely.
Councilman Pope asked if private business could do that.
Mr. Neiman said he didn't know.
Councilman Pope asked who was financing the project.
Mr. Neiman said the issuer of the bonds is the Building Authority.
Councilman Pope asked if the Building Authority was a division of the City.
Mr. Neiman said it was not. He said it was a separate municipal corporation established under Michigan Law created and controlled by the City.
Councilman Pope said it would be fair to say that this is a government facility.
Mr. Neiman said there was no question about it.
Councilman Pope said so when the committee wrote a letter to the editor to the public that said this would not be government financed it didn't make sense because it is in fact government financed.
Mr. Neiman said if government financed means it is under a Federal program where there is Federal Housing assistance either Section 8 or 221 or those kinds of projects it would not be government financed. He said every transaction they had entered into to his knowledge, there had never been a dime of General Fund money or other City money that had gone into the project. He said it had all been 100% financed and 100% paid back.
Councilman Pope asked if this was a fair and true statement, that under no circumstances would City tax dollars ever be used to finance this facility.
Mr. Neiman said he did not think that was a fair statement. He said he tends to not look at the sky as blue but to look at the clouds. He said he was a very skeptical person which was why he felt he had been reasonably successful in financing for a lot of years. He said he never says never because it is just to broad a statement.
Councilman Pope said but it is highly unlikely.
Mr. Neiman said that was a fair statement. He said properly constructed, properly conceived from a financing standpoint, properly marketed and properly managed. He said he felt it was very unlikely that a dime of City of Novi funds would ever be used to pay. He thought it was probably likely if the City wished, a payment in leu of taxes to recognize that there are some City services being used in terms of Administrative, Police, Fire and those kind of things can be paid for out of the project and be reimbursed to the City for cost which may not be readily apparent.
Councilman Pope asked about the meaning of "full faith and credit."
Mr. Neiman said full faith and credit limited obligation means that the City, if the project was unsuccessful and would not support itself, would have to pay the difference from any funds it had available including the General Fund.
Councilman Pope said a Building Authority Bond does not have to be voted on by the people.
Mr. Neiman said it did not.
Councilman Pope said a General Obligation Bond had to be voted on by the people.
Mr. Neiman said this was a General Obligation too. He said there is an unlimited tax General Obligation and a limited tax General Obligation. He said the unlimited tax General Obligation had to be voted on and the limited tax did not. He said when Councilman Pope says General Obligation, Mr. Neiman thought he normally connote that to something like a Street Bond. He said they pledge an unlimited taxing power which meant that the City was obligated to pay debt service each year in the amount equal to the principle interest coming due that year from any funds it had available, or to the extent necessary from ad valorem taxes without limitation as to regular amount, in effect outside your Charter rate. He said that was a General Obligation Unlimited Tax and that was a voted bond issue.
Mr. Neiman said a Building Authority was a limited tax. He said it meant that to the extent that there was a necessity to raise monies if the project revenues were insufficient, the City would be pledging its general obligation, its General Fund and its full faith and credit. He said it would not be able to levy taxes outside of its Charter rate to make that payment.
Councilman Pope asked if the voters vote on this and if it was a Building Authority Bond would there be a lower interest rate.
Mr. Neiman said he thought it would be slightly lower but not dramatically so.
Councilman Pope said if it was a General Obligation voted bond would the interest rate be lower.
Mr. Neiman said yes but less than a quarter of one percent.
Councilman Pope confirmed that it wouldn't be a detriment to it and that it would be lower.
Mr. Neiman said the only difference was on a General Obligation vote on this kind of a project was that it tended to take a little longer to do the project. He said sometimes what is gain in the interest rate is lost in the construction costs.
Councilman Pope said on Page 2 of the Articles it said "the contract with the incorporating unit may also provide that the incorporating unit shall pay all costs and expenses of operation and maintenance". He asked if that meant the City would pay for the operation and maintenance.
Mr. Neiman said it meant the Building Authority contract will provide that the City would be responsible for it and the City would pass those costs through to the people who use the facility. He said there are two parties to this contract, the Building Authority and the City. The Building Authority had no taxing power and no money except that money the City gave it. He said it is probably appropriate for the Building Authority to give the project back to the City, in effect lease the project for the term of the bond issue, and the City would pay the debt service and take care of the operation and maintenance. He said the City would, as part of the rental structure charge a monthly charge which would pick up the operation and maintenance.
Councilman Pope said on Page 3, condemnation power is given to the Authority. He asked if the Council has given this Authority no power why would we give them condemnation power. He asked if they could go out and condemn land without Council approval.
Mr. Neiman said that they could not do it by themselves and they would have to work with Council to do it. He said they would piggyback on Council's condemnation power and not their own.
Mr. Neiman said they can only work with Council on the condemnation power and it had to be part of a project which Council had agreed to. He said they would to have the money to put up for the quick take and that money had to come from Council.
Councilman Pope said then there would be no objection to taking that out.
Mr. Neiman said if this was objectionable it didn't bother him because he had never seen a Building Authority use it. He said it didn't mean that it shouldn't be in there but the Council had full control over it. He said it was a political, practical decision that the Council made.
Councilman Mitzel said he wanted to briefly clarify that there would be no problem in limiting the Building Authority to Senior Housing nor changing the name to the City of Novi Senior Housing Authority.
Mr. Bendzinski said when you change the name to a Housing Authority it could be a detriment to the financing and the selling of the bonds. He said if it was called a Housing Authority it would be looked at by bond purchasers as having some form of subsidy or a federal type project and there might be some connotation that it was. He strongly suggested that Council keep it named Building Authority and put Senior Housing Project in parenthesis but he would not name it Housing Authority.
Mr. Neiman agreed and said that the title was really irrelevant as long as in Council's minds the purpose was restricted.
Councilman Mitzel said there had been talk about an ice arena, swimming pool or some other facility and asked if the City could have more then one Building Authority.
Mr. Neiman said if Council set up three Building Authorities they have to keep records and have meetings. He said from this Building Authority he could put 50 more things in it that they could do but unless they get Council to sign for it they can't do anything.
Councilman Mitzel said if Council were to do that then they could have them go ahead with the Senior Housing Project and sometime in the future the same Building Authority could take care of a recreational facility, if they entered into agreement with City Council.
Mr. Neiman said if the City Council in 1999 wanted to do project X, a recreational facility, new fire station, etc. it would be possible but only if the Council at the time, wanted to do it and was willing to sign the contract.
Councilman Mitzel said he was confused with the language of the "governing body officers". He said in that Council specified certain members of the City Administration should be in there but then we also put terms.
Mr. Neiman said the reason for the term was that he didn't think it was ever wise to have terms of office expire at one time. He said let's assume that in the year 2004 the then City Manager, City Finance Director and Building Official all resigned then you would have the majority of the Commission appearing at the same time who really had no idea of what had gone on before. He said terms that come due at different times afford some continuity.
Councilman Mitzel said with the body of officers being the City Manager, Finance Director and the Building Official he noticed in Mr. Klaver's memo that there was some talk about having that restricted to people who live within the City of Novi. He said he thought the recommendation was that the Finance Director and Building Official would be replaced by the Community Development Director and the Parks and Recreation Director. He asked for comments from Mr. Kriewall on that and also on whether as a City Manager if he had enough time to be involved in another big project like this.
Mr. Kriewall said as he understood it the staff would be doing a lot of the work for us. He said he might assign Mr. Klaver to look into some things and when it was brought to the Board it was like being brought to the City Council in terms of the Building Authority. He said he didn't see any problem with that.
Mr. Kriewall said Mr. Klaver's recommendation to make it the Community Development Director and the Parks and Recreation Director was driven by the fact that the original recommendation included people that did not reside within the City. He thought that was the reason for the change and Council could live with the later recommendation.
Councilman Mitzel said if Council were to alter it now to reflect current residency because as we have replacement personnel over the next 50 years, they might not live in the City of Novi. He was asking if there was a better way to specify that. He asked if it had to specifically name a person.
Mr. Neiman said it did not. He said for example Kalamazoo has a full time City Attorney in house and he is on, the City Manager is on and the Finance Director is on. He said they all reside in the City so it was never a question. He said what was in his mind when he drafted this was that the City Manager and the Finance Director are two of the people who work most closely with the City Council who have an idea of what the City Council wants and needs in terms of projects. He said they also have both Administrative experience and financial experience which is helpful. He said there was no reason it couldn't be A, B or C. He said it was entirely Council's call.
Mr. Klaver said he wanted to explain that the issue of residency didn't just come up several days ago. He said Mrs. Stipp was the one that questioned it and that was why they didn't have time to discuss it with the committee previously.
Councilman Schmid referred Council to the memo from Bendzinski and Co., paragraph 3 it said "While there is no vote required, the Contract of Lease is subject to a right of referendum giving the citizens 45 days to call an election on the Lease. In order for the citizens to call an election they must bring a petition to the City Clerk that is signed by at least 10% of the registered voters of the City." He asked if this goes through and Council was ready to sign a Lease, at that time could there be a referendum by the citizens. He asked if Mr. Neiman had ever heard of that happening.
Mr. Neiman said that was correct. He said that it had happened fairly rarely perhaps 2 or 3% of the time depending on how controversial the project was and whether the people felt it was a good project. He said it was distinctly a minority situation.
Councilman Schmid said he had a little problem with the open ended authority because that could be any project within the next 48 years. He said if they can get 4 Council people and the Administration to agree on something they could push through a parking lot or whatever on this one Building Authority.
Mr. Neiman said they could assuming there was no referendum.
Councilman Schmid said it opened up a Building Authority for 50 years.
Mr. Neiman said for example if there were no bonds out 10 years from now Council could get rid of the Building Authority just by amending the Articles of Incorporation out of existence. He said as long as there was a debt they would have to be in existence but the Articles could be amended to restrict their powers down the road if that became a problem. He said they could also be expanded.
Councilman Schmid said once the property was bought and the building was built the agreement is between the City and the Building Authority. He said then the Building Authority, except for collecting every 6 months the money due for paying of the bonds, were out of it.
Mr. Neiman said they are to the extent that Council wants them to be. He said 20 years ago he lived in the City of Southfield and sat on the Southfield Building Authority. He said the City of Southfield had a number of facilities that they financed with Building Authority. He said the Southfield Civic Center Complex was done with the Building Authority. He said in that community they actually turned over the operation and maintenance of the facilities and the management of the facilities to the Building Authority. He said it was probably unique and their Building Authority had meetings weekly going through ongoing renovation projects, etc. He said absent that and absent other tasks that Council might want the Building Authority to engage in for Council, he thought the answer was yes.
Councilman Schmid asked what the normal procedure was then.
Mr. Neiman said they could not emphasize enough the necessity of a professional manager. He said Council did not want to be involved in the management of a housing facility. He said the City was not equipped for that nor are they expert in it and needed to get someone that was. He said that management cost would get passed through as part of the Operation and Maintenance cost.
Mr. Neiman said the eligibility criteria was something that the Council had to do. He said it was in their providence, abilities and more properly their domain than the Building Authorities. He said the ultimate decision should be Council's. Mr. Neiman said with respect to how much would Council charge, they could give Council a ballpark figure of what those rents are going to be. He said the rents probably won't be set for certain until the bonds are sold because that is the other component the debt service cost.
Councilman Schmid said Section 11 said that "a commission may be removed from office for cause by an affirmative majority vote of the City Council." He asked if there was any definition of cause.
Mr. Neiman said there was not and it was purposely broad. He said they purposely tried not to make it specific and said it was kind of like pornography, you should know it when you see it. He said Council should know what cause is when they see it. He felt the more it was defined the more trouble you get into later on.
Councilman Schmid said these things are never anticipated but he was thinking of lawsuits for these kinds of things 10 years down the road if some one was removed.
Mr. Neiman said it could be put more specifically in the by-laws if Council wished. He said he would certainly defer to Mr. Fried if a narrower definition was preferred.
Councilman Schmid said he was upset with the memo that was read from the Committee that accused the Council of procras- tination. He said if that would be the attitude of the Building Authority it bothered him and he would hate to see that. He felt it was wrong for the Committee to come before Council accusing them of that when they want something from this Council.
Councilman Schmid said he may very well support this but it went against his thoughts that this could be done privately. He felt that the Committee wore that out and they couldn't find anyone. He said once the Building Authority is passed then your saying the Authority is going to own the property and the City is going to lease it. He said private investing was out, is that correct.
Mr. Neiman said he thought that there were three advantages in terms of affordability. He was not suggesting they were not detriments. He said one, was you borrow cheaper and longer and that gets passed back. Secondly, a private developer was going to pay taxes and that was a two edge sword but those taxes are going to have to be built into the rent structure. Third, a private developer is in there to make a profit. He said there had to be some basis for them to get their money back plus a reasonable rate of return given whatever risks they view in the market. He said the City was not as interested in making money as they are at making sure the project was self supporting. He said they are concerned that it builds up enough reserve so that when the project needed to have repairs, renovations or replacements there was money available. He said all those three things meant that the project should be, all things being equal, substantially lower than a private facility. He said the private developer shouldn't be able to compete because the affordability factor was much higher.
Councilman Schmid said one advantage to that was the private developer is putting up his money instead of the citizens of Novi.
Councilman Crawford said he thought that Council should support this resolution and he thought that it stood on its own. He said he sensed with the discussion at the table there would be some amendments that he necessarily didn't agree with because he thought they were virtually the same as this resolution.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Crawford Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the Resolution to establish a Building Authority be adopted.
WHEREAS, The City Council (the "Council") of the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan (the "City"), deems it advisable and necessary to provide for the acquisition, furnishing, equipping, owning, improving, enlarging, operating and maintaining a building or buildings for senior citizen housing purposes, and the necessary site or sites therefore, together with appur- tenant properties and facilities necessary or convenient for the effective use thereof, for the use of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it advisable and necessary and in the best interest of the City to create and establish an Authority under the provisions of Act 31, Public Acts of Michigan, 1948 (First Extra Session), as amended, for the purpose of accomplishing the aforesaid; and
WHEREAS, Articles of Incorporation of such an Authority under said Act have been prepared and carefully reviewed by the Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. The attached Articles of Incorporation of the Novi Building Authority are hereby approved and adopted.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Articles of Incorporation for and on behalf of the City.
3. The executed Articles of Incorporation shall be delivered to the County Clerk of the County of Oakland, who shall take such steps as are necessary under the provisions of State law to perfect the incorporation of the Authority.
Articles of Incorporation are attached to the original minutes.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Toth said on Page 8, Section 9 of the Articles it says "there shall be no annual compensation for the members of the commission." He asked if that implied that there could be other compensation.
Mr. Neiman said normally some Building Authorities would give $15.00 per meeting. He said the purpose of that was to make it clear that there was no compensation whatsoever.
Councilman Toth said on Page 5, Section 6, says "all property owned by the Authority shall be exempt from taxing by the state or any taxing unit therein." He said Mr. Neiman raised a point earlier that if the property was used by a private individual that the Authority would lose their tax free status. He stated two scenarios to see if this would apply.
Councilman Toth said if the Authority needed six acres to put a structure up and they happen to have purchased 10 acres would the extra 4 acres be allowed to be leased out to a private individual. He said if they had not constructed the structure could they lease that property out for parking or whatever and would they then jeopardize their tax free status.
Mr. Neiman said we are talking about two different kinds of tax free status. He said the reference made to Section 6 of Article III relates to ad valorem taxation. He said that would not be jeopardized unless it was being used under State Statute. For example, let's assume they built a parking deck and leased it to Fried Enterprises who had a factory next door. He said there was a specific State Statute that said if municipal property was leased to a non-exempt person they paid ad valorem property taxes. He said in that situation if it was a non-exempt person and it was used in their trader business it would probably be subject to taxation.
Councilman Toth asked if in Mr. Neimans experience working with the Senior Housing Commission and also the Redford and Livonia areas that he had talked to, would it behove us to establish an ordinance that would contain all the criteria for each of the projects or would it be by a project by project basis.
Mr. Neiman said Livonia had two or three Senior Housing Projects and they were all done a little differently. He said he didn't know if they had done them by ordinance or not. He said he thought Redford had done theirs by Resolution and the Township Board had determined the criteria. He said he thought Shelby, Clinton, Frazer, Warren and Utica had all done theirs by Resolution also. He said he had no particular problem with an Ordinance he just didn't see a need for it.
Councilman Toth asked if in Mr. Neiman's expert opinion would it be one Resolution covering all projects.
Mayor McLallen reminded Councilman Toth that the issue before Council was the Building Authority Resolution not the creation of those Articles which Mr. Neiman had said would be addressed at a separate time.
Mr. Neiman said dealing with only one project he felt Resolution made more sense.
Councilwoman Mason asked where it said "the Authority shall be a body corporate with power to sue or to be sued" what insurance coverage would cover that.
Mr. Neiman said the same insurance that covers the EDC. He said there was a blanket coverage for all the City Boards and agencies.
Councilwoman Mason referred to where it discussed the Enabling Act where it said "the Articles of Incorporation are in the Enabling Act" and asked what the Enabling Act was.
Mr. Neiman said the Enabling Act was the Building Authority Act he referred to earlier, Act. 31, Public Acts of Michigan 1948 First extra session as amended.
Councilwoman Mason asked if Council had a copy of that.
Mr. Neiman said it was in a previous package.
Councilman Mitzel said for clarification, the letter that was read during audience participation did not come from a Committee Member. He said a Committee Member was asked to read it for someone else who could not be present tonight.
Councilman Pope said he did have 5 questions but Mr. Neiman clarified some of them.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the Resolution and the Articles of Incorporation be amended to reflect that this would be strictly Senior Citizen Housing Building Authority.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Crawford said the motion only addresses the Building Authority and not the Articles.
Councilman Pope said it does in fact, there is a Resolution in the Council packets, Council has been asked to adopt that Resolution establishing a Building Authority. He asked if that was what he made a motion to approve or did he move to approve this entire package.
Councilman Crawford said the entire package if it was necessary. He thought the issue was only the Authority but the Articles of Incorporation go along with that.
Councilman Pope said that they do and the Resolution was just saying that Council was going to establish it. He said that is what he meant in his motion.
Mayor McLallen said that Councilman Pope's amendment was to limit the powers under Article III strictly to Senior Housing in the Resolution and the Articles of Incorporation.
Councilman Mitzel said that would also be Article IV, Section 4.
Councilman Pope said that his motion should reflect that Council direct the City Attorney to change the Resolution and any portion of Incorporation.
Councilman Schmid said he thought Mr. Neiman or Mr. Bendzinski mentioned the fact that if it was only for Senior Housing it could affect the bonding.
Mr. Neiman advised Council that Mr. Bendzinski said changing the name to Senior Housing Authority or Housing Authority might have an adverse impact on the marketing of the bonds and the interest rate received. He said Mr. Bendzinski suggested that the extent that he wished to change was the purpose and not the name.
Councilman Pope said his motion did not jeopardize in anyway what was just stated. He said the Building Authority would remain a Building Authority. He said the intent of his motion was to solely reflect the powers that this Building Authority as created would have. He said that their power would only be directed at Senior Housing. He said he had taken Mr. Neiman's and Mr. Bendzinski's advice and had not made a motion to alter the title of the project.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
Mr. Neiman said he and Mr. Fried would have to revise this and he wanted to make certain of the language. He asked Council to look at Article III and in the third line after "maintaining a building or buildings" adding the phrase "for Senior Citizen Housing purposes" and striking "automobile parking lots or structures, recreational facilities," and then picking up the rest of that. He said the rest of that related only to Senior Citizen Housing.
Councilman Pope said that was fine.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Toth
That the motion be amended to require that the two members elected by the Council be residents of the City and not residents of the facility.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
Councilman Pope said he would rely on Mr. Fried's advice that he didn't fear condemnation was going to come from this body without Council approval.
Mr. Fried said Council would have to authorize it.
Councilman Pope said on Page 4, center of document where it currently says "No bonds of the Authority", his motion was to strike the balance of the section regarding the referendum petition portion and the entire paragraph down to the period. He said and replace that with "No bonds of the Authority shall be issued without approval of the majority vote of the electors of the City of Novi."
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That the motion be amended to reflect change of Page 4, center of document where it currently says "No bonds of the Authority", to strike the balance of the section regarding the referendum petition portion and the entire paragraph down to the period and replace it with "No bonds of the Authority shall be issued without approval of the majority vote of the electors of the City of Novi."
DISCUSSION
Councilman Pope said he thought in a lot of ways since the debate in December, he had to reflect that these are good people trying to solve a problem for the City. He said for him it was a generational issue and a philosophical question. He said we have a Committee who has come before Council, who have done good work with attorneys who have given good advice and have said this facility would be bonded for $8.1 Million. He said it was unlikely that the taxpayers would have to use any dollars to subsidize this facility. However, Councilman Pope said when you are taking $8 Million of the borrowing capacity of this City and potentially having the taxes used in this City to finance a project like this, however remote, then it should be left to the voters. He said the Committee argues that the public had already voted on this and they voted on it 2,000 to 900 that they wanted Senior Citizen Housing so therefore why would Council question it.
Councilman Pope said the committee should also reflect that 1,500 people in 1989 said they didn't want to pay more taxes to a vote of 1,300 that may have. He said we have already had a vote in the City that folks don't want to pay taxes for a facility like this. He said he was not advocating that taxes are going to be needed for this but he thought that when you are taking $8.1 million of the City's dollars that should go to the voters for a vote.
Councilman Pope said when this is done the interest rate is going to be lower by maybe a quarter point but Council has heard a lot of arguments that these rents have to be as low as possible. He said if it was a public issue that the voters are going to approve then what was the objection of asking the voters permission. He said the Headley Amendment was adopted and we are seeing some dramatic changes at the state level. He said one of the main tenants of the Headley Amendment was that a local government could not raise a tax without a vote of the people. He said bonds were not included in that and he was not implying that they were. He said the residents have continued at a National, State and Local level to demand their tax dollars and the power to make the decisions on where those tax dollars are going. He said this amendment would only make sure that the voters would have a chance to do it and to get a lower interest rate for the facility before them.
Councilman Pope said this was a philosophical and a generational issue for him. He said we struggle to look at what the National Government is going under on what is called entitlements. He said it boggles the mind what the Federal Government is up against. He said he questioned if Council was stepping in a direction that Council should have the voters give their approval on.
Councilwoman Mason stated she wanted to make an amendment after Councilman Pope was finished.
Mayor McLallen stated the amendment to strike the language that does allow a referendum after the bond proposal had been made and to put the actual proposal of the bond before the voters.
Councilman Pope said he wanted to clarify one thing for Councilwoman Mason. He said when he used the term generational he did not mean that he was young and others were old. He said what he meant was a generational philosophical view towards government. He said some of these projects are 1960's projects that the government has to finance.
Mr. Neiman said it was a comment and not meant as a comment adverse to Councilman Pope. He said it was a comment in terms of the mechanical and real ramifications of eliminating the referendum and requiring a vote. He said if that was done, and the Building Authority Articles could provide for that, then Council might as well put it up to a vote and do away with the Building Authority entirely. He said there was no logic as to why Council would go through the Building Authority process, have a group and contract and then require the vote. He said Council might as well do the vote directly just like it had been done with the street bonds.
Councilwoman Mason asked if on Page 4 where it said "maybe required by law shall have been held and the same approved by a majority vote of the electors of the incorporating unit voting thereon" did that mean the majority of the five.
Mr. Neiman said no that meant if a petition was filed, this was assuming that there was a project, and a contract drafted, Mr. Fried's office had reviewed it, it reflected all involved, and Council and Building Authority approved the contract. Then the Council also approves a Notice of Intention of entering the contract and the clerk would publish a 1/4 page display advertisement in the Novi News. The Notice of Intent would basically say that the City of Novi intended to enter into a contract with the Novi Building Authority whereby they would acquire this project for X dollars and it would be financed with bonds over a X time period with interest bonds not to exceed X. This contract would be effective 45 days after this notice had been published unless a petition was filed, signed by 10% of the registered electors of the City of Novi and filed with the City Clerk's office within that 45 day period. He said if the referendum petition was filed then the contract did not become effective. It was not effective until the referendum period had lapsed without the petition being filed.
Mr. Neiman said what this related to was if a referendum petition was filed then the contract was not effective until it had been voted on by the majority of the voters.
Councilman Crawford said Mr. Neimans letter of September 2, 1994 offered three alternatives. He said one was the issuance of Building Authority Bonds which he said could be issued with or without a vote. Councilman Crawford said he was confused because in order to issue these type of bonds he thought there had to be Building Authority in place. He said another alternative would be a straight vote and general obligation bonds or an issuance of Revenue Bonds. He asked Mr. Neiman why he would say that a Building Authority was of no use if we choose to have a vote.
Mr. Neiman said if Council chose to have a vote then he would do it directly. He said with the Building Authority in place, there was a lot more documentation between the City and a separate body. He said if the desire of the Council was to vote it then why involve the Building Authority and all the documentation. He said why not just go directly to the vote.
Councilman Crawford asked what kind of bond would be used.
Mr. Neiman said it would be straight General Obligation Bonds. Mr. Bendzinski said then Council would not be required to levy a tax to use the rents from the facility to pay the debt service.
Councilman Crawford asked if there were advantages to having the Building Authority in place.
Mr. Bendzinski said there were really no advantages when you put the restrictive language in that Councilman Pope was recommending.
Mr. Neiman said if Council decided to do that he wanted to make sure they understood the ramifications. He said it didn't make a lot of sense to continue the Building Authority and then vote it. He said it would add extra steps and cost at the City's end.
Councilman Pope said he appreciated their advice but this was, process wise, the only chance he had to raise this issue. He said he would agree with the attorneys and the advice that if the direction of the Council was they wanted to proceed with this then we are going to go to a vote and then we ask the attorneys to look at the better way to go about a vote. He said this was a philosophical question and somewhat awkward to say that everything Council was doing tonight was irrelevant because it didn't fit within the Building Authority. He said this was going to be a government project regardless of how it was financed. He said all he was saying was he preferred if this was the direction that the Committee wanted to go and the majority wanted to go, there should be a vote. He said his preference had never been attempted in this City. He said no one ever went out to bid for a private developer.
Mr. Neiman said he was not suggesting that Councilman Pope's comment made the process irrelevant. He said his point was that he thought some of the economic advantage was lost. He said for example let's assume that there was a 1/4% difference between a Building Authority Bond limited tax and a voted General Obligation Bond. He said by voting a Building Authority Bond he thought that you don't maintain that 1/4% and thought that you may eat into it and would now be saving 10 or 15 basis points.
Councilman Pope said absolutely. He said at any point there was even a referendum if, Farmington Hills for example went to begin their ice rink and they were going to revenue bonds but when it was mentioned it should go to the voters they said OK and now it will be General Obligation. Councilman Pope said it was his feeling that if it went to the voters it should be General Obligation because then the interest rate is lower, lower rents which this committee said they want. He said now they say they don't want the lower rents and don't want the voters to approve it.
Mr. Neiman said if Council wanted to vote then they probably would not recommend using the Building Authority because they thought Council would lose some of the incentives of the vote.
Councilman Pope said, in all politeness to Mr. Neiman, he is caught up in this process and his thinking as an attorney and what is right and the forms that have to be filled out and how it has to function and he is absolutely right. He said if this Council ever made a decision, which they are not about to, to go to the voters then Council would rely on that advice. He said we are making policy and not an implementation and from a policy standpoint it should go to a vote. He said if this Council decided to go to a vote then Council would run to Mr. Neiman and have him implement it for them. He said right now though it was a policy question it was not a process question.
Councilman Crawford said Councilman Pope was under the assumption that his amendment wasn't going to pass. He said he was prepared to support the amendment to go to the voters but had now become confused about the need for the Building Authority. He said he thought that even if it went to the voters or if it didn't there was a need for a Building Authority to be in place.
Mr. Kriewall said that the Building Authority was more of a financing mechanism than anything else. He said if Councilman Crawford supported Councilman Pope's amendment then he probably should not adopt a Building Authority.
Councilman Crawford said there are several pages of rules, duties, responsibilities and authorities that the Building Authority can do. He asked where that comes in and wouldn't that still be in place.
Mr. Kriewall said to get another Committee or another Senior Housing Committee.
Councilman Crawford asked why not the Building Authority.
Mr. Kriewall said it was not needed if the issue was going to be voted on.
Councilwoman Mason said she disagreed because in the Incorporation in the Building Authority wasn't it true that Council could expand this Building Authority to go to other things at other times. She said it could be expanded and at this time we are concerned with Senior Citizen Housing. She said when there's a Building Authority there also was the enabling power from the enabling act. Whereas, if there was no Authority you don't have that. She said the fact that Councilman Pope had put that amendment in there saying it was up to the voters did not discount the fact the there was a Building Authority and at another time and another Council it could take care of recreational facilities.
Mayor McLallen said by unanimous amendment this Council struck all language except anything pertaining to Senior Citizen Housing.
Councilwoman Mason said and Mr. Neiman agreed, that the next time Council wanted to use the Building Authority it could be expanded once it was in place. She felt that the Building Authority was still needed to get the housing off the ground.
Councilman Schmid said Mr. Neiman stated very clearly that if this goes for election of the voters we would probably get a better rate of interest. He said let's assume it goes to the voters and they vote for it and we don't have a Building Authority and a Committee of Senior Housing was formed we would get a better rate than we would if we keep a Building Authority. He said the Building Authority was designed so it didn't have to go to the voters, it could be an Administrative decision and it had certain advantages but they are not that great. He said the big advantage was that it didn't have to go to the voters to put the process in motion.
Mr. Neiman said assuming Council didn't want to vote this they have a group in place who has experience with projects, with operation management or financing of projects and can do a wide variety of projects. He said assuming that Council wanted to take this to a vote of the people he didn't see an advantage but saw a detriment to using the Building Authority to do that. He said it was an economic decision not an implementation decision. He said from an economic standpoint he saw a detriment to using the Building Authority to take it to the voters leaving aside the mechanical steps Council would have to go to just to get to the same place. He said he agreed that it was probably more advantageous to take it directly to the voters and then have a Building Authority.
Councilman Schmid said he didn't care which way Council went but thought the Building Authority would be a hinderance from an economic standpoint. He said Council could nominate five people to head up the Building Authority only it wouldn't be a Building Authority it would be a Committee if it went to the voters.
Mayor McLallen said there was a motion on the floor that had been supported. The motion was to amend the language on Page 4 to state that any bond would go directly to the vote of the voters before it was issued. She said it was an amendment to the main motion.
Councilman Crawford asked if there was a difference in perception to the voter as to what they would be voting on whether a General Obligation Bond or a Building Authority situation.
Mr. Neiman said the propositions would be framed differently. He said one proposition would be very similar to what was done with the streets, which was should General Obligation Bonds be issued for the purpose of A, B and C. He said if done with the Building Authority it would be shall the contractive lease bind between the City of Novi Building Authority and the City of Novi become effective which shall provide for... He said one deals with the lease being effective, full faith in credit, General Obligation unlimited tax contractive lease. The other provides with the General Obligation Bonds.
Councilman Crawford said the marketing for the issue might be totally different locally.
Mr. Neiman said he thought it was a little harder to understand because you are dealing with a contractive lease as opposed to a bond issue.
Councilman Crawford asked if there was a perception of less risk to the taxpayer with the Building Authority.
Mr. Neiman said he wouldn't be willing to speculate because he didn't know the mind of the voter. He thought it was probably more of a story that you would have to tell with respect to the contractive lease then you would with the bond issue if you put them both to a vote.
Councilman Crawford said it was an important project that he had always supported and he thought that either way it could be sold to the public. He just wanted the public to understand their risk which is minimal to none, and he didn't know what their perception of the General Obligation might be to the Building Authority. He said he thought the perception of a General Obligation Bond vote had a different perceived risk factor.
Mr. Neiman said he didn't know.
Councilman Pope asked Mr. Fried if he had any response.
Mr. Fried said he had one comment in regard to Councilman Crawford's question. He said if Council goes with the Bonding Authority then a petition must be filed by voters before it comes to a vote. He said if Councilman Pope's suggestion is followed then it would come to the voters without any petition being filed. He said he thought that was the most significant difference.
Councilman Pope said Mr. Neiman, Mr. Bendzenski and Mr. Fried always get very conservative on how they word the language. He said more language could be included saying that the rents will help offset the bonds.
Mr. Neiman said he could put that into the Notice of Election.
Councilman Pope said and that is why you are saying a story would have to be told.
Mr. Neiman said in either case because you are dealing with a contractive lease and people don't understand. He said in the Notice of Election you put in there that it is anticipated that the City would use revenues derived from the operation of the facilities to pay debt service, but. He said it had never happened but you always put but because you want to be able to do what you have to do if you have to do it.
Councilman Crawford said if Council approved the amendment then the next step would be to rescind the previous two hours and disband the Building Authority.
Mayor McLallen said that it appeared to be an option that Council would always have based on the conversation of this evening.
Mayor McLallen said that the amendment was to re-word the language on Page 4 stating that before any bonds were to be considered a vote of the people would have to be taken.
ROLL CALL: Crawford Yes, Mason Yes, Mitzel No, Pope Yes, Schmid No, Toth No, McLallen No
Yes (3) No (4) Motion fails
Mayor McLallen restated the main motion: That the Novi City Council move to establish a Building Authority whose title will remain a Building Authority but whose language governing its powers would restrict those powers strictly to the development of a Senior Housing Facility, and further that the composition of the Board of Directors those resident members must be residents of the City limits of the City of Novi and may not be residents of the facility itself.
ROLL CALL: Mason Yes, Mitzel Yes, Pope No, Schmid Yes, Toth Yes, McLallen Yes, Crawford Yes
Yes (6) No (1) Motion carried
Mayor McLallen stated that Councilwoman Mason asked that the agenda be amended to move up Item #5, Matters for Council Action - Part II, Community Sports Park Status Report. She said staff members are present and it would be moved to Item #3A after the EDC Resolution.
It was then,
Moved by Councilwoman Mason Seconded by Councilman Pope
That the agenda be amended and Item #5, Community Sports Park Status Report under Matters for Council Action - Part II be moved to Matters for Council Action - Part I under Item #3A.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
Councilwoman Mason advised Mayor McLallen she had two pieces of vacant land listed for the gentleman that owned Programmed Products Corporation. She said she had nothing to do with the project but wanted the Council to know.
Mayor McLallen asked if anyone had any issue with Councilwoman Mason voting on the EDC proposal for the Programmed Product Project. There were no objections.
2. Resolution certifying approval of the Project Area Designation, Establishing the Project District Area Boundaries and appointment of additional Directors of the Economic Development Corporation for the Programmed Products Corporation Project
WHEREAS, there exists in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan (the "City") the need for certain programs to alleviate and prevent conditions of unemployment, to assist and retain local industrial and commercial enterprises in order to strengthen and revitalize the City's economy and to encourage the location and expansion of industrial and commer- cial enterprises to provide needed services and facilities to the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, a program to alleviate the aforesaid conditions and accomplish said purposes has been initiated by The Economic Development Corporation of the City of Novi (the "Corporation"); and
WHEREAS, a project (the "Project") has been proposed to the Corporation by R & Z Company (the "Company") to be leased to Programmed Products Corporation; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation in conformity with Act No. 338, Public Acts of Michigan, 1974, as amended ("Act No. 338"), has designated the hereinafter described project area for such a Project to this Council for its approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary for this Council to establish project district area boundaries; and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary for this Council to approve the appointment of two additional directors to the Council of Directors of the Corporation pursuant to the provisions of Section 4(2) of Act No. 338;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. This Council does hereby certify its approval of the Corporation's designation of the project area described in Exhibit A hereto attached.
2. This Council does hereby establish as a project district area the property described in Exhibit B hereto attached.
3. This Council does hereby certify its approval of the individuals listed on Exhibit C as additional Directors of the Corporation to serve in conformity with the pro- visions of Section 4(2) of Act No. 338.
4. It is hereby determined that the requirements of Section 20 of Act No. 338 have been met and that the formation of a project citizens district council is not required.
5. The City Clerk be and is hereby directed to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of the Corporation.
6. All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of this resolution be and the same hereby are rescinded.
Mayor McLallen said the EDC had brought forward a project in the area south of Grand River on the westerly portion of Grand River just over the bridge bordered by Lanny's Road, Clark Street and Grand River. She said there was an existing functioning portion of this project which is known as Programmed Products and they apparently do screen printing. She said they are consolidating their business bringing their office headquarters from Plymouth to Novi and they are asking for EDC financing. She said the EDC had recommended the project to the Council and there are three actions requested by Council.
Mr. Neiman said there was one Resolution that did three things. He said the EDC had induced the project and they have recommended to Council a Project Area, a Project District area and have requested that Council appoint two additional Directors to the Board of the EDC for this project. He said the Project Area is defined as literally the physical area of the 6 acres upon which this project would be situated. He said there is a Project District Area which was defined by the EDC Act as that area that would be affected by the project. The EDC had made a determination that there would be no area affected other than the 6 acres. The Project Area and the Project District Area are the same 6 acre site and they have requested that the Mayor appoint and the Council approve two additional members who would serve on the EDC for this project only and only for the duration of this project which should be three months or so.
Mayor McLallen said the recommendation was that people who live in the affected area be appointed and also to appoint former Mayor Karavich and former Deputy Chief Dick Faulkner as the two additional Directors.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Second by Councilwoman Mason
That the Resolution certifying approval of the Project Area Designation, Establishing the Project District Area Boundaries and appointment of additional Directors of the Economic Development Corporation for the Programmed Products Corporation Project be approved.
Yes (5-Mitzel, Toth, No (1-Schmid) Motion carried Pope, Mason, McLallen
(Councilman Crawford was not present at time of the vote.)
Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Fried for a Point of Order and he said if Councilman Crawford was present he was required to vote unless the Council allowed him to abstain. Mayor McLallen asked if not being in the room does not constitute not being present. Mr. Fried said that was correct. Councilman Crawford said if Council wanted to update him on this Item he would be more than happy to vote. Mayor McLallen updated Councilman Crawford. Councilman Crawford cast his vote.
Yes (6-Mitzel, Toth, No (1-Schmid) Motion carried Pope, Mason, McLallen
Crawford)
3A. Community Sports Park Status Report
Mayor McLallen said Item #3A on the agenda, as amended, was an update on the Novi Community Sports Park and it would be brought to Council by Dan Davis, Director of Parks and Recreation. She said he was looking for direction on bringing this project to fruition.
Mr. Davis said he was not asking for any formal action on behalf of Council but to take the opportunity to brief the members of Council and the citizens of Novi on the status of our Community Sports Park Project.
Mr. Davis said the Sports Park Project was a 72 acre park site at Eight Mile and Napier Roads in southwestern Novi. He said the Parks Commission had been working for the past few months on developing a schematic master plan of the site with the landscape architects James Ludwig and Associates of Farmington Hills. He said the emphasis of the development had been focused on providing athletic facilities for the community. Mr. Davis said they have taken focus of providing softball and soccer fields along with the accessory uses that would be required to facilitate the operation of that site. He said that would be parking lots, rest rooms, concession facilities and so forth. He said before Council was the drawing that had been put forth, it has gone through the Planning Commission, Preliminary Site Plan on their February 15th agenda and gained unanimous support there.
Mr. Davis said they are now at the point of preparing documents to bring this project forward into bid specifications and documents to release it out so we can solidify the preliminary cost estimates. This would help to make a better educated decision on what and if we need to delete, eliminate or phase to make sure that the project gets completed in a timely fashion.
Mr. Davis said within Council packets Ludwig and Assoc. have put together a preliminary cost estimate for the facility improvements that are before Council tonight. He said these include 8 multi-use ballfields to be used for baseball and/or softball, 6 large soccer fields that can be broken down to smaller soccer facilities for younger children, three rest rooms, concession stand, approximately 610 parking spaces, sand volleyball courts, tennis and basketball courts and a maintenance facility. He said it also included a roadway system throughout and it would also require an acceleration/deceleration lane along Eight Mile for the entry into the park.
Mr. Davis said Jim Ludwig would answer Council if there were any specific questions regarding the site development or engineering questions. He said once the numbers are solidified as far as cost for development they would come back to Council for approval of those bids and also for determination if there would have to be any type of phasing.
Mr. Davis said throughout the entire process of approximately four months they have had numerous public meetings through the Parks Commission. There had been Public Hearings where the residents of the adjoining properties were invited to come in and work with them on the development. He said when they first started out there were 7 or 8 renderings and with their input they have come down to this design. They felt this provided not only a quality design for the residents to use but also that it was going to be a good neighbor to the adjoining property owners.
Councilman Toth said he thought the ballfields were fine where they are located but had a problem with the soccer fields having five of his children involved in soccer. He said the trend was that the players normally sit on the sidelines but the orientation of your fields are set up so that they would be sitting on the roadside. He felt from a safety standpoint this may be a problem. He felt some, if not all, of the fields should be rotated 90 degrees if possible and relocated because some kind of berm or fencing will have to go along Napier Road. Councilman Toth said the tradition in soccer was that members of one team sit on one sideline and the other team sits on the other sideline. He said to have them both on the same sideline was not generally acceptable. He said from that standpoint the orientation of the soccer fields was a problem.
Mr. Davis said specifically with the designed soccer fields what was preferred was the soccer fields and athletic fields running at a north/south direction to take away the sun angles and the wind. He said there was enough room for spectators because they allowed room on each side of the field. He said the fields are set up at 350 feet long and 250 feet wide to allow buffer areas along the outside of the actual playing field.
Councilman Toth said people would park on the shoulder of the road and felt an 8 or 10 foot strip should be paved or at least gravelled on each side of the road to allow parking on the road. He said the formal parking lots are fine but the calculations just for the soccer and the ballfields he came up with 748 cars at the worst case. He said if the other play areas, tennis and basketball courts are included he felt there wouldn't be sufficient parking. He thought it would be a good idea to look at the parking and put whatever could be put in there in there because there would be cars in and out and there are only two entrances.
He asked if there was fencing planned around the property.
Mr. Davis said they do not have incorporated in the plan perimeter fencing for the site, only at gate control points for vehicle control factors.
Councilman Toth asked if there would be a berm or something along Napier Road to keep kids from running into the street.
Mr. Davis said within the grading plan of the site there would be some berming and screening along the Napier Road boundary to keep the balls into play. He said they would be doing landscape planning and again with the drainage of the site there would be the necessity to create swales to move the water off the playing surfaces to the catch basins and etc. He said they would have berms and the height would be determined at the next step when the engineering plans are finalized.
Councilman Toth asked Mr. Davis to pronounce the soil type 50B. It was Udipsamments, undulating.
Mr. Kriewall said Administration was approached by developers interested in exploring the sanitary sewer and extending it down Nine Mile to Napier Road. He said they directed him through Mr. Nowicki to explore this administratively. He said they would conduct some administrative public meetings with all the surrounding property owners in that area to see what the interest was before bringing it to Council. He said Mr. Davis might want to monitor that process that will be going on with Mr. Nowicki and the Department of Public Services with our consulting engineers. He said it was something that might benefit the Sports Park if we can get the sanitary sewer to that area.
Mr. Davis said for Council's benefit, they are planning a septic facility at the site and they have an approved septic facility plan from Oakland County. He said the perk tests were good and they are planning three rest room facilities that would go into this on site septic system.
Councilman Pope said he thought the Council had already established a policy that the sewer wasn't going to go past Beck Road.
Mr. Kriewall said it was talked about.
Councilman Mitzel said the Preliminary Master Plan was presented to Council but it was never officially adopted.
Mr. Kriewall said the Master Plan showed sanitary sewer service throughout Novi all the way to Napier Road. He said the SEMCOG limits in term of our service area were established such that Federal Funding could not be granted for any extensions west of Beck Road.
Mayor McLallen said in Section C of his items there was an $80,000 cost for sanitary sewer and not for septic.
Mr. Davis said that should be septic.
Mayor McLallen asked how many septic fields were going in.
Mr. Davis said there would be one large septic field. He said with the site locations within the ballfield star configuration there was a rest room and concession facility. He said there are two other rest rooms one by the soccer fields and one near the front entry by the playground area. He said there would actually be three that lead into that so there was piping that would have to necessitate the flow and that was where that cost was coming in.
Mayor McLallen asked if Council was comfortable with the request that Mr. Davis made to proceed with the document preparation and bid process to get a firmer grip on the costs for the project.
Mr. Davis said he wanted to leave Council with an update as far as the timing and said they were working on developing that. He said they would get this out to bid so they could get those numbers back and hopefully anticipated getting it to Council in April with the idea that as soon as the frost breaks and the ground thaws and dries they would be out there and getting fields ready for operation in 1996.
3. Ordinance 95-156 - Adopting Guidelines for Board of Review Poverty Exemptions - I and II Reading with immediate effect
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Crawford
That Ordinance No. 95-156, AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTIONS 2-193.1 THROUGH 2-103.6 TO THE CITY OF NOVI CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH THE POLICY AND GUIDELINES FOR THE APPLICATION, ELIGIBILITY AND GRANTING OF AN EXEMPTION, FROM TAXATION OF THE HOMESTEAD OF PERSONS WHO BY REASON OF POVERTY, ARE UNABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARD THE PUBLIC CHARGE, UNDER SECTION 7u OF ACT 206 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS OF 1893, AS AMENDED, BEING MCL 211.7u, I and II reading with immediate effect be adopted.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
Mr. Fried advised the Council that the Ordinance required that Council approve the application.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Toth
That the application be approved as presented.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
4. Discussion - Zoning of properties in Town Center Area, including DPW Site and Adjacent Properties
Mayor McLallen said Item #4 was a result of a conversation that took place at the last Council meeting involving the actual zoning and Master Planning of the property westerly of Meadowbrook Road towards Cresent Drive. She said the conversation came up because of a recreational use that was proposed and there seemed to be some indication that Council was not comfortable with this actual zoning.
Brandon Rogers, City Planning Consultant, said he was asked by Mr. Wahl to prepare a brief memo which was given to Council and dated March 2nd.
Mr. Rogers said on the zoning map the Town Center Shopping area, Trammel-Crow is zoned TC District. He said part of it on the west side of Town Center Drive wa also zoned OSC and there is a City initiated study going on to straighten the boundary line to the center line of Town Center Drive with a TC District and OSC District where the Lake Point Office building and the Wyndham Hotel is located. He said going easterly to Meadowbrook Road the property on either side of 11 Mile is zoned I-1 as is the property going further to the east going over to Seeley is also zoned I-1.
Mr. Rogers said this pattern is reflected in the Master Plan also except on the Master Plan the Town Center Business District goes to the center line of Town Center Drive and then there is the office designation. This included the Langdon property on Grand River as OS-1 and the property north of 11 Mile which is zoned OSC but on the Master Plan it is merely called out as office use. He said going east on either side of Meadowbrook it is Master Planned for Light Industrial. He said the heavy Industrial is north of 12 Mile Road. He said there was a map attached to the report that showed the location of Cresent Blvd. as extended in a general location. Mr. Rogers said if Council looked at the zoning map where he put on the characters TC, OSC and I-1 Council would see that if Cresent Blvd. takes that particular alignment which connects on an alignment with Delwal Drive that property on both side of Cresent Blvd. at least to 11 Mile is zoned I-1 today. He said the property on either side of Delwal Drive is Master Planned for Light Industrial use. He said with the one exception of the zoning district boundary along Town Center Drive the Master Plan of 1993 is the foundation for the present zoning patterns.
Mr. Rogers said his memo just took three features of the three districts and compared them. He said the minimum front yard setback varied in all cases, building height is the same in OSC or TC which is 5 stories or 65 feet. He said offices uses, medical, financial and real estate are permitted in all of the three districts as are transient housing, hotels and motels are permitted with restrictions and restaurants subject to certain restrictions. Mr. Rogers said one difference he didn't bring out was there was very limited retail uses permitted in an I-1 District, only those relating to a building supply or a building components reduction tools, office showroom but not the type of office retail that would be permitted in a TC or an OSC District.
Mr. Rogers said in a Town Center, the TC or TC-1 District there are certain streetscape amenities which are now built into the zoning ordinance that are not found in such specificity in the OSC or the I-1 Districts. He said the Town Center District was and still is intended to be at the town center of the four segments of the crossroads. He said it had taken on a broader connotation with the Main Street Village Proposal zoned TC-1 District as is Vic's Market and the Sports Tavern which heretofore were zoned Commercial and Office.
Mr. Rogers said if the intent was to take another look at the properties along 11 Mile easterly of the Office District which are the Lakepoint Office Building, Wyndham Garden Hotel, Lakepoint #2, DPW and Town Center Drive. He said what we are talking about is the property zoned I-1 Light Industrial uses. He said we had a case of Trammel-Crow building two office buildings on the south side of 11 Mile just west of Meadowbrook and Digital occupied most of the first building. He said those two buildings came in as warehouse office uses and turned out to be more of an office use than a warehouse use even though they had overhead doors. He said there was a mix of uses, the Grand Meadowbrook Shopping is zoned NCC, Federal Express who is moving and the building will be vacated and there is Cedar Ridge Shopping Center.
Mr. Rogers felt that before any zoning changes were made the Master Plan should be addressed.
Councilman Schmid said he didn't know if it was TC-1 or ORC in the area of concern but he said ORC seemed an ideal location, not with standing a lot of things could be put in I-1. He felt that that close to the TC District it just doesn't fit that there would be Industrial next to it.
Mr. Rogers said looking at the development pattern over the last 10 years it had taken on more of an office, hi tech type of use. He said there was the Meadowbridge Park Development on the other side of Meadowbrook Rd., Trammel-Crow garden/office development, DPW, Lakepoint office building which was 99% leased up now may justify another office building that may have had another site plan approved but it would have to be reinstated. Mr. Rogers said the improvement of 11 Mile does have some potential for other than an I-1 Use. He said he would not recommend extending the Town Center District because he thought the Town Center District should serve the Town Center with its unique amenities.
Mr. Rogers said he could see some merit, the residential of the hotel, the visibility directly off the freeway, restaurants. He said it is very prime land and there are some environmental problems like piled debris, and it is property that is not really developed. Mr. Rogers said looking at the whole area going across Vincenti Court is fully developed, Meadowbridge Park and the Federal Express land. He said there was very little development left, a vacant piece of land between Intec and the car repair shop is up for consideration for mini storage. He said that would nearly completely occupy the entire I-1 frontage on Grand River and very little would be left. He said Red Timbers was rebuilt and Grand Meadowbrook was still on the books although there is no current site plan, but there is sort of a vacuum and there are various options that we could have.
Mr. Rogers said the OSC District was intended to be near an intersection or a freeway or direct access to a major thoroughfare. He said it could be expanded.
Councilman Schmid said he talked to Mr. Kriewall about the Municipal Building being there and there are some concerns that maybe it would have to stay there and maybe it should. He said Mr. Kriewall said we might need the whole piece in question. He said he had always envisioned that the frontage of the DPW site on 11 Mile Road would be used for something else.
Mr. Kriewall said it is about 700-800 feet deep and we are probably occupying over half of that now with the new building under construction.
Councilman Schmid said from an aesthetic, building and needs standpoint and how it fits in an office zoning in that particular area would make a lot of sense.
Mr. Rogers said that particular Roller Dek use was permitted in an I-1 or I-2 District where there is no infrastructure, water or sewer services available. He said it was an interim use and not an ideal use in the long haul.
Mayor McLallen said in the long term plan of the City and knowing the City's goals which are more appropriate both visually in support of infrastructure, etc. use for this property. She asked if it would be the TC, OSC or I-1.
Mr. Rogers said the pro's for office was that if Cresent Blvd. was developed generally on the alignment that he had shown on the zoning map it did set up some development parcels on either side that are an entry into Cresent Blvd. up along the freeway. He said he personally would prefer to see OS-2, OSC type uses then maybe industrial uses along that particular boulevard. He said he did believe that it would be a boulevard down to Grand River. Mr. Rogers said going easterly past the DPW keeping in mind that in the I-1 District office uses are appropriate, this property could still go I-1. He thought along the side of Cresent Blvd. there was some merit to consider something other then Industrial.
Mr. Rogers said he had not studied this or discussed it with the Planning Commission and this might be a worthy referral to the Commission.
Mayor McLallen said he did indicate that the Planning Commission was preliminarily suggesting a study in the Cresent area.
Mr. Rogers said not officially. He said they are aware that it is on the agenda tonight and might be witnessing this discussion but the only Planning Commission initiative was to straighten the zoning boundary between the TC and the OSC to put it into the center of Town Center Drive. He said they had talked to the Linder group about that and didn't see that they had any objection.
Councilman Pope asked Mr. Kriewall if he had anything to add.
Mr. Kriewall said if your looking at the development of the Cresent Drive alignment and understand what is on the site today, he said there was a natural greenbelt that existed from the prior fence line or tree line that Mr. Van Every created as a farmer. He said the area east of the new Cresent Drive alignment could actually be preserved as an I-1 use DPW site and you would never know it is there. He said if you drive down Delwal Drive and look to the east at the entrance to the DPW garage you can hardly see the garage because of the tree line in that area. He said this area lends itself as an ideal isolated area for long term public works facility development. Mr. Kriewall said additional buildings could be built in the area and never impact at all what's happening west of Delwal Drive and Cresent Drive.
Mr. Kriewall said that he envisioned someday having a water and sewer building on the front piece, a DPW office facility much like the Road Commission operates, a separate public works facility and there would be an office use in that case right on 11 Mile Road. He said there could be an entirely encapsulated facility that would not be offensive to office development. He felt we could continue to build the Public Works Complex in this area. He said the entire easterly border of the site was all wetlands and could not be developed. He said if you are on the Walsh College site you cannot see anything because of all the vegetation. He said we could create an island of Public Works Facilities long range in this area and not impact any development that might take place around us. He said that was the beauty of the site.
Mr. Kriewall said the DPW building that existed now was designed to look like an office building. It has office appearing windows on the front, elevation from the expressway and it looks like an office building from the expressway.
Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kriewall to address to the west of Cresent Drive.
Mr. Kriewall said the area from the new alignment west you could do whatever you want there. He said it could be TC, Office, OSC but he thought the line of demarkation was the future route of the proposed Town Center Drive extension. He thought anything west of that whatever you wanted to do you could. He said we wouldn't impact it negatively at all.
Councilman Schmid said the only disagreement between he and Mr. Kriewall would be the frontage. He said he needed convincing that that much space would be needed because there must be 300 feet or more from 11 Mile back before hitting the drainage ditch. He asked why anything south of the drainage ditch couldn't be OSC or something of that nature.
Mr. Kriewall said he thought it could be made office along the frontage because he thought it could be a DPW office in the future. He said if it was left Industrial it could still be office.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the Planning Commission be requested to review and consider the outlined and discussed area, the land from Meadowbrook West, for possible Master Plan Changes from its present to an office use.
DISCUSSION
Councilwoman Mason said all of the things Councilman Schmid was talking about, hotels and motels, office use, medical and financial, could all be in the I-1 District. She said it was just a lesser thing that can be put in there. She said in the same sense there could be some light warehousing in there. She suggested that it should stay the way it was because it was one section that seemed to call for that. She said she agreed with Mr. Kriewall that the way it is buffered it can't be seen. She said she wouldn't vote for the Planning Commission to do anything with the area because she felt that it should stay the way it is.
Mayor McLallen said she would not support the motion because she agreed with Councilwoman Mason. She said she would support it if we stayed to the west of the new Cresent alignment. She thought that the flexibility and the protection that the I-1 zoning affords would allow buildings to function the way the market seemed to be going, which was a combination of office, warehouse and small single sites. She said it offered more flexibility or single office could be built. She said it was not a smokestack type of an industrial zoning. She thought the City needed to be very protective of its flexibility within this ordinance. She said OSC was much more restrictive but the end result building may function for outside appearance the same way, and yet the opportunity under OSC for the City to attract users is much more restrictive.
Yes (3-Toth, Schmid No (4-Mason, Motion failed Pope) Crawford, McLallen Mitzel) It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Mitzel
That the Planning Commission be requested to review the property westerly of the proposed extension of Cresent Boulevard for Master Plan change.
Yes (6-Mason, Toth, No (1-Schmid) Motion carried Pope, McLallen, Crawford, Mitzel)
Councilman Mitzel stated there was a memo in Council packets regarding TC-1 rezonings and asked if that was part of this agenda item to.
Mr. Rogers said it was not it was for information. He said it went to the Town Center Steering Committee last week and he thought it would be on the agenda for Wednesday, March 8th for further review. He said 3 or 4 months ago he spoke before Council about this anomaly in the southeast quadrant and Councilmen Schmid and Toth suggested he initiate. He strongly recommended that it be done in the southeast quadrant. He said it was a gerrymandered boundary. He said in the southwest quadrant the owner, George Keros, proposed it for TC-1 and then withdrew it when he found he couldn't put a fairly large retail building on the site. Mr. Rogers said under TC-1 the building would have been limited to 7,500 sq. ft. and he wanted a 20,000 sq. ft. hardware store.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Andrew Mutch said anyone going down Meadowbrook south of 12 Mile as you turn on to Meadowbrook there are two speed limit signs, one says 35 and about 100 ft. down the road it says 40. He wanted to bring this to the attention of the Administration to be addressed.
Mr. Mutch said to comment on earlier discussion, there was talk about extending the sanitary sewers down Nine Mile west of Napier. He said from a public health standpoint he would prefer sanitary sewers over septic fields. He thought the reasons and rational against that was a question of developing the area and wanting to retain a low density RA type zoning. He said went to Lyon Township and got a zoning map and what they are planning for that same area is R-1 zoning from north of Nine Mile west past Chubb Road and north of that is some RA. He said in addition they have a planned development option which they have exercised in two developments in that area already which allowed greater than R-1 zoning. Mr. Mutch said if you drive past the Tanglewood project on the south side down Chubb Rd. there was a fairly substantial sewage treatment plant. He said from the development point of not extending sanitary sewers is going to stop the development he didn't think that would happen in that area. He said if there was a possibility from the public health viewpoint while not sacrificing the area to development, then he thought we should move in that direction.
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART II
6. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 433 and 433A
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman Crawford
That Warrant No. 433 and 433A be approved.
Yes (6-Mason, Pope, No (-1 Toth) Motion carried Crawford, Mitzel Schmid, McLallen)
7. Report on Rezoning implications Act 641 Plan - Referral to Planning Commission
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilman
That this matter be recommended to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the RA designation and to address the issue in Mr. Nowicki's March 2nd memo.
DISCUSSION
Councilwoman Mason said South Lyon and Lyon Township does not designate RA every place. She thought that other options should be looked at other than 1 acre because she was opposed to rezoning other people's land.
Councilman Pope, point of clarification, said this motion was to deal with the 641 Plan. He said this was simply adding new language, it was not rezoning anyones land, this was just redefining what that zoning designation was for the purposes of the 641 Plan and avoiding a landfill in that area.
Councilwomen Mason said she understood we should look at our agricultural and rezone it to RA so that we don't fall under the 641 requirements.
Mr. Fried said it was to give it another name. He said the reason to give it another name was because the 641 Plan says you can have landfills in agricultural areas. He said we are giving it another name under our Master Plan and would not be rezoning it.
Councilwoman Mason said if you give agricultural another name what would it be.
Mr. Fried said that was what the Planning Commission would study and make a determination in order to do it. He said the use would be the same but it would have another name.
Councilman Mitzel thanked the administration for the follow up on this.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
8. Outline the upcoming dates and locations of the City Budget Study Sessions - Requested by Councilman Mitzel
Councilman Mitzel said he looked at last years schedule and March 28th was when the budget process started. He said he had meant to bring this up and realized tonight that it was fast approaching and instead of waiting he wanted to talk about it tonight. He asked Mr. Kriewall if he had any tentative schedule of when the process would be started.
Mr. Kriewall said tentatively the budget would be presented to City Council on March 27th, the last Monday in March. He said all that is done that night is Council would receive the budget. He said they would probably bring back to Council at the next regular meeting, a proposed schedule for the meetings which would be in April. Mr. Kriewall said he would like to know if there are any April dates that Council Members would not be available right now so they can dial that into the process. He said there would be 4 or 5 meetings.
Councilmen Mitzel said the next issue was going to be controversial and he strongly believed that the budget meetings should be in the activities room. He said last year was the first time he went through budgets and felt the one in the activities room was the most productive.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel Seconded by Councilman Crawford
That the budget study sessions be held in the activities room this year.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Toth said he got the sense that Council was hiding back there. He thought even if it was in the activities room it should be video taped and casted out to the public. He said the public should have that option. He said the equipment was in place, we are getting our percentage coming in off of the Cable Company and in effect it was being subsidized by the people that participate in purchasing the cable services. He asked why can't they watch government at work. He said he didn't mind working around a table and didn't mind if it was moved to another conference room but as far as he was concerned the people should be allowed to listen to what was going on.
Councilman Pope said he would not support the motion but he didn't believe that the City was trying to hide anything by moving it to the activities room. He said he would not use that language although he agreed with Councilman Toth that it was good policy. He said working in state government it was ironic that you could see more business done on C-SPAN with the Federal Government and you can see more business done in local government and but can't see anything about state government. He asked if more room was needed, television does something different. He said he was not sure of the merits of why you would do that and he didn't think anyone was trying to hide anything. He said Council had done them before and a tradition had been started and he felt it should be left that way.
Councilman Crawford said Councilman Toth continues to give the false impression that Council was hiding something or doing something in the back room unethically and he resented it. He said he wished Councilman Toth would cease from doing that. He said we do not lock the doors to City Hall, it is an open meeting and it is published. He said before we went on cable 5 or 6 years ago was everything hidden in the back room just because it wasn't on cable. He said he resented that implication. He said he personally thought that this table was not conducive to a good study session which we need to get through the budget. He said the activities room was very conducive to a little more free flow of information, a more relaxed setting, it's entirely open and publicized and Council was not trying to hide anything because we are not on cable TV. He said he wished that impression would not be given in the future.
Councilwoman Mason said she did not like it in the activities room. She said it didn't work out as well for her. She felt that it became to informal and she thought that the people have the right to know where their money was being spent. She didn't think that Councilman Toth ever said that Council was sneaking behind the peoples back.
Councilman Mitzel said he made the motion for the same reason that Councilman Pope stated back in December, that Council should have the Rules meeting in the activities room. He said it was the same logic as that.
Mayor McLallen said she would support whatever room makes them push up their sleeves and get the job done expeditiously. She said she had no real emotion one way or the other, they are all public meetings.
ROLL CALL: Mitzel-Yes, Pope-No, Schmid-Yes, Toth-No, McLallen-Yes, Crawford-Yes, Mason-No
Yes (4) No (3) Motion carried
Councilwoman Mason requested that Administration put the schedule in the Novi News so the people do know where and when the sessions are and that they are welcomed.
Mayor McLallen said once it has been approved Council would request that the paper publish it.
Councilman Toth said from time to time Council had asked for things to be done with regard to the budget and it seemed it was totally ignored until they received the whole budget package. He said some of this was rather important from the budget standpoint because we have asked for self insurance in terms of hospitalization and that should be an ongoing process with somebody looking at that. He said Council didn't get much of that at all just a little bit in one of the memo's. He said the other concern was the fact that he requested why the Planning Department was not self funding like it was in Farmington Hills or some of the neighboring districts. He said no one had taken that on, Council just kept funding the Planning Department yet the Building Department is self funding. Councilman Toth said a number of months or years ago we initiated a cost containment program and nothing had ever happened. He said Council doesn't hear any of this and none of this is discussed in terms of budget before they actually look at the figures. He said all of a sudden Council gets this huge document and they take off from there and there is no discussion on where there is some savings, or changes with staff, etc. He said there is no direction given by Council prior to getting the budget.
Mayor McLallen asked if Council would like at the next meeting to have an item of discussion on this subject. She asked if the Council would like to give some preliminary direction to the staff before we go into the budget. She asked if this was sufficient notice to the Administration and if Council would care to address it any further.
Mayor McLallen said consensus of Council seemed to be that the Administration had been given notice to present information.
Mr. Kriewall said he would talk to them.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilman Mitzel was requested to ask if the Senior Citizens Committee had basically completed their charge and should dissolve.
Councilman Pope said he didn't think so. He thought they should proceed working with whoever to prepare the initial documents and qualifications and on initial rents, etc. and he felt they should be used as an Advisory Board.
Councilman Crawford concurred and said perhaps Administration could come back with a renewed charge.
Mayor McLallen said the direction of the Council was to re-charge the Senior Citizens Committee.
MANAGER'S REPORTS
Mr. Kriewall said he had nothing more than what had already been given. He said Vic's Market was working furiously to open in the next week or two and they are stocking shelves already. He said it was going to be a spectacular facility for the community and the region.
Councilman Toth asked the status of the left turn light at Ten Mile and Haggerty. He said it had been a year and a half now, it had been promised several times and the last time Council had someone here from Oakland County we were supposed to find something out in March.
Mr. Nowicki said he would make contact tomorrow.
Mayor McLallen asked for a response by the next Council meeting.
ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
Mr. Fried said a suit had started against the St. Thomas' on the property that the City purchased from the St. Thomas', the purpose of environmental concerns that were on the property. He said it has been sometime since the suit had been started and the JCK had not finished their environmental report on that property nor the environmental cleanup on the property. As a result Mr. Fried agreed with the defendants attorney that the case should be dismissed without prejudice and restart the suit when JCK finished their environmental report. He asked the authority of the Council to dismiss this suit without prejudice or cost to either party.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel Seconded by Councilman Schmid
That the City Attorney dismiss the suit against the St. Thomas' without prejudice or cost to either party and restart the suit when JCK finished their environmental report.
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
Councilman Pope told Mr. Fried that as Council approached the budget they were expecting the Administration to present to the Council an option of a Capitol Improvement Fund. He said his concern with that fund was the same as with the existing Road Fund. He asked if Mr. Fried already had an opinion or if he could prepare an opinion on whether or not a Road Fund needed 4 or 5 votes to amend it's just one dollar amount that is appropriated and many alterations. He said if issues are raised before it would be helpful during the budget process if that form is proposed.
Mr. Fried said he would get the opinion to Council before it was put in the budget.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. Approval to prepare draft agreement between the City and the low bidder, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout for preliminary engineering services associated with the Twelve Mile Road Improvements Project - Dixon Road to Meadowbrook Road
Item #6 was removed from the agenda by Councilman Toth.
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Pope Seconded by Councilwoman Mason
That approval be granted to prepare a draft agreement between the City and the low bidder, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout for preliminary engineering services associated with the Twelve Mile Road Improvements Project - Dixon Road to Meadowbrook Road.
DISCUSSION
Councilman Toth said there was a letter sent out by Mr. Nowicki requesting the bids to be in two forms and according to the documentation Finkbeiner submitted one of their bids at $303,481.07 and the second was $282,573.73. He said they were actually the second lowest bidder and the summary sheet Mr. Nowicki provided on the back of his memo included a $11,831.90 adjustment. He asked what the adjustment was for.
Mr. Nowicki said it was a fee amendment and it was based on a review of electronic data for the survey that was performed on the 12 Mile Road project.
Councilman Toth said Mr. Nowicki's letter stated that there "should be for both with or without that electronic data".
Mr. Nowicki said that was correct and what they did was have a post-bid meeting wherein they reviewed each of the individual submittals by all the various firms. He said at that time, they offered each of the individual firms a copy of the disk and asked them to evaluate that disk and provide any type of a fee amendment that might be necessary since they now had the electronic data in their hands.
Councilman Toth said both the other ones, Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. and Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. submitted.
Mr. Nowicki said that was correct that both companies submitted a no adjustment.
Councilman Toth asked if Hubbell, Roth & Clark worked on 12 Mile Road in Farmington Hills.
Mr. Nowicki said they did.
Councilman Toth said yet they said no adjustment and Finkbeiner said that they would have an adjustment.
Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.
Councilman Toth asked if this was normal after the bids were accepted to make adjustments.
Mr. Nowicki said that it was and if he recalled the 10 Mile Road project when JCK was awarded the contract they had proposed a price and after reviewing their submitted information Council had some questions for them specifically related to structures and retaining walls. He said at that time Council requested a fee adjustment from JCK to cover those particular provisions. He said if Councilman Toth recalled from the last meeting someone had raised a particular issue of a $50,000 fee amendment in JCK's numbers and that was exactly what that was for.
Councilman Toth said JCK also sent a letter on the 22nd of February stating that they could "revisit it estimated cost for this proposed" he asked if that was in the same regard that same post-bid.
Mr. Nowicki said he did not believe it was.
Councilman Toth said he had a bit of a problem with this. He said it was a $12,000 adjustment and it approached better than half the fees on some of these projects. He asked if they gave Mr. Nowicki any justification of why they would adjust it $12,000.
Mr. Nowicki said it was based on the review of the electronic data that they had provided them.
Councilman Toth said his understanding was in reading through the material that Mr. Nowicki supplied this data and it was at least 5 years old.
Mr. Nowicki said yes it was approximately 5 years old.
Councilman Toth asked if from a professional technical standpoint he thought this was adequate and that they could live with the data when they do the preliminary design.
Mr. Nowicki said that was what JCK indicated to him.
Councilman Toth said he had some real concerns about this. He said it seemed that the last three times that Finkbeiner had been involved in any of these it seemed that they were getting some kind of special treatment. He asked if that was true.
Mr. Nowicki said it was not and he didn't know where that perception came from other than from Councilman Toth.
Councilman Toth said in other words they did not know the other prices at the time this post-bid meeting was made.
Mr. Nowicki said he did not provide them or any bidder with any information.
Councilman Toth said they are a matter of public record after they are open.
Mr. Nowicki said as far as he understood that was correct.
Councilman Toth said and then you allowed them to adjust it after the prices were a matter of public record.
Mr. Nowicki said after we had secured or the electronic data had been surrendered to us with the assistance of Mr. Fried we provided that data to all the bidders and allowed them to review it. He said then they felt it was only fair to allow them the opportunity to compete fairly with other firms that had possessed that data.
Councilman Toth said Mr. Nowicki's initial letter stated that they were to bid both way with and without the electronic data.
Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.
Councilman Toth asked how could they come in with an $11,800 adjustment if they supposedly knew about this electronic data.
Mr. Nowicki said at that point in time no one knew the quality of the data, the extent of the data and no one had a copy of the data other then JCK. He said when we were able to obtain a copy of that we provided it to all of the bidders. They had requested a copy of it in the review meeting that was held with all of the bidders after reviewing all of their submittals. He said they indicated that they would review it and again in order to allow everyone to compete fairly, we asked for any fee amendment as made necessary.
Councilman Crawford said the time frame of these bids, were the initial bids the two proposed bids either with or without the data, was that in October. He wasn't sure of the date.
Mr. Nowicki said the dates of the submittals are in the letter.
Councilman Crawford said then October 21st all four of the final bidders had access to the final bids of each of the bidders.
Mr. Nowicki said he didn't know if they had access to the final bids because he didn't supply them to them.
Councilman Crawford said maybe he didn't personally hand them to them but it was an open bid and available.
Mr. Nowicki said that was true.
Councilman Crawford asked if it was in January that all the people finally got the data that was applicable to the alternate bid.
Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.
Councilman Crawford said then at that time they knew the original bid prices.
Mr. Nowicki said he didn't know if they did or not.
Councilman Crawford said he was assuming they did as they were available for publication. He said the Finkbeiner bid was $282,000 if they had the data and $303,000 if they did not have the data because they would have to do some extra studies or whatever. Councilman Crawford said that was a difference of almost $21,000. He said they then got the data and not only reduced it $21,000 but another almost $12,000 which is a total of $33,000 difference. He asked if they would have known that going into the original bid and what was so special about this 5 year old data that they were able to adjust their price another $12,000.
Mr. Nowicki said the data was 3 dimensional data and it included all field points along 12 Mile Road from approximately Meadowbrook down to Dixon Road at a width of about 200 feet.
Councilman Crawford asked if it was somewhat outdated. He thought he read that in response from the Orchard and Hubbell groups. He said they indicated that it was somewhat outdated and they couldn't use it in the form it was in.
Mr. Nowicki said that was correct the format it was in they could not use.
Councilman Crawford said but Finkbeiner was able to use all that and even go beyond that and reduce their bid another $12,000 because this data was so great.
Mr. Nowicki said they were able to provide additional information and to get another disk in which they received the 3-D data. He said initially when they made the request for all the electronic data they were provided with a 2 dimensional data based on auto cap. He said what they needed was 3 dimensional data that is the electronic survey data taken out of the electronic survey notebook. He said that information was directly exported or imported into another software program that created a 3 dimensional roadway network. In that particular case you are then able to identify cuts, fills, land topography and by having the electronic data it not only saves survey time it also saves drafting time, engineer review time and time in a lot of other areas. Mr. Nowicki said with respect to the data being outdated that was correct. He said in a specific little area you would find that the topography had changed significantly especially around 12 Mile and Meadowbrook. However, moving further west very few changes had occurred and in fact with discussion with Mr. Kapelczak, he indicated that when they conducted the survey they had done extensive work and had done the detail needed around the 12 Mile and Novi Road intersection in order to provide good survey data in that particular area. He said moving further west the topography in that area had changed very little. He felt the survey data should be fairly accurate. Mr. Nowicki said it was up to the engineer to verify that data and if it was in error then they would have to secure additional data to supplement that. He said that would be at their own cost because the contract that would be issued would be a bottom line figure and they could not exceed that cost.
Councilman Crawford said Mr. Nowicki had a post-bid conference and Councilman Crawford assumed that at that conference you explained what the data was that was available. Councilman Crawford said based on that all four firms submitted two proposals.
Mr. Nowicki said that was not correct. He said Councilman Crawford was talking about the pre-bid meeting. He said they were under the impression, as he was when he made his initial request, that they did not have all the extensive survey data. He said when they received the information that proved otherwise based on the consulting engineers inquiries. He said at that time they requested alternate proposals, one for complete survey work and the other for partial survey. He said further down the line they had identified that complete survey data perhaps did exist and it was in electronic form that could be directly input into drafting software.
Councilman Crawford asked when he determined that existed. He said there was correspondence that indicated that Mr. Nowicki had been asking for that data for quite awhile so he knew it existed.
Mr. Nowicki said they knew it existed based on some of the old plans and had to go back into some of the invoices to determine that survey crews were on the job on the 12 Mile Road preliminary design and had been compensated by the City of Novi for that work.
Councilman Crawford said on the back of Mr. Nowicki's cover sheet there was a chart with the four firms and asked if the figures represented in those columns were an accurate reflection of their bid.
Mr. Nowicki said they are fairly close. He said the bottom line in fact, was all of them should be an accurate reflection.
Councilman Crawford said if he added correctly the first 3 columns, Orchard, Hubbell and JCK, all add up to what was at the bottom line. He said if he adds the Finkbeiner column he comes up with $284,574.35 instead of $282,573.76 that was on the back page. He said taking that figure and reducing it by $11,831.90 there is a difference in bids between JCK and Finkbeiner of $476.00. Councilman Crawford asked if that was a significant difference.
Mr. Nowicki said if he referred to a couple of pages back he would find a February 8, 1995 letter from Jim Valenta, Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout. He said on the reverse side was Exhibit A. Exhibit A was what we typically go through and incorporated into the MDOT contracts. He said that particular Exhibit A had consultant dollar amounts, reimbursable expenses, consultants sub-total, testing engineers and other sub-consultants total. He said that Exhibit A represented a $270,741.85 figure.
Councilman Crawford asked where that came from and if it was with the $11,000 subtracted from it.
Mr. Nowicki said that was where the fee amendment would come from.
Councilman Crawford said that was done December 9th. He said the chart was dated February 25th why wouldn't that be incorporated in the chart. He said we just referred to the proposed fee at the back of this document of $282,000 from one bid and $303,000 from another bid and that was stated that it was correct.
Mr. Nowicki said if he would look on December 9th there was a communication from Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout and it accompanied the other submittals from the other firms after the post-bid meeting in which we asked them to verify and review the electronic data and provide the City of Novi with a fee amendment. He said in that communication there was a figure of $270,741.85.
Councilman Crawford said he saw that and asked where the figures came from on the back of the cover letter.
Mr. Nowicki said they came from the original proposal that was submitted as a package early on.
Councilman Crawford asked why wouldn't those figures reflect the new proposal like all the rest of them do.
Mr. Nowicki said in order to be forthright with Council he included the original numbers that they had submitted at the time and took the adjustment as the fee amendment.
Councilman Crawford said that showed a difference of approximately $2,400 which may or may not be a significant difference but the real difference was only $400 if you take these other figures.
Mr. Nowicki said if he would look at the bottom line figure the one submitted by Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout on December 9th regarding their adjusted fee after they had reviewed electronic data that number was exactly the same number that was in the bottom total.
Councilman Crawford said he had some of the same concerns that Councilman Toth had. He said he was making an assumption and he would imagine that they were able to review the other documents and it was quite perplexing to him that they just managed to come in slightly under the previous low bid. He said not only did they go below their original bid, if that data was available, they went below it by $12,000 which happened to be a couple of thousand dollars under the low bid. He said quite frankly he wished the low bid was not JCK and he wished it was some one else. He said it was difficult to discuss the process with our consulting engineers being the original low bid.
Mr. Nowicki said competing on a fair and even basis he would find that Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout was the low bidder.
Councilman Crawford said he did not see that in the documentation. He said they are the low bidder after they saw everyone else's documents. He said not only did they come in with their low bid they reduced it by another $11,000 for data that was somewhat outdated and data that the other two firms said they couldn't use. He said he did not understand it at all and would not support the motion. He said either he needed a much more detailed explanation of the process and the time table that it went through or he felt they should throw all the bids out and re-bid everything.
Mr. Nowicki said all the documentation regarding the selection process for the most part was there right in front of Council. He said he included all the comments, correspondence that he has had in chronological order and he felt that the process that they went through was cumbersome. He said he did not agree with the process but for the most part it worked. However, when you are provided with part information it does cloud the issue and creates some problems. He said they approached it the best way they could in the most ethical and moral way possible and in front of you tonight is a request that we be authorized to draft a contract between the City of Novi and Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout.
Councilman Schmid said the first bid went out and Mr. Nowicki didn't have some of the information from 12 Mile Road that had been done previously by JCK. He said Mr. Nowicki had requested information from JCK about some of their previous engineering studies that you probably would have put into the original bid had he had access to them. He said then after the bids came in and Mr. Nowicki had an opening bid session then he got the material from JCK as to the engineering information. He said then Mr. Nowicki provided all that information back to all the bidders and then asked them to look at the information to see if it would help them to change their bid and then they came in as Mr. Nowicki stated.
Councilman Schmid said he happened to look back at the Cresent Blvd. extension on Grand River and had a question. He said he noticed on the environmental assessment costs JCK was $5,500, Hampton Engineering was $42,000, Finkbeinder was $29,000 and Hubbell and Roth included it in. He asked if it was a pattern that JCK had much lower environmental studies could it be because they had studies previously.
Mr. Nowicki said he didn't know if they had studies previously.
Councilman Schmid said he was curious because both of these are considerably under the environmental studies.
Mr. Nowicki said that he provided the information to the best ability that they could in the various phases of the process.
Councilman Schmid asked did we have or are in the process of getting all the engineering information that JCK had done over a number of years and done well. He said we made the decision some time ago that that was City property and the information should be in the City computers and so forth. He asked if that process was done.
Mr. Nowicki said it was not and was far from done. He said we have just scratched the surface with the amount of data that was there. He said with the Computer Committee's help they are putting together our system in order to start bringing that information over. He said they had gone through a major undertaking and that was going through all the as built that are in the community. He said the amount of data is phenomenal that is in this community and they are going through the process of securing that. He said even now when the engineers are authorized to undertake any work, in his letter of authorization for them to proceed it is indicated that all records will be surrendered to the City of Novi upon completion of the project or upon request.
Councilman Schmid asked what happened to make this look sloppy. He said obviously we should try to get all the information out on the first bid and he wondered why he didn't get that information because he had been trying to get it for several months.
Councilman Toth said that Councilman Schmid made the comment that this was handled in a sloppy manner and he personally felt that this should not be allowed to go through. He said it should either go out for re-bids or there should be some firm policy in hand that when those bids are opened that's it. He said he had opened many, many bids in places he had worked and stated you do not open them and allow people to have that information for public record. He said once they find out what the figures are they can make all the adjustments they want. He said the City will be getting field changes to make up the difference later on. He said his concern was when it is handled this way the process should stop immediately and should go out for re-bid. He said he could not support anything like this and he thought it was poor practice.
Councilman Crawford said the comment was made that everyone had an equal opportunity to bid and he didn't feel that was correct. He said the Orchard bid and the Hubbell bid were very high and even upon seeing those bids would not be able to reduce those prices to anywhere near the low bid. He said JCK being the low bidder would not offer another bid at that time but Finkbeiner being very close reduced it another $11,000 or $12,000 over their previously low bid and came in a couple of thousand dollars under. He said he thought it was a terrible and unfair process and would not support it.
Councilman Pope thought that it was unfortunate the discussion had focused on that, that information was with held. He said information received the focus was else where. He said Councilmen Crawford and Toth appear not to be concerned that information was not provided as repeatedly requested and so he thought that it was unfortunate. He said the process certainly may be awkward but don't point here to look over here without looking here because there was something that wasn't provided that should have been provided. He said it is an issue that Councilman Schmid raised properly into the future.
Councilwoman Mason called the question.
It was then,
Moved by Councilwoman Mason Seconded by Councilman Mitzel
That the question be called.
Yes (4-Mason, Mitzel No (3-Pope, Toth McLallen, Schmid) Crawford)
Mr. Fried stated the vote takes 2/3 of Council.
Councilman Crawford was recognized. He responded to Councilman Pope's comment about information being withheld. He said he didn't know if withheld was the proper terminology. He said it certainly was not forthcoming on a timely basis. He said he didn't disagree with Councilman Schmid that that information was City information and should be available. He said he assumed that in the future it would be available from all City Consultants because information that they have for the most part is City information and it should be available to all people. He said that did not make this process the way it was. He said that information came in and was supplied. He said it was supplied after the original bid and then everyone was allowed to re-bid based on that information knowing the price. He said when that information arrived was not the issue here it's the process after that was done. He said Finkbeiner said if they got that information our bid is such. They got that information and not only went below their original bid they went $12,000 below their original bid which happened to be just $2,000 below the low bid. He said that was totally inappropriate.
Councilwoman Mason said she thought Councilman Crawford does protest to much and it was clear from what Council is looking at that there was information that was not provided in a timely fashion. She said perhaps the other two companies had other jobs and couldn't take it. She knew they were defending JCK and they do a good job however, she questioned the whole process of allowing the Consulting Engineers for the City of Novi to be part of a bid process. They do all of our engineering under contract and under a retainer and felt that was where they should look. She said the people who hold all the maps are in contention with the people who have nothing. She felt that the whole process had to be looked at.
Councilman Crawford said he took exception to the fact that he was defending JCK. He said earlier his statement was that he wished JCK had not the low bidder. He said he was not defending JCK by any means but was concerned about the process. He said unfortunately for this discussion JCK was the low bidder and wished it was one of the other ones. He said he would make the very same arguments. He stated he was not defending JCK.
Yes (5-Mitzel, Mason No (2-Toth Motion carried Pope, McLallen, Schmid) Crawford)
ADJOURNMENT
It was then,
Moved by Councilman Mitzel Seconded by Councilman Pope
That the meeting be adjourned at 12:15 AM
Yes (7) No (0) Motion carried
MAYOR
CITY CLERK Date approved:
|