REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI

MONDAY, JULY 10, 1995 AT 8:00 p.m. EDT

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE ROAD

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. with Mayor McLallen presiding.

Council pledged allegiance to the flag.

Mayor McLallen stated that this was a very special and significant meeting for the Council and for the City. She said it was the last official meeting that the Clerk, Gerry Stipp, would officiate. She thanked Mrs. Stipp for 36 years of service to the City of Novi.

ROLL CALL: Council Members Crawford, (present), Mason

(present), Mitzel (present), Pope (absent-

excused), Schmid (present), Toth (present)

and Mayor McLallen (present)

Present (6) Absent/excused (1-Pope)

-ooo-

ALSO PRESENT: Edward Kriewall - City Manager

Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager

David Fried - City Attorney

Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

Joe Kapelczak - JCK & Associates

Tony Nowicki - Department of Public Services

Geraldine Stipp - City Clerk

-ooo-

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilman Schmid added discussion of the retirement window that was placed in Council packets. He suggested it be placed on the agenda as Item #7B.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the agenda be approved as amended.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion unanimously

INTRODUCTION - Police Officer Joyce Fraser

Mayor McLallen asked Police Chief Doug Shaeffer to introduce Novi's newest police officer.

Chief Doug Shaeffer introduced Officer Joyce Fraser and explained that she came to Novi through the appropriations in last years budget and was approved for hiring on 1-1-95. She was hired on 1-3-95. Officer Fraser came to the Novi Police Department through a very intense selection process. Chief Shaeffer said there were 350 candidates all possessing Bachelors Degrees. He said Officer Fraser did exceptionally well through a series of written and oral exams. He said she ranked consistently at the very top position in those exams.

Dan Davis, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the Family Aquatic Center proposal. He acknowledged some of the hard work that had gone into preparing the report by Parks Commissioners Colligan and Shaw and also by volunteers of the Novi Community.

Mr. Davis said for the past two years through the Parks and Recreation Department they had looked at studying the need of an Aquatic Center Facility for the citizens of Novi. He said the process was started based on requests from residents indicating that they wanted a facility. He said they evaluated the need, looked at the desire of the community to see if there was interest and how that interest could be met.

Mr. Davis said one of the first things they wanted to do was evaluate what type of facility would be accommodating to the residents but also economically feasible to operate. He said trends in the aquatic industry had changed dramatically over the last 15 years. He said they had gotten away from the traditional rectangle pool seen in the urban areas of the country and had gone into a more family oriented recreational site that featured aquatic components. He said there were competitive swimming components for the facility and also recreational uses such as zero entry points to allow for easy handicap accessibility and young toddlers. Also, lazy rivers, water slides and water features similar to a playground but translated to a water atmosphere.

Mr. Davis said he wanted to touch on three areas; the type of facility recommended, location and the financing mechanism that would be able to encompass the proposal.

Mr. Davis said the type of facility would be something that all the community could embrace from senior citizens to the youngest toddler. They would like it to feature water slides, lazy rivers, white wave action features, concession stands, locker rooms and shaded canopy areas. He said they were also looking for some mixed uses for volleyball courts and playground equipment. He said when families came it would be a family atmosphere and they could stay for two or three hours and have something for everyone in the family to enjoy. He said it would be an outdoor facility and that they had looked into the possibility of trying to incorporate an indoor year round facility within the proposal. He said they were recommending to phase that component in the future. Mr. Davis said there was probably a need for an indoor facility but to undertake that might be cost prohibitive.

Mr. Davis said they had been looking for property for park land. He said within the course of that they had looked for sites where some of these facilities like an aquatic center could be seated on. He said they had looked at existing property and sites the aquatic center could be put as a new property acquisition strictly for that purpose. Mr. Davis said they came to the conclusion that the site at the Civic Center made the most sense. He said the City had a piece of property that fronted along Taft Road and was approximately 7 acres in size. He said some concerns had to be addressed with residents that adjoin the property but they could be addressed through the public hearing process. Mr. Davis said they were centered within the Civic Center site surrounded by residential community of housing, families could ride bikes or drive because it was convenient to the center most population of the community. He felt that was a very important part of the decision to be centrally located within the community to create easy access for the residents.

Mr. Davis said that they presented a proposal that would be fairly easy for Council to make a decision on and also for the residents of the community to make a decision on. He said it was broken down into two categories; the actual Capital Construction and Operational.

Mr. Davis said within the proposal they anticipated approximately a $3.5 Million bond to build the facility with all the amenities previously mentioned. He said over a 15 year General Obligation Bond Issue they envisioned that for the average homeowner of a $200,000 home with an SEV of $100,000 it would cost the average homeowner $28.00 annually. He said that would fund the actual construction of the facility. He said spread out over a 15 year period that would be decreasing as the population continued to increase.

Mr. Davis said one of the most important things to be considered was the Operational side. He said it was very important that they did not create a facility that was going to be a continued drain on the General Fund or the Parks and Recreation budget. He said they wanted the facility to be a self supporting facility that would pay for itself through the user fees of the park. He said within that, they envisioned revenues being generated from swim lessons, open swim daily fee admission passes, rentals for private parties, or swim teams who want to have exercise classes or practices along with food and refreshments from the concession stand. He said within all those revenue projections that would be passed through the user, they envisioned they would have in excess of $225,000 in revenue. He said this was an estimate and they would not know with 100% certainty how the revenues would flow until they were in the operation of the facility. Mr. Davis said they had looked at existing facilities in Washtenaw County, Oakland County, City of Troy and had studied those numbers and felt very confident that the estimates were fairly close.

Mr. Davis said on the Operating expense side they anticipated through the staffing levels, uniform supplies and other services that were required to operate the facility the expense would be just below that $225,000. He said they were fairly certain they could pay for the operations through the revenues generated from the use of the pool itself.

Mr. Davis said in Council packets were the variety of uses and amenities that would be included within the facility totaling up to $3.5 Million. He said they were present to ask Council first to approve the concept that the residents wanted a family aquatic center for their enjoyment. They wanted Council's approval to go out for an RFP or a Design Build Service of a professional aquatic facility consultant. He said they were looking to enlist those experts to work with them on the final design, solidify the construction estimates and put a ballot question before the voters in November. He said when an RFP was done it could be done on a contingency basis whereas they provide all the services of the design and actual renderings up front. Then if the bond issue passed, they would be the consultant of the construction contract through the course of the actual building. He said they would retain their fee at that time. He said if the bond issue didn't pass, they would walk away and the City would walk away. He said there was no risk if they proceeded and it also allowed them to obtain a "not to exceed" solid construction number. He said they would then be able to tell the residents the cost and what they would get for their dollars at no risk with the contingency. Mr. Davis said and finally to put that ballot question before the voters at the General Election this November 7th when that number was locked up.

Mayor McLallen stated this was a Special Report and Council would put it for a matter for discussion at the July 24 meeting unless Council wanted to amend this agenda for a matter for discussion this evening.

Mr. Kriewall recommended that Council move it down as an action item because he felt they had to take advantage of timing on this project and move ahead. He felt it was a very complete report and should be moved on.

Councilman Mitzel said he thought the procedure was to allow questions during Special Report.

Mayor McLallen asked for a motion if Council wanted to discuss this at this time.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the agenda be reopened.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said this process was bumpy and not keeping with any order whatsoever. He said Councilman Mitzel was right that they had on many occasions asked questions during Special Report. He said what he thought they would do was ask a few questions and stated that this was the first time he had seen the proposal. He said this was much more ambitious then had ever been suggested. He said they had talked about the wade pool and river run and so forth and he was a little familiar with this because Oakland County had some of these things. Councilman Schmid said these were extremely expensive, high maintenance, and high maintenance 15 years from now. He said they were talking about major maintenance and he did not see it covered in the report. He thought the committee had done a wonderful job and for him to have to make a decision before he had some answers it seemed to him that it was a little unweilding.

Mayor McLallen said there was a motion on the floor to move this item down to discussion and asked for any further discussion on the motion on the floor.

Yes (4-Crawford, No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid,

Mitzel, McLallen) Motion carried

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

That the aquatic facility discussion be added as Item #1 under Matters for Council Action - Part I and to take action on it if necessary.

THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THIS MOTION

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said he was in favor of putting this on the agenda for discussion but was not in favor of putting it on the agenda for action.

Yes (2-McLallen, No (4-Mason, Toth, Absent (1-Pope)

Crawford) Schmid, Mitzel) Motion defeated

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the aquatic facility be placed as Item #1 under

Matters for Council Action - Part I for discussion only.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said it was suggested by the City Manager that timing might be important and maybe the committee had an answer to that question too. He said if timing was not critical, then discussion was fine, but if it was, maybe Council should contemplate action tonight.

Mr. Davis said Mr. Kriewall was absolutely right. He said timing was critical because they were talking about some bond language. He said if they could get the questions addressed tonight, then within the next two weeks they would be able to respond appropriately in writing with those answers. He said they would also have the necessary RFP document before Council so they could act on that document as well on July 24.

Councilman Crawford asked if the initial action tonight would be to authorize bringing the RFP to Council. He said if no action was taken, then Mr. Davis would not be authorized to compile the RFP document to bring to Council.

Mr. Davis said he would view that as an Administrative function to move the project forward and it would not go out until Council authorized it to go out.

Yes (4-Mitzel, Schmid, No (2-Toth, Mason) Absent (1-Pope) McLallen

Crawford) Motion carried

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes - Special Meeting of 5/1, Regular Meeting of 6/5, Special meeting of 6/1, Regular Meeting of 6/19

2. Refer to Ordinance Review Committee request from Building

Department for review of Refuse Ordinance relating to

placement of grease vats

3. Award Bid for Community Sports Construction to Jack B. Anglin

Co. in the amount of $1,162,343.10

4. Approval of Contract with Community Cab for 1995-96 Senior

Citizen and Handicapped Subsidized Cab Service

5. Resolution - Michigan Fifties Festival

WHEREAS, the Michigan Fifties Festival will be held in the

City of Novi July 26 through July 30, and

WHEREAS, non-profit organizations are not required to be

licensed for such events, and

WHEREAS, the Michigan Fifties Festival is a non-profit

organization, and

WHEREAS, for four years the Michigan Fifties, Inc., has

sponsored this fund-raising activity that the whole community

can enjoy,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Novi City Council that

formal licenses and permits be waived, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Novi City Council wishes the

Directors of the Michigan Fifties Festival a terrific festival

free from all rain - LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL.

6. Resolution - Request for Parade Permit from Oakland County -

50's Festival

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Bruce D. Jerome is hereby

authorized to make application to the Board of County Road

Commissioners, Oakland County, Michigan on behalf of the City of Novi in the County of Oakland, Michigan for the necessary

permit to:

Hold a "Michigan 50's Festival Car Cruise" on Sunday, July 30,

1995, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Grand River Ave. from Novi Road to Haggerty Road, and that the City of Novi in the

County of Oakland, Michigan will faithfully fulfill all permit

requirements, and shall save harmless, indemnify, defend and

represent the Board against any and all claims for bodily

injury or property damage, or any other claim arising out of

or related to operations authorized by such permit as issued.

7. Approval of Contract with Oakland Livingston Human Service

Agency

8. Approval of Contract with HAVEN, Inc.

Basin - Removed by Councilman Mitzel

10. Resolution - Extend the charge of the Lake Property Study

Committee - Removed by Councilman Mitzel

11. Approval of Wayne State University GIS proposal and

authorization to proceed with Phase I - Removed by Councilman

Schmid

by Councilman Schmid

13. Approval of MDOT Agreement 95-0572 - Novi road Signalization Project - Removed by Councilman Schmid

Councilman Mitzel removed Minutes of June 5 and 19 under Item #1 and also Items 9 and 10.

Councilman Schmid removed Items 11, 12 and 13.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the minutes of May

1 and June 1 be approved.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I

1a. Aquatic Pool Committee Report

Councilwoman Mason asked if the daily fee of $4.00 per person was for Novi residents.

Mr. Davis said they would do a further more in-depth evaluation of the revenue stream regarding admission; they would also look at seasonal passes, and resident non-resident issues.

Councilwoman Mason said as it stood it would cost $60 to have 3 children go to the pool for a week.

Mr. Davis said that was right and they would insure through the revenue decision process what the fees would be. The underlying decision would be to make sure they generate enough revenue from the user fees to pay for the operational component. He said if they found after actually getting into it that the expenses were running higher they would bring forward recommendations to insure that the revenue stream was reflective to pay for those expenses. He said it would be handled through Administration, Parks Commission Advisory capacities and back to Council for final determination.

Councilwoman Mason said the estimated revenue projection would be adjusted so that Novi residents would not have to spend that kind of money per week.

Mr. Davis said they anticipated that a varied fee structure would be set up for the use of a facility. He said it could be seasonal family membership or a seasonal individual membership. He said they wanted to be as user friendly as they could based upon the different make-ups of the families within the community.

Councilwoman Mason said people outside of Novi would be encouraged to use this facility.

Mr. Davis said not necessarily.

Councilwoman Mason said it would be open to people outside of Novi with the swim teams and so forth.

Mr. Davis said there were swim teams based in Novi that they anticipated would be able to use the facility. He said however, they were not going to encourage non-resident use and saw it as a resident use facility. He said a non-resident policy had to be established to reflect that use and that could be adjusted on an annual basis to deal with any concerns they have. He said as the residents wanted to use the facility they wanted to be sure it was available to them. He said if there was a heavy non-resident use because the fee was too low, then their recommendation would be to raise that fee or go to a resident only basis with a guest type of scenario.

Councilwoman Mason asked what the last day Council could approve this was to be able to put it on the ballot for November 7.

Mrs. Stipp said August 21.

Councilwoman Mason said then Council had until August 21 to make a decision on this because up until that date it could still be put on this schedule for the November 7 election.

Mrs. Stipp said the resolution would have to be adopted on that night.

Councilwoman Mason said right; sometime between now and August 21 so it was not like this was the last minute.

Mr. Davis said that was why he wanted to get this to Council now, be able to come back with the answers to their questions and address the concerns with meeting with the bonding attorneys to get the language drafted and get it to Lansing for approval upon Council's authorization.

Councilman Toth said he had a few concerns. He said it was expanded from 1 pool to 4 pools plus the lazy river. He said one of his concerns was the staff of 60 people. He asked what kind of staffing he would have and why the need for that much.

Councilman Toth's second concern was for security. He said Mr. Davis showed no fencing or security for the facility and there were an awful lot of attractive items in there that could be damaged or used after hours. He said that would be an extreme concern because he wouldn't want anyone going in and accidently drowning or cavorting out there late at night.

Councilman Toth's third concern was that the proposal addressed a future indoor pool and yet the report didn't talk about enclosing the existing pool. He said from a financial standpoint it might be easier to enclose the existing pool so it could be used year around rather than creating another pool and leaving one sit idle during the colder months.

Councilman Toth said he couldn't question the figures at this point and assumed they were guestimates. He said they seemed to be ball park figures and he would need a better definition and break down on some of this stuff.

Councilman Schmid commended the committee for putting the package together but was disappointed that this came to Council at this late date. He said he had to ask questions, being a Council Member, knowing the budget constraints that this City faced. He said the budget just passed after long and tedious scrutiny and it didn't include a great deal of money for the maintenance of items within the City. He had anticipated when the project started a nice swimming pool facility for the community that would accommodate teens and the general public. He thought that would be a rather large pool with a wading pond and so forth. He said that now included a lazy river and a wave action which were extremely expensive commodities. He said not so much that they were extremely expensive to build but they are extremely expensive to maintain because it took a great deal of power pumps and so forth that wear out rather rapidly. He said that was OK if it was affordable but thought Councilwoman Mason had a point when she asked what it would cost the citizens of Novi to use it. He said it would cost all citizens and that was OK but to use the facility it had to be taken into consideration how much money each individual could afford to spend. He said then make the facility affordable recognizing that the City of Novi would not take from the General Fund or the Parks and Recreation Commission to subsidize it substantially. He said the City was not in a position to do so today and doubted if the City would be able to do so in the next few years.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Davis and the Committee took this into consideration when they were putting together the figures. He said based on the figures, if he had two or three kids it would be almost unaffordable on a daily basis.

Mr. Davis said it was taken into consideration and looked at from the standpoint of what families do for recreational entertainment. He said the traditional large pool, large pool wading areas, had really gone by the wayside. He said they would be used initially however, it was proven in other communities that they would see a dramatic drop off in the use of the facility without these other features and attractions. He said there was no question that residents would have to make a decision on the use of the facility as far as the user fee for the activity and the value they would get for that activity. He thought that within the pricing structure they would be able to do some creative things that would make it affordable to the residents.

Mr. Davis said through the study they talked to many residents who were involved with the committee work and received letters. He said they were on waiting lists and didn't have facilities that they could go to. He said they were going to Northville or the swim club in Farmington and paying $500 membership fees at a minimum plus $100 to $150 annual fees. He said the people told him they understood it would cost the capital up front but were willing to undertake the cost of the user fee that was associated with it. He said there was a value to the end result of what they were going to get.

Councilman Schmid said this pool had to be made for the entire community depending if people have a reasonable income. He stated he had received a few calls and the few he had received it was for the cost of the activities in the recreation department to families with three or four children. His concern was that perhaps it was a bit ambitious in what they were trying to do right off the bat.

Councilman Schmid said there was a tremendous amount of maintenance for these items. He said being the owner of a swimming pool that was now a frog pond he knew the maintenance of a small pool. He said he knew the maintenance of a large pool was thousands and thousands of dollars particularly after they had aged a bit. He asked what contingencies had he built into the program to take care of that.

Mr. Davis said in the summary of the Revenue and Expense they wanted to insure that the revenues were meeting the expenses on an annual basis. He said as the facility aged in 5 to 10 years a portion of those revenues would be set aside to address those long term maintenance demands. He said the pumps, infrastructure, parking lots, etc. would be there in 15 years to go through an annual appropriation for replacement for those components. He said they had to be prepared for that and felt that could be addressed through the user fees and by setting aside those monies on an annual basis into a separate fund for capital. Mr. Davis said when they saw how the actual revenue was generated they could address it with more certainty.

Councilman Schmid asked, as far as the bonding money, was it possible that a portion of that could be set aside in a trust fund or a money making fund that would be self generating.

Councilman Schmid said he had a lot of problems with the cost and didn't feel the figures were very accurate. It said in the initial statement that the professional consultant would be almost on a contingency. He asked what almost meant and how much was not on the contingency.

Mr. Davis said he could not forecast what a consultant would produce when an RFP was put out. He talked with many consultants in other communities who had done this and it was common practice to put together a proposal that was done on a design/build contingency basis.

Councilman Schmid asked if he would know that next time.

Mr. Davis said they would know that after the RFP was out and and the proposals were received.

Councilman Schmid asked if he had an idea or whether it would be up front money.

Mr. Davis said he was 99% sure it would be on a contingency basis.

Councilman Mitzel thanked the Committee and Mr. Davis for a fine proposal. He said most of the questions seemed to be related to operation as opposed to the concept. He asked if there was any consideration towards resident vs non-resident user fees.

Councilman Mitzel said with the ice arena they had an RFP from a private company to not only construct but manage the facility. He said based on the proposal it seemed they had concluded that a private company would not construct the facility. He asked if they had considered a private company to manage and operate the facility.

Mr. Davis said they had talked about it and he had met with some aquatic specialists who would take any part of the proposal from design/build all the way through the actual management contract of it. He said it was not common throughout the industry now and there were just a couple of companies that got into that type of a management contract. He said it was tough to get a feel of how successful they were or how useful from a community standpoint.

Mr. Davis said one of the things they considered was if Parks and Recreation were managing it they could be a little more responsive to the residents needs. He felt that was one of the components why they thought they could do it themselves along with the fact that there were not a lot of specialty consultants that dealt with it. He said all of this could be addressed at any point in the future.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mrs. Stipp if the resolution would have to include the amount of the bond issue.

Mrs. Stipp said it would.

Councilman Mitzel said then by August 21 that amount would have to be set.

Mrs. Stipp said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mason asked if liability insurance should be required in the proposal.

Mr. Fried said it should be included.

Councilwoman Mason said if there were consultants and they were going to be paid at the end, would that still be bid out to get consultants because it was over $5,000.

Mr. Fried said if the Finance Director said it was not in the best interest of the City to do that, it did not have to be bid but Council could request a bid on it.

Mayor McLallen said it appeared that Council's primary concerns were fee structures, privatization, insurance, staff breakdown, security, enclosing of the pool in the future and whether that cost had to be looked at now, long term maintenance

program, the possibility of establishing a capital fund from the beginning for the maintenance and making sure the facility was affordable to the maximum number of residents.

1. Main Street Project

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Fried if all the documents were in order and agreeable from a legal standpoint and were there any issues he wanted to bring to Council's attention.

Mr. Fried said there were some changes that Councilman Mitzel had suggested and he had reviewed them and was going to look at some additional language.

A. Approval of Exchange Agreement

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the Exchange Agreement be approved subject to review

and approval by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked about the maintenance of the streetscape amenities and why that language was not in the agreement and could it be added.

Mr. Fried said it could be in the Agreement and what was in the document were those items that Administration felt should be covered by the Agreement. He said there were no other items called to his attention but items that Council desired could be put in the Agreement.

Councilman Mitzel said reading the agreement it sounded like it was just the landscaping and some snow removal from the sidewalks and the parking areas which was a maintenance issue. He said in past Council meetings last September and April it was mentioned maintaining the 32 foot tower, fences, benches, street lights, trash cans, bike racks, etc.; everything of a streetscape nature. He asked if Council had to amend the Agreement to have those things included.

Mr. Fried said when the Agreement was prepared he had reviewed it with Administration and these were the concerns they had in regard to maintenance. He said if the Council desired other elements in the Agreement, they should advise them and they would be happy to put them in.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the City Attorney be directed to include complete

maintenance of the streetscape amenities within the Agreement.

DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen asked Councilman Toth if he would accept that as a friendly amendment.

Councilman Toth asked if this was the Exchange Agreement they were talking about.

Councilman Mitzel said that was correct. He said the language was consistent within the Exchange Agreement, SAD Agreement for Roads and SAD Agreement for streetscape. He said there would have to be included in all three of those consistent language just like it was now.

Councilman Toth said he would accept it as a friendly amendment.

Councilman Mitzel said his second and third questions concerned environmental remediation of the property which was currently City property which would be exchanged. He said in the Agreement it stated that the remediation of the soil would be included within the construction costs of the SAD for the road. He asked what would happen if remediation costs combined with the road way construction exceeded the SAD price. He asked where the check and balance was.

Mr. Kriewall asked if he was talking about the surface contamination.

Councilman Mitzel said the first question was the soil and the second question he would ask was about the ground water. He said regarding the soil the Agreement stated that "subsoils would be removed from said property and the cost of such removal shall be included within the cost of construction of the road being funded by SAD 145C." He asked what happened if the cost was more than anticipated.

Mr. Fried said if it exceeded the SAD, the Ordinance provided that the extra costs could be reassessed and added on as a part of the SAD.

Councilman Mitzel asked if language was needed in the Agreement for that.

Mr. Fried said the SAD would comply with the Ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel said his second question concerned the ground water remediation and it stated "property owned by the City contains certain ground water contamination originating from off site sources which such contamination may or may not require removal or remediation and the cost shall not be included in the construction of the Main Street SAD." He asked how the decision to include the soil and not the ground water was obtained.

Mr. Kriewall said that was discussed extensively by staff with the City Attorney and it was just a cost they felt should not be passed on to the developer of that particular street and project; it was something that was beyond their control and the City's. He said based on the engineering data to date it appeared that the contamination was probably coming from off site from another property owner. He thought there would be extended litigation between the City and who ever else might be causing that problem. He said they didn't have all the answers as of this date but felt it would not be fair to pass that cost on to this project. He said typically, that responsibility remained with the original property owner, Mr. St. Thomas.

Mr. Fried said all that was subject to new legislation. He said there was a new bill passed by the legislature that affected this whole problem and they didn't know what the outcome of that legislation would be as yet.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the City Attorney was comfortable with the language.

Mr. Fried said as long as the Council agreed with it he was comfortable.

Councilman Mitzel said no where in the Agreement did he see any clauses that stated they would get what they were presented.

Mr. Fried thought that was a good statement.

Councilman Mitzel asked how to put a clause in of that nature.

Mr. Fried said they had considered it and were going to add a sentence to the Agreement that would require them to give a design that was in harmony with the exhibits they presented.

Councilman Mitzel had an issue concerning the name of the north/south street. He realized there was an Appeals Board that the petitioner went to and the Appeals Board said they could use Market Street even though the Ordinance said Town Center Drive should be the name. He didn't notice anything in the minutes that stated they had found there was exceptional practical difficulty to keeping the Town Center name. His question was not only an ordinance question but a fairness question. He said the Vistas of Novi came forward to the City about a year ago asking to use Market Street for a name and he didn't recall Main Street asking for Market Street until several months later. He asked if as a Council Member, he had the ability to put a rider on the Exchange Agreement that the north/south street name should be Town Center Drive. He asked if Council had the ability, in essence because they were making a public road through a public SAD process to determine what the name of that street should be.

Mr. Fried said he really wasn't following the Ordinance. He said the Ordinance provided a system for naming streets and if there was a dispute regarding the names the Administrative Board decided the names. He thought if Council did this they would not be following the Ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel asked if Council had the power to do that.

Mr. Fried said yes, Council could amend the Ordinance or do whatever they wanted to do.

Councilman Mitzel didn't see where the Appeals Board found exceptional practical difficulty. He also didn't believe it was fair to another development that proposed the same name and was told they couldn't use that name because of phonetics. He said not only was the issue here phonetics but the continuation of an existing street. He said it might seem to other Council Members a minor issue but he raised it because he was concerned about the fact that one developer proposed a very similar concept and wanted to use Market Street as their name, and then this project came in and used the name that the other project was told they couldn't use. He said he was looking for a way to rectify that situation.

Mr. Fried said he thought Mr. Wahl had presented a memo and had done some review on it.

Mr. Wahl said the official request for the name Market Street first came from Evergreen III. He said the Market Street that was in Vistas of Novi had not reached the site plan stage and they had never received an official request. Mr. Wahl said Councilman Mitzel was referring to their presentation to Council and they did use the name Market Street on their area plan. However, even prior to that they had discussions with Evergreen III regarding the use of Market Street. He said they were proceeding with the intention of bringing that forward. At the time they had those discussions with Mr. Chen they indicated that they should include it at a later date; there were many other items he was dealing with and therefore, that particular request did not come forward at that time. Mr. Wahl said in terms of informal discussion he had talked to them prior to Vistas of Novi. He said a lot of this was handled at an informal level that Council was not aware of.

Councilman Mitzel said he was going by the fact there was a formal submittal for area plan dated July, 1994 and Main Street presentation August, 1994 with it called the north/south leg of Main Street. He said he didn't see from a planning standpoint why they didn't want to carry the name through and didn't think it was a good policy. He said they were trying to build a ring road system not a discontinuous street naming system.

Mr. Wahl thought the fact that Vic's Market and the entire Main Street project was sort of a separate identity from the Town Center. He said it would actually create some confusion in continuing a very short leg that would dead end at Main Street and continue to follow Town Center Drive when in effect it was connected to Main Street and Vic's Market. He said they did originally want to keep the entire street name as Main Street but several people thought that was problematic and there were ordinance questions. He said that was when the term Market Street evolved and from a design and planning standpoint everyone felt that it fit in very well with the overall design of the project and was identifiable with the project. He said Town Center Drive would be a short stub that would bring everyone's attention to another project across the street. He said even from the standpoint of an emergency vehicle finding that street they felt continuing the name Town Center Dr. would be somewhat confusing.

Councilman Mitzel asked if he was recommending that the Ordinance be changed so that was not done anywhere else in the City. He said Dunbarton Dr. carries across Taft Road, Galway goes all the way from Novi Road to Nine Mile and those names do carry.

Mr. Wahl said it was his understanding there had been some other exceptions to the situation and basically took to the ordinance and went through the same kind of process that they went through here. He said it was turned down by the Street Naming Committee and went on to the appeals process and had been upheld. He said whatever the City Attorney and Council chose was their decision.

Councilman Mitzel said with the substantial changes that were proposed and the diagrams Mr. Fried said needed to be supplied he was not comfortable with approving this tonight. He said it was incomplete and he would rather have a complete package in front of Council with everything finalized and complete. Then it would be ready for Council action.

Mayor McLallen asked which items he felt were missing.

Councilman Mitzel said maintenance of the streetscape and also the clause regarding what they saw was what they would get and the diagrams that were included.

Mayor McLallen asked if the diagrams on the table tonight were the diagrams in question.

Councilman Mitzel said no; Mr. Fried said they were not even prepared yet.

Mayor McLallen said the diagrams Councilman Mitzel was talking about were diagrams that were visual plans.

Councilman Mitzel said that was correct and the project would be built in conformance with what was presented.

Mr. Fried asked Council to turn to Page 7 of the Exchange Agreement. He said they intended to add a sentence onto the first paragraph which would provide that "the development shall be in harmony with that depicted in exhibits A, B or C" or whatever it was would be attached to this. He said these would be presented to the Council for their review and then they would have to comply with that as they would have to comply with Section 160214 of the Zoning Ordinance. He said that was the way they intended to handle that. He said in regard to maintenance of the streetscape he thought the language was too broad and he would add in Paragraph two the particulars of what was required for them to maintain the streetscape if that was what the Council desired.

Mr. Kriewall said the streetscape issue did not come up before Councilman Mitzel so adding that was appropriate and he didn't have any problem with that.

Mr. Fried said that language would be added in paragraph two and they would get what particular items were in the street scape that should be maintained. He said they could get the information from Administration and they didn't think it would be much of a project to add that into the Agreement.

Councilman Mitzel asked if it took 5 votes to approve this.

Mr. Fried said absolutely.

Councilman Mitzel said he was not prepared to approve this until he could see the final version with the diagrams and the revised language. He felt it was proper for Council to have the final documents on something this major.

Councilwoman Mason told Mr. Wahl she would like a list of all the streets that stop and are not named across to another subdivision because she couldn't think of any. She said if Council was going to stop that street then they had to change Decker Road at 13 Mile too because that would be totally wrong. She said have Decker Road run all the way through the way Council wanted Town Center to run all the way through. She agreed with Councilman Mitzel that the Vistas did ask for that name first and how he could forget that was beyond her.

Councilwoman Mason asked regarding Page 11 of the Exchange Agreement Section 12 where it said "the execution by the City and Evergreen of a certain lease agreement for the lease of property owned by the City for use by Evergreen for the construction and maintenance of a parking lot for use by the general public" and then above in Section 12 it talked about exchanges and conveyances and further down about vacation of Blue Ox Drive. She asked if they should have some kind of lease agreement attached to this so Council would know what they were leasing this for.

Mr. Fried said there was a lease agreement and it was one of the next items they would discuss.

Councilwoman Mason asked why it was in the Exchange Agreement.

Mr. Fried said because these were called conditions precedent. He said these conditions had to be met before this agreement became effective.

Councilwoman Mason asked why these weren't all separate. She asked why Council had the Exchange Agreement on the face and then it gave all the exchange instructions. She said up to Section 8, 9, 10 and 11 she understood why it was all together. She said she didn't understand why Section 12 was even in there.

Mr. Fried said no one was going to exchange property at all unless these conditions were met. He said the first condition was the establishment of the Special Assessment District, the second was the lease agreement and the third condition was the vacation of Blue Ox Drive. He said if those conditions were not met, there wouldn't be any exchange of property.

Councilwoman Mason asked what the lease had to do with the exchange of property.

Mr. Fried said the project couldn't go ahead unless there was a lease agreement.

Councilwoman Mason said she was looking at it the other way; the Lease Agreement couldn't take place unless the exchange took place.

Mr. Fried said they were all bound together.

Councilwoman Mason said in her opinion this did not belong in the Exchange Agreement because there was a separate Lease Agreement.

Mr. Fried said certainly and they wanted a separate Lease Agreement and this did not spell out the Lease Agreement. He said it just said as a condition to entering the Exchange Agreement, before the Exchange Agreement became effective there must be a Lease Agreement.

Councilwoman Mason said she didn't accept the fact that it belonged in the Exchange Agreement.

Mr. Fried asked what didn't belong.

Councilwoman Mason said the leasing in the Exchange Agreement papers.

Mr. Fried asked if she didn't want it to say that this exchange wouldn't be effective unless there was a Lease Agreement.

Councilwoman Mason said no she didn't want that in there.

She said it was her opinion that it shouldn't be combined like that since there was a separate Lease Agreement. She said what it did was all encompassing tying the City right up for all the other things.

Mr. Fried said certainly as it was tying the developer up. He said we were not going to enter the exchange unless the developer agreed to enter into the Special Assessment Districts.

Councilwoman Mason said her last comment was they were exchanging property that belonged to the developer that the City would take care of the rest of its life and Council gave him a million dollars worth of property and a place to park for his market. She said the City was getting nothing in this.

Mr. Fried said what Councilwoman Mason was saying was she didn't have any complaint with the Exchange Agreement she had a complaint with the principle of this whole process.

Councilwoman Mason said it was always tied up like this and hidden in the back.

Mr. Fried said there was nothing hidden in this agreement and he didn't want the public to think that Council was hiding anything in this agreement.

Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried if he was here to represent the City or to represent Mr. Chen.

Mr. Fried said he was here to represent the Council and the citizens and there was nothing being hidden in the agreement.

Councilman Schmid said he agreed with Councilman Mitzel that this should be a complete document but he wanted some clarification as to exactly what Councilman Mitzel wanted in the final document. He said as far as the naming of the street he thought it was discussed at the Council table some time ago. He said it was a unique development and he felt it should be identified differently than the Town Center Drive development. He felt there was nothing wrong with breaking streets. He said as far as Vistas, if Mr. Wahl was accurate, they put it on a piece of paper and brought it before Council and that did not constitute going before the Board to get a name change. He said if he was correct Vistas did not proceed with a name change and Main Street did. He said he would be disappointed if Market Street was not identified somewhat differently than the Town Center Drive. He said going to Town Center Drive a person could practically be all over the City but if they went to Market Street they would know exactly where they were. He said the City of Novi had one of the most unique markets in Vic's and he felt that was important.

Councilman Schmid said as far as the lease and the exchange he thought it had to be in the document. He said it exchanged the property and then the lease was made to lease the property for $1.00 a year for parking purposes. He felt that it was quite clear.

Councilman Schmid asked about the sentence being added on page 7 in the first paragraph.

Mr. Fried said they would have to add a sentence to the first paragraph but they would have to get the exhibits. He thought they would have to see the exhibits and then they would know as Councilman Mitzel put it "what you see is what you get."

Councilman Schmid asked what kind of exhibits were they talking about.

Councilman Mitzel said his intent going back to last September and last April when Councilman Pope raised the same question, was somehow there had to be a mechanism in the Agreement that stated when it was developed it would be in the nature and spirit of what was presented as opposed to anything that was allowed in Town Center 1 Zoning.

Mr. Fried asked if there were any other exhibits .

Mr. Wahl said the primary exhibits were the documents and specifications that were bid out. At the present time, they were documents that were part of what Council approved and he had assumed those were the official specifications and documents. He said as to the renderings and the site development he didn't think there was anything at the present time other than what was in the TC-1 Ordinance. He said the site planning process had not moved to the level where what Mr. Rogers had was anymore than a concept. He said unless the City Attorney could indicate that those conceptual drawings would some how form a basis of a legal document, those were the parameters he was aware of.

Mr. Fried thought Councilman Mitzel was clear he wanted something to show what project would be there when this was all done. He said they had submitted renderings and he wanted the completed project in harmony with those renderings. He asked Councilman Mitzel if he was correctly quoting him.

Councilman Mitzel said he had summarized rather well. He said the project documents that Mr. Wahl mentioned were for the street scape and the road only. He said he was concerned about beyond the boundary of the street the project that would be partially built upon the land that the City was exchanging for the right-of-way. He said whatever legal mechanisms Mr. Fried needed along with the proper diagrams and renderings that was what he wanted.

Councilman Schmid asked what Mr. Fried meant.

Mr. Fried said the Council approved the whole project based on some renderings that were given to the Council. Councilmen Mitzel and Pope had raised the question of whether Council going to get this type of project when it was complete. He felt the language he proposed would make sure they got that kind of project. He said it might not be exactly like the rendering but in harmony with the rendering.

Councilman Schmid said he didn't disagree with the concept of what Councilman Mitzel was getting at. He said there wasn't going to be a site plan.

Mr. Fried said no.

Councilman Schmid said each building would not be pointed out as to what was going to go into it.

Mr. Fried said no.

Councilman Schmid said it would be a concept in keeping with the concept of what.

Mr. Fried said with the renderings that were furnished.

Mr. Kriewall said he thought the architects could get together and give Council something that they could attach and would be acceptable. He said he didn't think it would be a good practice to lock them into specifics in terms of building by building and facade by facade.

Mr. Fried said he didn't think that was the intent of Councilman Mitzel he just wanted something to show that they would have a project like they proposed to Council.

Mr. Kriewall said he thought that could be done.

Councilman Mitzel said otherwise it could be anything that was allowed in TC-1.

Councilman Schmid asked if the renderings were sufficient.

Mr. Kriewall said that was correct.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That this item be postponed until Mr. Fried could

resolve the issue and present Council with a finalized document for the Exchange Agreement.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Toth said he would not support the motion. He thought Councilman Mitzel raised some good points but he thought there was sufficient information provided. He said he didn't have a problem with it or with the drawings being attached or a concept drawing. He felt most of that could be handled administratively.

Yes (3-Mitzel, Mason, No (3-Crawford, Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid) McLallen,

Toth) Motion failed

Mayor McLallen restated the main motion which was to approve the Exchange Agreement with the amendment of inserting the language for the streetscape and review and approval by the City Attorney.

ROLL CALL: Crawford-Yes, Mason-No, Mitzel-No, Schmid-Yes,

Toth-Yes, McLallen-Yes

Yes (4) No (2) Absent (1-Pope) Motion failed

Motion failed for lack of 5 votes.

Councilman Mitzel said he would be willing to reconsider this at a time when documents were finalized.

B. Approval of ground lease for Municipal Parking Lot

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the ground lease for a Municipal Parking Lot

be approved.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said he had questions regarding the Lease Agreement. He said as far as procedural questions once again there were no details in the Lease Agreement that outlined what amenities would be part of the parking lot. He wanted to know if there were amenities consistent with the streetscape. He felt there should be some amenities and they should be outlined in the agreement.

Councilman Mitzel said in the Lease Agreement under Section 13A it noted that taxes would be paid as additional rent. He asked if there was a projection on the amount of taxes that were foreseeable and if there were taxes to the school district in addition to the City. He said he had received information on that and appreciated it.

Councilman Mitzel said Section 14.A noted that plans and specifications for the parking lot should be on or before September, 1996 and would be submitted and the City had 30 days to approve them. His question was whether or not formal site plan approvals through the Planning Commission, woodlands or wetlands or Town Center approvals that went to City Council were required for this. He said if so 30 days was sufficient.

Mr. Fried said the 30 days was just to prove the general specifications. He said they would still have to go through the ordinance process on site plan approval and all the necessary permits. He said the 30 days didn't cover that aspect of it.

Councilman Mitzel said even though it was titled "Prepare Plans and Specifications and submit it to lessor for written approval for any revisions and that we shall give an itemized statement of any reasons for disapproval for 30 days, etc." He asked if that included site plans.

Mr. Fried said there was a provision that they had to comply with all ordinances and regulations of the City.

Councilman Mitzel asked if that was in a different section.

Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if he was comfortable that the 30 day limit would not default the approval.

Mr. Fried said no.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the motion be amended to state that the Administration prepare language outlining the amenities

which the parking area would have and bring it forward when

that language was included and finalized.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said the amendment effectively took the main motion off the floor. He thought it substantially changed the intent of the main motion and the amendment was probably out of order. He said by adding what he added and saying to bring it back when that was complied with that took the intent of the main motion off the floor.

Mayor McLallen said Councilman Crawford was correct.

Councilman Mitzel said he realized that.

Mr. Fried said Councilman Crawford was right because it defeated the main motion.

Councilman Mitzel withdrew his motion.

Councilwoman Mason did not withdraw her second

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That this item be postponed so the Administration could

include an outline of which street scape amenities should be included within the parking lot language in this agreement and bring it back for final approval.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mason said on Page 4, Subletting and Assignment, it said "the lessor therefore agrees that, upon the proper establishment of the condominium project and for creation of the condominium association, it will consent to the assignment of this lease by lessee to said condominium association, provided that the condominium association assumes all of the obligations of lessee hereunder." She asked if there was going to be another condominium complex or if this referred to the rental town houses that were approved.

Councilman Crawford said that had nothing to do with the amendment.

Mayor McLallen said that was not germane to the amendment that was on the table.

Councilwoman Mason said there was the first amendment and then he took it back and now there was another one. She felt she should be able to ask questions and asked if Council was trying not to ask questions because they were renting City of Novi property for $20.00 for 20 years. She said she had the right to ask questions because it had to do with the Lease Agreement.

Mayor McLallen said the motion on the floor at the moment was the postponement of the entire discussion.

Mr. Fried asked if he could inquire of the Administration whether they knew what amenities were going to be in the parking structure that was part of the streetscape.

Councilman Mitzel said he thought they would be amenities that would be consistent to the entire streetscape project.

Yes (2-Mitzel, Mason) No (4-Crawford, Toth, Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid, McLallen

Motion failed

Councilman Toth directed his questions to Councilman Mitzel. He said on the first page of the Lease Agreement under A said the lessor leases to the lessee, etc. "construction and maintenance of a parking lot or parking structure." He said on Page 6 Section 14, Construction of a Parking Facility Plans and Specifications said "lessee shall at lessee's sole expense, prepare plans and specifications for a parking lot to be erected on the premises, and which, upon completion, shall be open to use by the general public. Such plans and specifications shall be submitted to lessor for lessor's written approval or any revisions required by lessor." He said as far as he was concerned that language was sufficient to mean that whatever was constructed there had to come back to the City and go through the normal process to meet all the requirements. He said he didn't know what Councilman Mitzel wanted over and above that in terms of what he wanted to see in the area.

Councilman Mitzel said he was correct and it would come back for site plan approval based on Town Center standards. Just like building a regular ring road, it would come back for Town Center standards which would be much less than what the streetscape was proposing. He said the streetscape was what made that road special, it's bringing the amenities to a much higher level and much more amenities. He said his concern was there was no where in the agreement that stated that would be carried through to the parking area. He said it might end up just a regular parking lot and the whole idea of the Main Street area was to have aesthetically pleasing road, pedestrian atmosphere, etc. He didn't see that outlined in the lease agreement for the parking structure. He said what he was asking for was in kind to what he was asking for on the Exchange Agreement something considered what you see is what you get or a concept outline. He said he didn't enjoy being the bad guy bringing all these things up and delaying the project. He said he supported the project but believed that proper mechanisms needed to be in place until the City approved it. He said other things had been raised many times before over the last year so it was not that he was bringing up things that had never been spoken about.

Councilman Toth said he fully understood that but rather than going through each one of these agreements what he really required was one agreement prepared by the City Attorney saying anything that was put into this project had to meet these requirements and identify all those in separate agreements. He said if Council was going to go through this on each and every building that came in, he thought Council should have a blanket agreement that covered every building and the standard language should be placed in that agreement. Councilman Toth said he wasn't sure he wanted this language in each agreement and thought there should be some kind of understanding or agreement with people making the development, much the same way as Vistas of Novi.

Councilman Mitzel said if there was still a PUD Ordinance, that could have been done.

Councilman Toth said he was making the motion on the Lease Agreement with full understanding that it went to the City Attorney. He said the final document should be passed after going to the City Attorney.

Councilman Schmid said he would support the motion and that Councilman Mitzel brought up another good point however, he thought it was covered on Page 6. He said he didn't think there was anything in writing regarding parking lots, the streetscape contracts had been sent along with the construction of the Roads and included the planners and etc. He said there would be a specific kind of lighting in all the parking lots, requests for and demands to keep within the ordinance, landscaping within the parking lots, and accessible walkways to the facilities. He said the leased parking lot would be consistent with the rest of the parking lots in the development. He felt this could be covered in this agreement and they could move on and get it adopted tonight. He felt it was a rather minor point and one that could be dealt with. He thought Mr. Fried would have difficulty regarding what to put in the document.

Mr. Fried said he could take care of it and add it to the language.

Councilwoman Mason said on Page 4, Subletting and Assignment it said "Lessor further acknowledges that the premises may be used by the public for parking in connection with the condominium project as an adjunct to the private parking lot which is part of the condominium project. The lessor therefore agrees that, upon the proper establishment of the condominium project and for creation of the condominium association, it will consent to the assignment of this lease by lessee to said condominium association, provided that the condominium association assumes all of the obligations of lessee hereunder." She asked if they were talking about the Singh Development that was no longer condominiums but was town houses. She asked Mr. Wahl if there were planned condominiums.

Mr. Wahl said not for the Main Street Village project.

Councilwoman Mason asked what was this that they were looking at. She said they were going to sign the lease over to condominiums.

Mr. Wahl said that was referring to properties which were in the Special Assessment District and not to the Main Street Village Project.

Mayor McLallen said the Main Street commercial project was commercial condominiums, was that what he was saying.

Mr. Wahl said yes, there might be condominiums within that project.

Councilwoman Mason said but there aren't yet.

Mr. Wahl said he wasn't sure when or if such condominiums would be executed.

Mr. Chen said the condominium that belonged to Main Street Village had nothing to do with this SAD. He said that project was not out of this SAD. He said the SAD being discussed tonight only covered Vic's Market, Sports Tavern property and the north and south sides of Main Street.

Councilwoman Mason said it read "Upon the proper establishment of the condominium project and for creation of the condominium association, it will consent to the assignment of this lease by lessee to said condominium association." She asked if he was looking, in the future, to make some of these pods or places condominium and owned separately by separate owners.

Mr. Chen said he was.

Councilwoman Mason asked if that was over and above the drawing Council had of the Main Street concept or was that going to be part of it.

Mr. Chen said no it was going to be part of it and what they were seeing here was after the entire project was completed it had to have an association to monitor . . . .

Councilwoman Mason said it did not have to have a condominium association unless he was selling them off individually. She said if he wasn't selling them off individually to form a condominium type of ownership and a joint wall, basically that was what it looked like then why not take this out.

Mr. Chen said they did have all the intentions to create as the Main Street spirit. He said if she could remember Main Street could be the joined wall next door and it could be a different owner or it could be the same owner as well. He said they would like to leave that option open.

Councilwoman Mason said to Mr. Fried if they had a condominium association and there were different or same owners, it didn't matter. Her question was in a normal condominium situation, commercial or residential, the parking lot became a common element joint ownership of the people who owned those units.

Mr. Fried said if it was a part of the condominium.

Councilwoman Mason said that was correct and in this document it said they'd be signed over.

Mr. Fried said it didn't say it would be a part of the condominium; it said it would sign a lease to the condominium association.

Councilwoman Mason said if they do assign the lease to the condominium association to maintain, her fear was if this someday down the line became part ownership common element then what if the public wanted to park there.

Mr. Fried said this was not a common element it would be separate and not a part of the condominium association. He said the condominium association would have a right to lease it but it would not be a part of the condominium.

Councilwoman Mason asked if they never form a condominium that clause would be void.

Mr. Fried said then it would not be assigned to a condominium.

Councilwoman Mason said then there would never be a time when it would create a problem for the general public to park in there if it became a condominium type of ownership and if the lease was signed over to them.

Mr. Fried said the ownership would be in the City and the City would just lease it and the condominium association would assume the responsibility of the lessee of the building.

ROLL CALL: Mason-No, Mitzel-No, Schmid-Yes, Toth-Yes,

McLallen-Yes, Crawford-Yes, Pope-Absent

Yes (4) No (2) Absent (1-Pope) Motion defeated

Motion defeated for lack of 5 votes

Roadway

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That Resolution 1, 2 & 3 and the Contract for SAD #145C

be approved subject to review and approval by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Fried pointed out corrections called to his attention by both Councilman Mitzel and the bonding attorney. He said on Page 3 of Resolution 145C the interest would be limited to 8% and would commence on July 1, 1995 and if anticipation bonds were issued, it would be 1% over the anticipation bond cost.

Mr. Fried said that language would read "interest shall be charged on the unpaid balance of said Special Assessment Roll at the rate of 8% per anum commencing on July 1, 1995, provided however in the event bonds are issued in anticipation of the collection of said assessment interest shall be charged on the unpaid balance of the roll at a rate of 1% greater then the average rate of interest born by such bonds."

Councilman Mitzel said last year Council passed an ordinance that stated that a different interest rate could be charged other than 8% but that was the floor.

Mr. Fried said interest rate in excess of 8% could be charged if the Council desired.

Councilman Mitzel asked if this meant if Council sold bonds at 4%, it would be charged at 5%.

Mr. Fried said no it would be charged at 8%.

Councilman Mitzel asked what about that last sentence.

Mr. Fried said that was if the anticipation bonds were issued, then they would be charged at 1% and that was statutory regarding the anticipation bonds.

Councilman Mitzel said that was a new phrase to him and could Mr. Fried explain.

Mr. Fried said he received a letter dated August 31, 1994 from the bonding attorney which spelled it out and it read "the Main Street Project which is the current project being considered by the City would involve the issue of Michigan Transportation Fund Bonds which would not strictly be issued in anticipation of Special Assessment even though it is anticipated that Special Assessment should be used by the City to pay the principle of an interest on the bonds. Thus since the bonds are not special assessment bonds and are not strictly being issued in anticipation of special assessment, the special assessment interest shall be charged which could not be determined by statute 1% above the bond rate and would be controlled by either the City Charter or the City Special Assessment Ordinance."

Mr. Fried said in other words if Special Assessment Bonds are issued we could utilize our own 8% rate or that in excess of 8% under our ordinance. He said if we had Anticipation Bonds then it had to be 1% over what the bonds were under State Statute.

Councilman Mitzel said he had two other questions concerning issues raised last August and last February concerning public road improvements that were indicated in the Traffic Study. He said specifically, in February Councilman Pope had questioned whether or not the overall project would provide the needed improvements that the Traffic Study stated would be needed at Novi Road and Grand River. He said also last August he had questioned whether or not needed improvements could be made as part of the SAD and if they were included. He said he had not seen the complete specifications for the road project and asked if they were included already. He was asking specifically about turn lanes.

Mr. Wahl said it was his understanding that a Main Street Road did package their work for rather substantial improvements to Grand River that were included as part of that project. He thought it was in excess of $100,000.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried, in light of the fact that the Exchange Agreement did not pass, could Council take action on the Special Assessment District.

Mr. Fried said it would require 5 votes for the Special Assessment District.

Councilman Mitzel asked if there were 5 votes on the Special Assessment District what . . . .

Mr. Fried said he would not let Council pass Resolution #3 until that was done.

Councilman Mitzel said even if there were 5 votes on this, the Exchange Agreement had not passed.

Mr. Fried said he would suggest that Council not pass Resolution #3 until Council had the Exchange Agreement.

There was no vote on previous motion

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That per the City Attorney's comments, Resolution 1, 2 & 3 and Contract - SAD 145C Main Street Roadway be postponed until the Exchange Agreement and the Lease Agreement were approved.

DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen asked if Mr. Fried's comments only applied to Resolution #3 of the three and asked if #1 and #2 and the contract could be approved.

Mr. Fried said the contract can't be approved but Resolutions 1 & 2 could be approved. He said Resolution #3 would call for entering into this contract.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

Mayor McLallen said rather than prolong the discussion, would Council support moving the entire Item A through E to the next meeting July 24 with the exception of Blue Ox. She felt a public hearing could be established on that if Council chose.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That Main Street Project A, B, C, D and E be postponed

until Council's next meeting on July 24 when all things are

met and all the questions are answered that Council brought

forth at this time.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mason said she felt that Council should keep it all tied together because it was confusing to take a piece here and a piece there if this was the whole project.

Councilman Mitzel said on September 26, 1994 Council approved a Resolution to have a hearing on vacating Blue Ox Drive. He said that was already approved and the date was not set but it was supposed to be early December. He said the hearing was never held and asked if that resolution was still valid.

Mr. Fried said it was and Council just had to set a hearing date.

Councilman Mitzel said then it would not be necessary to re-approve Item E. He said all that had to be done was that City Administration set a date for the public hearing.

Councilman Mitzel said he noticed on the drawings that were submitted to Council tonight for the first time that there was a proposed City Park in this development now. He said it was a 5,312 sq. ft. City park along Main Street and he requested that after the motion passed he would be able to make a motion concerning that and the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Councilman Crawford said he would not support the motion if Blue Ox vacation was included in the postponement motion but if it was just Item D he would approve it.

Councilwoman Mason asked Councilman Crawford what the rush was to vacate Blue Ox.

Councilman Crawford said there was no rush but why not take some action. He said Council constantly postponed, delayed, asked for more information, got it and asked for more. He said this went on and on and on and that was why the meeting went to 1:00 a.m. and that was why Council rehashed the same thing several times over for several months. He said Council could take action on Item E tonight simply set a date for Public Hearing and have a public hearing. He said don't postpone setting a date for a public hearing until two weeks from now.

Councilwoman Mason asked how long it took once Council decided to set a public hearing.

Mrs. Stipp said the hearing could be set for the 24th and it could be advertised this week.

Councilwoman Mason said then it could all happen at the same time so Council was not doing anything really bad by waiting until the 24th to do all of it.

Mrs. Stipp said no as long as the hearing was set.

Councilwoman Mason said if the hearing was not set tonight and on the 24th everything passed through then how long would it take to set the hearing for the Blue Ox vacating.

Mrs. Stipp said until the next regular meeting.

Councilwoman Mason said which was two weeks after that so at the very most a month.

Mayor McLallen asked if the Resolution still stood.

Mr. Fried said based on what Councilman Mitzel showed him, he thought a new resolution was needed because it called for a December date and there was discussion as to the date.

Councilwoman Mason asked if they had any idea when the parking lot would start or when this was all going to happen.

Councilman Toth said regarding Item D since there was no support on A, B and C he would support moving that to the 24th. He said Item E he would support scheduling a date for a public hearing on the 24th. He said the motion as it stood didn't support that position so he could not support the motion.

Councilman Crawford said his point was on the vacation of Blue Ox and when to schedule a public hearing he didn't care if the parking lot and project wasn't going to be built for 5 years. He said why not take action on it tonight. He said there was a resolution in front of Council, it was on the agenda and he wanted to take action on it then Council didn't have to have another resolution before them 2 weeks, 6 months or a year from now. He said it didn't have to be another agenda item. He said Council constantly complained about long meetings and this was the way Council added to the length of the meetings. He said let's just get it done tonight and there was no reason they couldn't.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That Item E be excluded from the main motion.

Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

Vote on main motion

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

date for the Public Hearing

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That a Public Hearing date be scheduled for the vacating

of Blue Ox for July 24.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if the resolution in the packet was the resolution Council was approving. He said the resolution in the packet stated that they were vacating Blue Ox.

Mrs. Stipp said it was just introducing the resolution.

Councilman Crawford said the motion was to adopt the resolution and set the date for the public hearing. He said they just said set a date.

Mrs. Stipp said the Charter called for the introduction of the resolution.

Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

Councilman Mitzel said the Main Street SAD diagram showed a 5,312 sq. ft. proposed city park within this development. He said

this was the first time he had seen it, and didn't know how that fit in with the exchange agreements, the land that was listed there, etc. He was curious on whether or not it fit in with the City's goals because he knew that the Parks & Rec Department and the Parks & Rec Commission did not want small isolated parks throughout the town.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel,

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason,

That the matter of a proposed city park within the Main Street development be referred to the Parks & Recreation Commission for their discussion and input at this week's Parks & Recreation Commission meeting so they could receive information on that in Council's July 24th packet.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

Oaks Mall Area

Mayor McLallen said the project had been through the Planning Commission and all of the consultants and had received positive recommendations from all consultants and the fire department. She said the Planning Commission recommended a positive PD-3 option and recommended the preliminary site plan to the City Council.

Councilman Mitzel said he was concerned with the fact that the PD-3 option specifically said fast food restaurants were not permitted uses. He asked Mr. Fried or Mr. Rogers to comment on how this affected what was before Council tonight.

Mr. Rogers said he conferred with Mr. Fried. He said in reviewing the plan he considered that as a legitimate prior approved restaurant. He said he did discuss the need to take it through a PD-3 option process; in other words the preliminary and the final had to come before Council. However, if Council considered this restaurant that had a 103 seats today and would have 23 additional seats, if they would consider the drive up window and the cash window and perhaps the inherent nature of a McDonald's restaurant then he could see an interpretation of a fast food restaurant or a fast food carry out restaurant and under the specific terms of the RC-PD-3 option it was not permitted. He said restaurants of any kind could not be within 1,000 ft. of each other.

Mr. Rogers said he did some research to find out when this particular restaurant was built. He said the actual Planning Board minutes he could not obtain today; there was a search for them and Mrs. Stipp did her own independent search. He said there was no City Council action on it so it led him to believe this was just another site plan. He said Mr. Saven in the Building Department looked through the records and found a sheet of paper attached to the file stating under the signature of Ed Novak that final site plan approval had been given on June 7, 1978 or a year or two after the mall opened. He said apparently at that same time the City was addressing the PD-3 Option and Mrs. Stipp provided a copy of the ordinance adopting the PD-3 Amendment on November 13, 1978. He said this was an amendment to Ordinance 75 not the 1984 Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Rogers said the restaurant was approved under the RC District and was built and then the PD-3 was laid on. He said that created, in his opinion, a legal non-conforming use of the McDonald's Restaurant. He said this particular amendment would require if Council approved the preliminary site plan and the PD-3 Option that the issue of expansion of a non-conforming use should be reviewed by the ZBA. This should be done prior to the final site plan being submitted for review back to the Planning Commission and thence to the Council. He said that way Council would permit the use which complied with most of the other ordinance standards. He said it would provide the Master Plan recommended right-of-way of 90 feet from center line for 12 Mile Road.

Mr. Rogers said he was not splitting hairs on what was a restaurant and what was a fast food restaurant. He said he couldn't find where this could come in as a RC use because the PD option was an optional action that the applicant could take. He said they could come in just with an RC use but the set backs would not be in conformity with the RC District which were 100 feet on all four sides. He said they couldn't make that and the only course of action for them to get final site plan approval was to get approval from the ZBA of the increase of the play space of 1,144 sq. ft. on the south end of the building. He said then they were adding a 75 sq. ft. extension of the cash booth on the west side of the building. He felt that answered Councilman Mitzel's concerns and recommended that course of action.

Councilman Mitzel asked if Mr. Rogers had ever seen one of the two story play scapes in existence.

Mr. Rogers said he had seen several play scapes because they were building them on all their restaurants. He said it was architecturally compatible in his opinion.

Councilman Mitzel said he wondered how it would fit in with the facade ordinance because the ones he saw tended to be a two story square tower of glass and was quite conspicuous. He said there was a multi colored tornado slide or play scape inside to create interest.

Mr. Rogers said it would have to comply and they couldn't have it all glass without certain conditions being met.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Roger's letter stated that "this would be considered with the entire building" so even though the addition might be all glass it still complied because the building itself had brick on it.

Mr. Rogers said he thought they showed use of materials that would be compatible with the facade ordinance. He said he was told the reason they wanted to go slightly more vertical was it was a little bit like Cellular one and was to catch the attention of motorists on 12 Mile Road.

Councilman Mitzel said all the ones he had seen had very similar designs as was proposed for this with the taller structure on the front of the building with the play scape on display.

Mr. Rogers said he thought it could fit in with the facade ordinance and it would be closely monitored and the applicant could address that in greater detail than he could. He said this was only a preliminary and the facade review was done at final.

Mayor McLallen asked the applicant if he had a visual of the architectural design.

Mr. Tom Radclyfe, representing McDonald's, introduced Frank Martin the architect and passed around the design and the rendering. He said it was unique and created in Mr. Martin's view as an outside architect to try to be compatible with the structures within that area.

Councilman Schmid said he was trying to get a clarification from Mr. Rogers. He said he wanted to see the renderings and so forth. He asked Mr. Rogers if it had to go to the ZBA.

Mr. Rogers said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid asked if Council was going to take any action tonight.

Mr. Rogers said they could but make a condition on the action of preliminary site plan approval that they do get ZBA approval before it comes back for final to the Commission and to Council.

Councilman Schmid said he was hoping there would be a presentation as to what their plan was. He said that was what they were doing now.

Mr. Radclyfe said what he would like to do since there was concern over the play scape was have Mr. Martin take Council through his thoughts and what was trying to be created in his design.

Mr. Martin said based upon conversations with Mr. Rogers and with McDonald's and the present operators of this facility, they all knew how important it was to make this particular play scape unique to this particular building and meet the requirements of Novi. He said the intent, as Council knew, the front of the typical McDonald's restaurant in this case was away from 12 Mile Road and faced the Twelve Oaks Shopping Center and the ring road. He said consequently, the typical McDonald play places that he had been involved with and Council had become familiar with were two story play structures that needed the height. He said two stories at the front of the building in order to encapsulate the play place. He said in this particular case they were looking at having a sloped roof that would be in conformance with what they had seen going down 12 Mile Road. He said it would also incorporate brick, glass and would carry some of the horizontal lines that are seen on the existing McDonald's facility through the play place addition. He said Council would probably not find this in other play place additions now; the continuity of carrying that through. He said there were different reasons they were doing it in different locations differently. He said in this particular case they felt that they had done a admirable job in trying to make the play place addition conform with the existing facility and the ordinances and review of the City of Novi.

Mr. Martin said the particular play place structure and the theme of the store would be environmental in nature and the interior design would be carried through into the play place.

Councilman Toth said there was nothing in the documentation that said the Taubman Company had seen this, blessed this or even knew that this was happening. He asked if there had been any contact with the Taubman Company. He said every project in this area had met with some of their representatives and this was the first one he had seen where there was absolutely nothing from Taubman.

Mr. Radclyft said they had submitted the elevations to the Taubman Company and had received their comments back which were generally favorable. He said they wanted some additional information assuring that the building material that they were going to use was compatible with the existing building. He said they were provided with the information. Mr. Radclyft said they own the site but as part of the obligations on their particular restaurant they do have to have written consent prior to proceeding from the Taubman Company. Mr. Radclyft said they would have that.

Councilman Schmid said this was a preliminary and they would have to come back with a final site approval.

Mr. Rogers said absolutely and the criteria for PD-3 final site plan approval was in the ordinance. He said it first went to the Planning Commission and they would recommend it to Council.

Councilman Schmid said then the quality, aesthetics and all of that would be brought back.

Mr. Rogers said and also the landscaping and that there was a number of improvements needed.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the Preliminary Site Plan and PD-3, an addition to

McDonald's Restaurant - South side of 12 Mile Road - Twelve

Oaks Mall be approved subject to the ZBA hearing and written approval from Taubman Company.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if Council could require a letter from Taubman as a condition of approval.

Mr. Fried said no it was an independent agreement between the owner and Taubman but Council could request that information.

Councilman Schmid added that this was a unique approval by himself. He said this was a restaurant that was built before the ordinance being established PD-3. He felt if it was done properly it would be a good addition to the facility and to the area. He said he would normally not recommend sending something to the ZBA which had previously been OK'd by Council. He felt it was worthy of consideration.

Councilman Toth said this was a regional shopping center that was under the control of one management group that had identified some unique standards that Council had agreed to. He said the facade, brick work, etc. on all the buildings within the center complex and ring road were established many, many years ago. He said Council had always made sure they were in harmony or agreement throughout the project. He asked if Mr. Fried was saying Council couldn't follow that through but Council had in the past.

Mr. Fried said the question was could Council enforce the agreement between the former land owner and the new land owner. He said the answer was no that was a private agreement. He said Council could ask for that information but Council based their considerations on the ordinances and not on what Mr. Taubman's rules and regulations were.

Councilman Toth said the motion was made that Council have a letter from Taubman.

Mr. Fried said Council might have the letter but the motion was not conditioned upon Taubman giving approval but just a letter saying that he had.

Councilwoman Mason asked if Mr. Taubman still owned that property.

Mr. Radclyft said he owned the property but Mr. Taubman still had control over the property.

Councilwoman Mason asked why Cellular One didn't have a letter from Mr. Taubman. She asked why didn't everything that was put around the whole perimeter of Twelve Oaks Mall get a letter from Mr. Taubman. She asked why Mr. Singh didn't get a letter from Mr. Chen about the town houses. She said this was absurd.

Mr. Toth said all of the ring road properties went through Mr. Taubman.

Councilwoman Mason said no one had any letters and why should they single them out.

Mr. Radclyft said he would be glad to provide the letter of consent and expected it by the time they came back to Council.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

3. Request for Entry Sign within Right of Way - Lochmoor Village

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the entry sign be within the right-of-way on

Lochmoor Village subject to a licensing agreement.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said the JCK letter said the sign was to be 14 ft. back from the southern right-of-way of Eleven Mile and that was not within the right-of-way. He asked if that was conflicting with what Council was doing.

Mrs. Stipp said no it was the right-of-way of the interior street.

Councilwoman Mason said it was in the boulevard right-of-way.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

4. Resolution - Regarding establishing salary of City Clerk

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the following resolution providing $45,000 per year to the new City Clerk Tonni Burns be adopted.

WHEREAS, the City Council has offered the position of City

Clerk to Tonni Burns,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Tonni Burns be appointed

as City Clerk of the City of Novi as of July 24, 1995, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk Salary be established at $45,000 per year.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Toth said he would not support the resolution. He said he thought Councilman Schmid made some valid points at the last meeting regarding the salary level. He said he supported that and he would continue to support that level.

Yes (4) No (2-Toth, Mason) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

Councilman Toth said it took a vote of 5.

Mayor McLallen said according to the City Attorney's interpretation this resolution took four votes. She said the appropriation to fund that occurred in next years budget cycle and at that time it would take five.

Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mason asked that Mr. Fried explain that.

Mayor McLallen said there was a letter in her packet from Mr. Fried on that issue.

Councilwoman Mason said she read it.

Mr. Fried said it took five votes to appropriate money

but only took four votes to pass a resolution pursuant to the appropriation. He said this resolution just sets the salary but didn't appropriate any money to it.

Councilwoman Mason asked if it was coming off the present City Clerk' salary . . .

Mr. Kriewall said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mason said she didn't ask Mr. Kriewall because that was the way he wanted it to be. She asked if Council was taking off someone who was now done, that was at the end of her salary, she was not a continuation of this City Clerk. Then Council was going to try to throw it in and continue it under that salary when it was not appropriated for a new person. She said that was her question.

Mr. Fried said he didn't know how the Finance Director would handle it.

Councilwoman Mason felt it was a very serious issue because Council was taking someone who applied at $34,000 and the agreement was to pay her $41,000 and all at once the situation changed and she was getting $45,000. She said that had nothing to do with Mrs. Stipp and requested some kind of a serious reading on that. She said she could not abide with Mr. Kriewall's yes.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Tom Radclyft, 24997 Newberry Drive, said as he was reading the Novi News July 6 edition and as caught by an article in terms of the City of Novi being able to crack that type of development given their standards. He said he might be para-phasing way too generally in this.

Mr. Radclyft said one of the things raised in his mind was the whole development process. He thought that concern reflected on experience through his company that he dealt with in the City, developers meetings that he had been asked to attend where concerns were raised about the cost of development in Novi. He said not so much what had to be done in terms of once it's built but what they had to go through to get approved.

Mr. Radclyft said as he reflected back on it trying to solve this one problem as a tax payer was really not helping him that significantly. He felt that it had to be looked at in development in general throughout the City. He said the process started basically as a dated zoning ordinance that he saw as being patch

worked. He said it continued on through a site plan manual that: 1) required things that were unrealistic and not needed for decisions to be made or 2) requirements put on the information required by the developer where members of the City Planning Commission disregarded the information completely in some cases against their own consultants recommendation, their experts, going with gut feelings. He said "my gut feeling says" and didn't care what the information said and "my gut feeling says this is what's going to happen." He said he had a real problem with that as a taxpayer. He said not only because he looked at his taxes and how they would be affected in the future years if development keeps getting turned away but more importantly the process itself. He said either we are going to have a process and pay consultants and ask for their opinions and look at them based on fact and make decisions based on fact or eliminate the whole consultant rat race and say that the Planning Commission and Council would "go by their gut feelings." He said it was not a very fact based way to run a City and certainly not the way a business wanted to run. He said it should be based on fact and not gut feeling.

Mr. Radclyft said the other part was dated ordinances and so forth applied to uses where the only remedy after Planning Commission was Circuit Court or the project went by the wayside. He said the developer had to make a choice; do I go to Court or do I just walk away from the project with no appeal process at all to Council or any other body. He said they are forced to look at those two options and as a taxpayer the cost of litigation was ridiculous. He said why should a developer who was inclined to try to work it out take it to another level to get decisions. He said the only options were to walk away or go to court; especially in light of the requirements in the Site Plan Manual where the developer would spend thousands of dollars and then have to weigh the options of walking away from those dollars or trying to win through court.

Diane Risco representing the Novi Chamber said they just wanted to communicate better with the businesses, the City, residents and the Council to make a better community for all. She said she just wanted to let Council know they were in attendance.

Mr. James Chen, Evergreen III, said he would like to re-address Item #1 of the previous session; the last item regarding the park. He wanted to comment that the park was intended to be a private park as part of the Evergreen III development. He said somehow through the process all the City consultants felt that if they would dedicate that property to the City it would make it much easier in the process to get it built and also to do the construction nearby there. He said Evergreen III was waiting to dedicate the additional land to the City. He said he was hoping that it would not create any additional problem to the entire project. He said should that become a problem Evergreen III would be more than willing to give the permanent easement to the City to get the project done.

Mr. Chen said this year was very critical for the Main Street

project. He said if this construction season was missed Main Street could not be built this year and would have to be built next year. He said there was a potential for the entire process to move back by about a year. He said they had people interested in coming to Main Street and had to get the buildings started by next spring. He said if that was not happening the entire Main Street project would be in a very, very difficult situation. He said that was why they wanted to get the project going this year and would like to see the project successful. He said when they start a project the streetscape and the Main Street the total SAD was starting at $2.4 Million. He said the feasibility study went up to $3.2 Million and it was now at $3.7 Million with a minimum of the property the developer was taking a very, very heavy burden.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That Claims and Accounts Warrant #442 be approved.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mason asked what was #170, Red Holman Pontiac Co. for $14,353.

Mr. Kriewall said it was a GMC pick up truck.

Yes (5) No (1-Toth) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

Councilman Crawford asked the City Attorney his opinion on his discussion of this issue since his wife was an administrative employee.

Mr. Fried said this subject matter did not relate specifically to Councilman Crawford's wife; she was just a member of administration. Mr. Fried said he could deal with it but if it dealt solely with Mrs. Crawford then it would be a conflict.

Councilman Toth felt that one of the things that should be done was to form a citizens committee to review this and compare it with comparable salaries and structures in private industry. He said it was private industry who lived in the City and paid the taxes. He felt a citizens committee might be effective and they should review the total compensation package and come back with recommendations to Council.

Councilman Schmid said this was discussed in budget sessions. He read Mr. Klavers June 29, 1995 memo, fourth paragraph. "In keeping with our generally conservative compensation approach, I am recommending that a range ." Councilman Schmid asked if he wanted ranges for jobs.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said so a certain type of clerk would be a range of $20,000 to $35,000 or something of that nature.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid read on "be established for Department Head and Director positions that is based on -10% and +5% of the proposed 95-96 salary." He asked if Mr. Klaver was assuming that those salaries were proper within a 5% variance either way.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid asked if he had done sufficient research to say that Department Head or Director positions were presently where they should be.

Mr. Klaver said one of the things they based that assumption on was that they had surveyed many of the positions for many years particularly with existing staff that had been employees. He said they had looked at other communities and were fairly comfortable with some of the adjustments that were done over the past few years. He said the majority of his staff was at a reasonable compensation level as compared to other communities.

Councilman Schmid said let's assume that one of the Directors reached that +5%, what would be done next year.

Mr. Klaver said the assumption would be, short of coming in and modifying that range, that that employee was then at the maximum of that particular range. He said the only movement that would occur beyond that would be the across the board adjustments that would be passed along based on inflationary increases, what Council might have done with other employee groups, the union contracts, etc. He said typically with range systems periodically they might be adjusted. For example, say it had been modified or a department had a lot of unusual growth, numbers of employees and new assignments had been added then the entire range might be periodically adjusted for a particular position. He said generally the maximum that had been established would be the maximum.

Mr. Klaver said the purpose of the range system was to provide some targets and it had been Council's intention that within that range compensation it would be based on performance. He said through evaluation, goals and objectives they would be placing individuals in that spectrum that Council had established based on their performance from year to year.

Councilman Schmid said then at some point in time Mr. Klaver or anyone else could max out.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said then they'd get cost of living.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said that figure would never change.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct unless Council chose to adjust the range.

Mr. Kriewall said the whole range would move by let's say 3% like this year. He said that was how to control the maximum cost of living and that was all that would be. He said Council would approve that annually.

Councilman Schmid said a new employee would then start out at these various positions at a minus 15%.

Mr. Klaver said not necessarily. He said the expectation would be that an employee would be started, as had been done, particularly if it was a replacement of a long term employee the new person would come on with less experience and would be somewhat lower then the existing employee. He didn't think they would automatically start at the bottom level; that would depend on the candidates qualifications and experience.

Councilman Schmid said he would probably agree but why wouldn't there be starting ranges that would progress through the next 10 years. He said for a normal salary structure such as this it took 8 or 10 years to reach the max.

Mr. Kriewall thought they had more control by not putting them in any guaranteed track. He said if it was staged so that people would move through the ranges such as they do through a police or Teamster contract irregardless of their performance they tend to move through those advancements. Mr. Kriewall thought this was a better situation where we could control it and they would not advance other than the cost of living if they were not a high performer.

Councilman Schmid said to some extent he agreed with that and was not suggesting that this was all wrong. Councilman Schmid said say the range was $20,000 to $35,000 couldn't that still be based on performance. He said they might not get a raise if their performance was such that they didn't warrant a raise.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said either system would work even if there was a lower range it would still be based on merit.

Mr. Kriewall said there could be steps and not move them through the steps.

Mr. Klaver said the problem with steps was that there was an expectation that those were semi automatic and the employees could expect that. He thought the range ought to be viewed as a guide post of what the expectations are for the position. He said then it was up to the individual employee based on their performance and whatever qualifications they bring to the position as to where they are placed on that range. He thought that anything that tied it in to tightly with any sort of structure within the range sort of defeated the pay for performance type philosophy.

Councilman Schmid said then if they're not performing that was called termination.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct and could be dealt with in other ways than strictly compensation.

Councilman Schmid said then if they are not moving up they should be terminated.

Mr. Klaver said he wouldn't disagree with that. He thought the range allowed for an average, above average and extraordinary employee to be compensated at different levels based on that performance. He said there was still a certain level that was acceptable and if they were not meeting that they shouldn't be there.

Councilman Schmid said they didn't disagree totally he just wondered why it wasn't started at a starting level and then have increments to move up through. He said they wouldn't necessarily get those increments based on performance but if they were missing a couple of those then there should be some serious paperwork developed to get them out of here. He said what often happened was employees were brought in and they failed to get rid of them in the first six months or year if they weren't performing and then got stuck with them for lifetime. He was not suggesting anyone fell in that category. He said that would be his one recommendation that there be a range from the bottom to the top with increments based on merit.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the City Administration be instructed to seek and

form a citizens compensation and salary range review board consisting of five residents at large and two staff members

to come back with their review and recommendations to the Council.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said this was in direct response to City Council request at budget time when they revised or eliminated the merit system. He said staff was instructed to come up with something to replace the merit system and not to get into compensation, not to get as elaborate as a Citizens Review Committee and not to look at private industry but to replace the merit system with a range system. He said they had done exactly that and he didn't think Council had to go any further than that on this issue. He felt this was in a form that could be accepted and if Council wanted to discuss a citizens committee for future ranges or look into private industry, etc. that was a different issue.

Councilwoman Mason said she remembered it wasn't the Council that said to get rid of alignment and the merit system. She said it was Mr. Kriewall that said they could come up with a different merit system.

Mr. Kriewall said it was Councilman Mitzel's suggestion that they do away with it.

Councilwoman Mason said Mr. Kriewall said he could come up with another system. She said she was always against alignment because the same people get alignments and the same people don't get alignments. She felt the same as Councilman Toth and felt that citizens should be looking at this, this was their tax dollars. She said these were statistics and they always looked the way Council wanted them to look while they were doing them. She agreed that someone else needed to look at them before Council carte blanche went ahead and gave away the people's money again.

Mr. Kriewall said he would recommend against a citizens committee because he thought it was the City Council's responsibility to make sure that the Administration was dealing properly with the establishment of salaries and compensation. He said he knew Council would not delegate the responsibility for negotiating bargaining agreements with the police unions, fire unions and Teamsters to a citizens committee. He said it was Council's responsibility and should remain at this table.

Councilman Toth said he found it ludicrous. He said the citizens were outstanding and Council had formed many, many committees and have had some excellent response from these committees in various areas. He said Council was talking about their money and our money and didn't know why Council would want to hold it from the taxpayers to come back and provide Council with some information and recommendation. He felt if there were citizens willing to join this committee for a certain period of time to review this, who have the expertise and had done this in private industry or in their work field he would more than welcome their technical input. He said there were members of Council who were afraid to do this. He asked what Council was afraid of; if the figures were sound they were sound. He said he had no idea what they would come back with but thought he would be more comfortable in giving away taxpayers dollars based on what a citizens committee would provide him with.

Councilman Crawford said he didn't appreciate Councilman Toth inferring that Council was hiding, or had something to be afraid of or that they were wasting taxpayers dollars or Council didn't think all the citizens in the City were great. He said that was not the issue here at all. He said he was absolutely right that there were many, many fine citizens committees and Council always solicited their input. He didn't particularly think this was the time to solicit their input on these issues. He asked where would you go in private industry to find out about a City Clerk, Forester or an Assessor. He said that information was obtained from looking at other cities, at the staff and looking at what was done in the past. Councilman Crawford said to infer to the public that Council was hiding something, wasting taxpayers dollars and such was an inappropriate thought to convey.

Yes (2-Toth, No (4) Absent (1-Pope) Motion defeated

Mason)

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Motion died for lack of support

That Council accept the ranges as stated.

Councilman Mitzel said Councilman Toth had a motion on the floor.

Councilman Crawford apologized and said Councilman Mitzel was correct.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said he would not support Councilman Toth's citizens committee in regard to this issue. He concurred with those who felt this was a Council responsibility. He said citizen's would do a fine job but they elected him and the rest of Council Members to handle these types of situations. He said there was sufficient data and Council could make an intelligent decision as to what should and should not be paid based on the materials that Council saw.

Councilman Schmid said on the other hand he was not ready to adopt this quickly put together memo this evening. He said he had made some suggestions and would hope that they at least be considered. He said this was a one shot deal and frankly he didn't even know what the ranges were.

Councilman Crawford said they were right here.

Councilman Schmid asked if he was supposed to get out his computer and see what 10% of something was and 5% below something was.

Councilman Crawford said it was written in the material provided.

Councilman Schmid said he wouldn't support Councilman Toth's motion and wouldn't support moving ahead with this with the three sheets of paper made available.

Councilman Crawford said he thought the suggestion was a good one and he was not disagreeing with the suggestion and this might need to go further and have some of that implemented. He was proposing that Council adopt the ranges, they were already here and that was a starting point.

Mr. Klaver said what they had indicated was that the amendments that they had showed Council that would be necessary to administer the system as recommended in the Administrative Personnel Policy were submitted for background. He said they were not recommending that Council act on them. He said if Council found the range systems acceptable Council could act on those numbers if they chose and then Administration would come back with the policy amendments later.

Councilman Crawford said that was precisely what his motion was a while ago. He was not addressing the possible implementation of it. He said Councilman Schmid had a good comment to make and he also agreed with staff that they might very well have more control not going through steps. He said the ranges were a starting point and were what was asked for in the Budget Sessions when alignments and merit systems were eliminated. He said it was a good start and gave a range of salaries for these positions and he thought they were as acceptable as anything based on all that was read in the past and surveys that Council had and their recommendations.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the Administration be directed to bring back information on the proposed ranges including comparables on how the ranges were established and to consider Councilman Schmid's performance based salary adjustment suggestions. The changes should be coupled with those changes that they would trigger within the Administration Manual so that Council could see how the Manual would read afterwards and all the information and changes should be back to Council by July 24.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said it was similar to Councilman Crawford's motion considering the salary ranges but it would also allow time for the Administration to consider Councilman Schmid's comments. Then have it along side with the needed changes in the Administrative Manual to implement it so Council could pass it all together salary range plus the way it would be implemented. He asked if that would be ready in two weeks.

Mr. Klaver said it would be ready.

Councilman Crawford said Council was only speaking of salary ranges not compensation or any other type of thing right; just the ranges and how this might be implemented at this point in time.

Councilman Mitzel said it was the salary range but it also followed along with some of the proposed changes that were in the memo with the salary ranges. He said there was an amendment to add a salary range schedule section to the Manual and also an amendment to consider how performance adjustments would be made. He said it addressed some issues that Council passed a resolution on during budget study session on May 1.

Councilman Schmid said Council was accepting the fact that a controller max would be $53,537. He asked if they were comfortable with that figure or any of the figures.

Councilman Mitzel said the motion wasn't specifically to adopt the figures but the concept of the salary range and to explore Councilman Schmid's questions and then when they come back there might be some adjustments and it might come back exactly as it was written. He said it was more or less that the concept should be moved forward and they could finalize the implementation details.

Councilman Schmid said he was sure Mr. Klaver had the data that gave him the $53,537 and he asked if that figure had been determined from the data received from all the other cities as an average, a high or a low or what.

Mr. Klaver said they were using as a starting point the assumption that the compensation as proposed in the upcoming fiscal year was accurate. Therefore, they were taking an arbitrary spread of the range system from the top and bottom using that as their mid point. He said those were all standard percentages listed in the schedule.

Councilman Schmid said let's make an assumption that a forester's average salary in most places was $45,000 and he was wondering if they did some computations to come up with this other than just taking percentages. He said he didn't want to look at these a year from now and these figures would be all whacked out before Council even got started.

Mr. Klaver said they did their compensations to come up with the recommendations for the salary; using that point they did the standard 10 or 15 percent deviation. He said the salaries were a product of their surveying other communities over the years.

Councilman Schmid said if an ad were run for a forester it would advertise for $31,441.

Mr. Klaver said they would actually advertise the range.

Councilman Schmid said $31,441 to $40,688 and he would start at $31,441.

Mr. Klaver said not necessarily.

Councilman Schmid said Council was in this jam a couple of weeks ago and if it's advertised that it paid that then it ought to be paid.

Mr. Klaver said he would assume that the pay would be somewhere in that range but the whole point of a range particularly when advertising a new position was to give Council the flexibility to set the appropriate compensation. He said it would depend on the qualifications of the individual that was hired.

Councilman Schmid said he would like to see what an Executive Secretary could be hired for. He said this might be the right figure or it might be the wrong figure but he thought Council should have those figures.

Mr. Klaver said they would share some comparable on a half a dozen of the positions and that would give him an idea of what other communities were paying.

Councilman Schmid said then they would at least explore the idea of having a starting and a max somewhere with steps.

Mr. Klaver said he would.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion.

That the Administration be directed to bring back information on the proposed ranges including comparable on how the ranges were established and to consider Councilman Schmid's performance based salary adjustment suggestions. The changes should be coupled with those changes that they would trigger within the Administration Manual so that Council could see how the Manual would read afterwards and all the information and changes should be back to Council by July 24.

Yes (4-Schmid, Mitzel, No (2-Mason, Toth) Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Crawford) Motion carried

7. Re-approval of MERS FAC-3 Resolution

WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended a change

in retirement calculation for all Administrative and

staff employees for fiscal 1995-1996, and,

WHEREAS, the proposed change has been reviewed by the

Novi City Council,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed 1995

- 1996 budget being prepared for adoption shall include

the implementation of the FAC-3 Retirement Rider for all

Administrative and staff employees excluding the Special

Recreation Coordinator.

Councilman Crawford asked the City Attorney the same question he asked regarding the last Item since this would affect his wife.

Mr. Fried said his opinion was the same as long as it didn't deal solely with his wife.

Mr. Klaver said FAC referred to Final Average Compensation. He said there were basically three components of any retirement system. First would be the final average compensation that the employee would have received for whatever period of time it was calculated over. Second, the multiplier which was typically a percentage which was then multiplied by the years of service to generate whatever the pension level would be.

Mr. Klaver said one example would be an employee with 25 years of service and with a 2% multiplier they would basically retire at 50% of their final average compensation.

Mr. Klaver said there were several options available for FAC's. He said two of the most common were to, average that compensation over the last 5 years of the employees career and a more favorable to the employee method of calculation was the FAC 3 which averaged the last 3 years; typically salaries tend to increase from year to year and that tended to be a higher number and generated a slightly higher pension.

Mr. Klaver said the proposal that was submitted through the budget process dealt with the Administrative category and it was the recommendation of Council's decision to approve FAC 3 for the Administrative Group which would replace the previous FAC 5. However, that particular approval was made contingent on changing the method of calculation for the final average compensation. He said it did not include overtime payments. He said the number of employees in the Administrative category that were even eligible for overtime were 6 or 7 and the actual overtime worked was a very minimum amount. He said they had Finance calculate it and it was less then $6,000 for all of last calendar year. However, it was Council's intent to nevertheless make that change regardless of the amount of money involved and it was approved on that basis. He said when the resolution was sent with that it was pointed out to them and a legal opinion was provided that explained that it would be considered to be discriminatory to exclude overtime; therefore, that was not an option. He said they were asking this evening that Council reconsider that without that particular provision.

Councilman Toth said Mr. Fried's memo of June 13 discussed the MERS Benefit Program and it responded to Councilman Mitzel's request of an opinion and on page 2 in summary it said "it takes an affirmative vote of four members of Council to change the MERS benefit and once the majority of the Council has voted to make that change Council must appropriate funds to meet that constitutional obligation." Councilman Toth said he didn't think the Charter would allow Council to make any such decisions without appropriating sufficient funds. He said they also had in the past approved the purchase of say a fire truck that would take place in the following year and Council had always made appropriation that year to cover that expense in the following budget year. He said that was done purposely and on the advice of Council.

Councilman Toth said in the same token if Council voted to change the benefits and Council didn't make the appropriation to cover next year Council would then be in violation of their past record and the Charter. He didn't think they could get away with doing that. He said they were putting an obligation on and it should be financed at the same time even though it might not come due until the following year.

Mr. Fried said in the normal situation he was absolutely correct. He said in this particular case they were dealing with an abnormal situation because they were dealing with a statute. He said the statute took precedence over the Charter.

Mr. Fried said the statute provided that Council could change the MERS by a vote of four members of the Council. He said it did not deal with appropriations at all so Council had to go back and deal with appropriations out of the Charter. He said the Charter required 5 votes for an appropriation. He said if Council was solely dealing with the Charter whatever Councilman Toth said was correct. However, he said Council was not dealing with the Charter they were dealing with statute and it took precedence over the Charter.

Councilman Toth said technically they could interpret it as needing 5 votes.

Mr. Fried said if Council didn't appropriate the funds what they were doing was committing the next Council to appropriating those funds. If they didn't the Constitution of the State of Michigan provided that that was a constitutional obligation and the courts could order Council to appropriate those funds even if Council didn't desire to do so.

Councilman Toth asked if there were any case records that stated that.

Mr. Fried said the Retirement Board vs Shelby Township was right on point. He suggested to Council that if they make the change they better bear in mind that it would need five votes even though the statute only required four votes to make the change. He said this was because at some point Council would have to appropriate the money.

Councilwoman Mason said she knew it was two parts and the other part was 7B but with the FAC 3 Resolution then tied into that that was the window, correct.

Mr. Klaver said no they were really totally separate issues.

Councilwoman Mason asked him to explain.

Mr. Klaver said they were just not related and the window was a separate proposal. He said this only dealt with the one administrative benefit the window was a . . . .

Councilwoman Mason said it said FAC 3 and then the window was the next step. She asked where the multiplier came in.

Mr. Klaver said it came in under the window. He said they were asked to study the possibility of doing a window that would change the multiplier but that was unrelated to the FAC 3 issue for Administrative employees. He said there was really no connection whatsoever. He said it was a permanent change that Council made and the only reason it was back before Council was it was made on a contingency that they could not legally enforce.

Councilwoman Mason said she understood and she didn't see it as unrelated. She saw it as specific people who would be retiring between July and January.

Mr. Klaver said she was moving onto the next item on the agenda. He said the FAC 3 was a proposal that would permanently change only the final average compensation and only for the Administrative employees. It had nothing to do with the window at all.

Councilwoman Mason said she was confused because the next thing was the window. She said basically didn't this come up because of the window of retirement.

Mr. Klaver said no.

Councilwoman Mason said these were never discussed at the same time.

Mr. Klaver said no. He said they were asked by Council to bring back a study showing the possibilities of conducting a retirement window. He thought that came up sometime after the proposal to change the FAC had already been made. He said the proposal to change the FAC went back a year ago long before a window was even discussed.

Councilman Crawford said this was already approved with a five vote majority at one time.

Mr. Klaver said that was four votes.

Councilman Crawford said because of the stipulation of the overtime it was back before Council. He said if Council adopted a window opportunity Council could put anything into that they wanted to.

Mr. Klaver said that was true.

Councilman Crawford said it just so happens that one of the things in the window was an FAC 3 but it really didn't relate to this it was a permanent thing. He said Council could put all sort of goodies in the window if Council wanted to and it just happened to have that one benefit in there but they were not related.

Councilman Schmid asked if anyone else in the City had FAC 3.

Mr. Klaver said there were six employee groups, five unions and the Administrative group and four of the five unions presently had FAC 3. He said the two groups that do not are the Teamsters and the Administrative employees.

Councilman Schmid said this was one of the motivating factors that brought this to the Council at budget time. He said Administration was certainly talking about this and would like to have this. He said as he understood it, it moved it up to three years compensation average for retirement purposes as opposed to five years.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct. He said it would increase the final average compensation.

Councilman Schmid said it had been adopted by four of the five unions so at the time of the budget it was just a matter of bringing the Administration up to that level.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the Resolution for FAC 3 be adopted for Administrative employees.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mason asked if that changed the multiplier.

Mr. Klaver said it did not.

Councilwoman Mason asked how that would be changed.

Mr. Klaver said the multipliers were an alphabetic/numeric system. He said currently it was a B2 which was a 2% multiplier.

Mr. Klaver said the multiplier was changed by resolution.

Councilwoman Mason said the retirement was based on the last three years earnings.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mason said with a multiplier of.

Mr. Klaver said 2% and it would remain the same and would not change.

Councilwoman Mason said how would that change because she thought some of the unions had a bigger multiplier.

Mr. Klaver said no.

Councilwoman Mason said so this had nothing to do with that.

Mr. Klaver said no, it did not impact the multiplier.

Councilwoman Mason asked if it was included in the resolution.

Mr. Klaver said it was not.

Councilwoman Mason said that was why she was confused. She thought every time it was changed to a different area that the multiplier would change.

Mr. Klaver said no and she had to remember there were three components the FAC 3, the multiplier and the years of service. He said this only changed one of those and did not impact the others.

Councilman Mitzel said after the Council took action in May in the budget session were employees generally informed that they had now received FAC 3.

Mr. Klaver said no particular effort to inform employees but it was at a public meeting and he thought it was generally common knowledge that it had been approved.

Councilman Mitzel said then it was basically employee expectation.

Mr. Klaver said he didn't think anyone understood it or really appreciated, initially, the fact that that overtime distinction could not be made. He said that would not have caused any particular employees any concern because of the very small amount. He said it would not have been a problem and obviously if it was illegal they couldn't do it. He said everyone's expectation was that it had been approved.

Councilman Mitzel said in the past he had been opposed to the idea of the FAC 3. He said he was concerned about a domino effect occurring with the benefits and such. He said on the other hand he had to weigh the fact that to effectively take away something that the employees generally were aware they had received was not fair to the employees. He said he would support the FAC resolution.

Councilman Toth asked what was being taken away.

Mayor McLallen said the Council by a majority adopted the resolution but it was adopted with the clause in it that it would not pertain to overtime. She said Mr. Klaver upon review with labor attorneys discovered that that was an illegal exclusion. She said he had brought it back so it could be adopted in a form that would get legal approval.

Councilman Toth said this wasn't adopted with five votes it was adopted with four.

Mayor McLallen said it was adopted by four votes per Mr. Fried's review of that issue.

Yes (5) No (1-Toth) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

7B. FAC-3 Retirement Window

Mayor McLallen said this was a separate item brought forward in order to offer some personnel who had achieved retirement level an opportunity to exercise that level sooner.

Mr. Klaver said Administration was asked to study this possibility several months ago. He said the actuary studies for retirement windows were fairly complex so it took some time for them to receive that information from MERS. He said there was an actuary study that Council had seen previously which was included in the packets.

Mr. Klaver said retirement windows were typically done for several purposes. He said they were to provide an enhanced retirement for employees who were considering retirement and had expectations that the retirement might improve. He said in 1991 there were a number of employees who had been with the City for a very long period of time and Council felt that there was some interest in doing a window and allowing those employees to retire with a slightly higher pension than they would have without the window.

Mr. Klaver said it was typically done by organizations to infuse the organization with "fresh blood" but in some case that type of turnover, particularly if there was an extremely stable work force, would provide promotions and new people moving into the new positions could have a very invigorating impact on an organization.

Mr. Klaver said based on that Council had received the costs and a summary of the employees who would be eligible. He said the retirement window was proposed to change the multiplier on a temporary basis. He said the proposed period window length would be for six months from this evening until January 10, 1996 and during that period anyone who met whatever the appropriate retirement requirements were for their particular employee group and could take a normal retirement would retire with B3. He said the B3 was a 2 1/4% multiplier compared to B2 which was a 2% multiplier and the FAC 3 was included as another aspect of the window. He said that would impact with Council's prior action one employee group which would be the Teamsters bargaining unit. He said they were currently in negotiations and had FAC 5 so that would provide a temporary improvement in that aspect of the retirement.

Mr. Klaver said that was the proposal that was before Council. They had calculated the savings achieved through the retirements that might be expected and predominately the savings would come from longevity payments. He said longevity had been eliminated for newly hired Administrative employees and therefore any of those employees that might retire would be replaced with employees who would not be eligible for that benefit. He said they had shown a comparison of the costs vs the savings and estimated that as much as two thirds of the cost might be offset by those savings. He said there would additionally be another category of savings that they didn't attempt to calculate simply because it was difficult for them to project who might or might not retire particularly in the union positions and probably the most dramatic examples would be in the police contract where there were very large step increases. He said a newly hired police officer would start at the bottom and there was almost $2,000 worth of step increases. He said there would be a significant savings with the employees being hired at the entry level and taking five years in the case of a police officer to move through those salary steps.

Councilwoman Mason said the benefit program was going from B1 or C2 or B2 to B3. She asked what that meant.

Mr. Klaver said B2 was the 2% multiplier and B3 would go to 2 1/4%.

Councilwoman Mason said in the early retirement window period that was where the 2 1/4 multiplier was being put in.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mason said that was part of the resolution and she felt it was something that should be in there and by B3 it should say 2 1/4 multiplier so everyone knew what was happening.

Mr. Klaver said that would be fine.

Councilwoman Mason said she felt very strongly that this window should only be given to employees who had been with the City 20 years. She said Administration had found out that it was all right to put that stipulation in. She said that was the only way she would vote for this resolution if 20 years and over employees had the window between 7-10-95 and 1-10-96.

Mayor McLallen asked how many years were proposed.

Mr. Klaver said it was proposed to be based on normal retirement requirements which varied with categories. He said it was generally speaking for all groups they could retire at age 60 with a minimum of 10 years of service. He said they did have employee groups such as the police officers that have an early retirement that allowed retirement after age 50 with 25 years of service.

Councilwoman Mason asked if all employees of the City would then have this window.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct assuming they met the normal retirement requirements and any other provisions that Council might want to place on it which needed to be uniform.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the window of opportunity for retirement from 7-11- 95 to 1-11-96 be granted to all those city employees who have served the City for a minimum of 20 years and this would include the B3 multiplier which was a quarter percent increase and the FAC for the last three years for those who had met the normal requirements of age and service.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Toth said he had a problem with the six month dates because it was already July 11. He said from a point of Administration calculating salaries and so forth would it be better to start on the first of the month.

Mr. Klaver said no it really wouldn't have any bearing.

Councilman Toth said of the people listed technically any one of them could submit a retirement date within that six month period.

Mr. Klaver said with one exception and that was there were a number of employees that did not meet the other provision of 20 years service.

Councilman Toth said there was only one.

Mr. Klaver said there were several.

Councilman Toth said while offering this window could someone effectively come in and say they were going to retire in three years.

Mr. Klaver said no, they had to actually retire within that 6 month period.

Councilman Crawford asked if everyone on the list was eligible for the window.

Mr. Klaver said with the exception of the last provision the 20 year provision. He said it would be anyone eligible in the first year listed. He said there were other years listed.

Councilman Crawford said those people would be eligible to take advantage of that window.

Mr. Klaver said they would not; it would be just the ones listed in 1995.

Councilman Crawford said then the people listed in 96, 97 and 98 were not eligible even though they had several years with the City.

Mr. Klaver said that was correct and it was just shown for Council's information.

Councilman Crawford asked the maker of the motion why they were excluding people with less then 20 years. He said it looked like there was one with 10 years and then the rest 17 and 15 and almost 20 years. He asked why exclude those five people.

Councilwoman Mason said she had not seen the list as she didn't have it when discussion started. She said she had been discussing this with Mr. Klaver for 3 weeks and had no idea who would retire other than Mrs. Stipp. She felt that if they were given a multiplier of 2.25 they should have 20 years with the City to be able to take advantage of the window period for six months.

Councilman Crawford said they didn't know what people may or may not take advantage of. He said he could go along with the window but he didn't know why they would exclude 5 people and put a 20 year limit on it.

Councilwoman Mason said if Councilman Crawford was excluding five people that was his problem not hers.

Councilman Crawford said her motion excluded them.

Councilwoman Mason said she didn't exclude it on people. She said three weeks ago when she discussed it with Mr. Klaver she had no idea who would retire.

Councilman Crawford said he didn't know what they talked about three weeks ago. He said what they were talking about tonight was a list of people who would be excluded by her motion.

Councilwomen Mason said she had no idea whether it would exclude 35 or 2.

Councilman Crawford said he was telling her it was five.

Councilwoman Mason said he was making it personal not her.

Councilman Crawford said it was not personal . . .

Mayor McLallen stated the motion on the table was to include the specification that only those people with 20 years of service could benefit from the proposed window.

Councilman Crawford said his question was why was Councilwoman Mason setting the 20 year time limit; why not the people that would be eligible to retire in 1995.

Councilwoman Mason said if a person had 20 years service with the City they certainly deserve to have a 2.25 multiplier, a window and she felt they served the City well.

Councilman Schmid said he could not support the motion limiting it to the 20 years. He thought the employees that were listed should have that same opportunity. He said he had started talking about this some time ago also and his initial thought was that there should be an opportunity for people who had served the community for extended periods of time the opportunity to retire. He said at that time he was thinking primarily of Mrs. Stipp who had served the community exemplary for a number of years and who he thought should have that opportunity. He said his proposal would have limited it to the appointed officials which would include Mr. Kriewall, Mr. Klausmeyer and Mrs. Stipp. He said he had talked to Mr. Klaver and others and they had made some good points. He said several police officers might benefit from this program if they chose to do so. He said he did have a problem with the limitation of the 20 years and for that reason he could not support the motion.

Yes (2-Mason, Toth) No (4-Schmid, Mitzel, Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Crawford Motion defeated

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the window be offered as stated in the resolution

from 7-10-95 to 1-10-96 for the people who are eligible on the 1995 list and with the B3 and FAC 3 benefits.

Councilman Mitzel stated he would not support the window motions. He said it had been a difficult thing to look over and review and it was nothing against any of the people but he just didn't feel the City should be getting into the habit of retirement windows when there was a retirement program.

Yes (3-Crawford, Schmid, No (3-Mitzel, Mason, Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen) Toth) Motion defeated

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the retirement window of six months be provided for appointed officials only which would include Geraldine Stipp, Mr. Kriewall and Mr. Klausmeyer and the B3 2.25 retirement.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said he would support that if they could make that exception. He asked for a comment on whether they could single out certain people.

Mr. Fried said he couldn't give Council an answer on that at the moment.

Mr. Klaver said he wasn't sure but thought they could.

Mr. Fried thought they could also but wouldn't rely on that answer.

Mr. Kriewall said he would recommend that the same group not be given a window but just be given the B3 retirement. He said he knew there was some indication that Mr. Klausmeyer might want to stay a little longer until the transition and new assessor. He said the window wouldn't do him any good at all so if they gave it to that particular group he could take advantage of it next year too and Mr. Klausmeyer could stay another year too.

Mayor McLallen said under Councilman Schmid's criteria any appointed Administrative employee of which the City had 3 in this classification those being the City Clerk, City Administrator and the City Assessor. She said this window would be offered for that period of six months to that group.

Yes (3-Schmid, Crawford, No (3-Toth, Mason, Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen) Mitzel) Motion defeated

Mayor McLallen said it did not appear that there was a motion able to be made on the subject of the B3 retirement window.

8. Appointments to the Planning Commission

Mayor McLallen said she would like to make the appointments to the Planning Commission. She said she wanted to reappoint Member Peter Hoadley. She said Mr. Hoadley had ably served the Commission for six months and had invested time in learning the Planning Commission procedures and ordinances. She said Council had invested in him by sending him to educational seminars and she thought he had earned the right to be appointed to a full term.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the Mayor's recommendation appointing Peter Hoadley

to the Planning Commission be approved.

Yes (5-Crawford, Toth, No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Schmid, Mitzel) Motion carried

Mayor McLallen's second appointment to the Planning Commission was Michelle Bononi. She said Ms. Bononi was a board member of Royal Crown and had appeared before Council representing her homeowners association. Ms. Bononi had successfully negotiated their issues with the developer and won the support of the staff, the homeowners and the development meeting an equitable solution. She said she also served the City on the Historical Commission and had a professional back ground in planning for historic preservation.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the Mayor's recommendation appointing Michelle Bononi to the Planning Commission be approved.

Yes (3-Crawford, Mitzel, No (3-Schmid, Mason, Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen) Toth) Motion defeated

Mayor McLallen's next nomination for appointment to the Planning Commission was Arthur Vetras. She said Mr. Vetras had appeared before Council on several occasions seeking this position. She said he was quite articulate and had not served the City in any capacity being a relatively new citizen. She said his background was that of a retired school superintendent. She said he appeared willing to put in the time, had the hours and had a background in management and appeared to be open to learning this rather complicated commission.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the Mayor's recommendation appointing Arthur Vetras

to the Planning Commission be approved.

Yes (5-Mitzel, McLallen, No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope)

Schmid, Toth, Crawford) Motion carried

Mayor McLallen's next appointment was Richard Dietrich. She said Mr. Dietrich lived in southeastern Novi and had appeared before Council twice to interview for this position. She said he had an extensive background working as a volunteer for the City and served on his homeowners board.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the Mayor's recommendation of Richard Dietrich to

the Planning Commission be approved.

Yes (3-Crawford, Mitzel, No (3-Toth, Schmid, Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen) Mason) Motion defeated

Mayor McLallen's next recommendation to the Planning Commission was David Breuch even though he had not been interviewed. She said she talked with him extensively on the phone when he called to say he was unable to keep the appointment this evening. She said he was a new member of the community having lived in Novi just under 3 years and he was an attorney.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND

That the Mayor's recommendation of David Breuch to the

Planning Commission be approved.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said he found it alarming that the Mayor would put a name in the nominations that the Council had not been able to interview regarding his philosophies, beliefs, background etc., He said he read his resume and he was an attorney and that was as far as it went. He found it not in keeping with good policy not to interview people who are being appointed to the Planning Commission. He realized the Mayor talked with Mr. Breuch but the rest of Council had not had a chance to talk with him and Councilman Schmid had no idea what Mr. Breuch's dreams were for the City of Novi. He said it would be impossible to support someone if he didn't know how or what he thought. He said that was the process; people are interviewed for boards. He said the Mayor chose now to not even interview an individual and appoint him to a committee without Council having the opportunity to talk to him. He said there might be three or four votes here of people that know him but it was not fair for the rest of Council who had not had that opportunity. Councilman Schmid said he might be a fine gentleman and maybe he'd vote for him if he had interviewed him. He felt it was a mistake and it was precedent setting.

Councilman Schmid told the Mayor he was disappointed that she would bring up a candidate who she apparently liked that might fit the philosophy but would not allow Council to at least talk to him.

Councilwoman Mason said she wondered why Robert Taub who served from July 1, 1992 through May 17, 1995, 83 meetings, was not considered. However, she appointed Mr. Hoadley who had been here for 17 meetings. She asked why the Mayor wouldn't appoint someone who re-applied and who Councilwoman Mason thought did a good job and yet was not one of the Mayor's choices.

Mayor McLallen stated that was true. She said she would not recommend Mr. Taub for reappointment. She said personally she found Mr. Taub a very gifted gentleman but in the three years he had served on the Planning Commission he had not found his niche for service on that Commission. She said she did not feel that he was enhancing the process and since this was her request for an appointment she did not support Mr. Taub.

Councilman Schmid said he assumed if the gentlemen she nominated were turned down she would have to recommend Mr. Taub.

Mayor McLallen stated she would leave it vacant until there were more applicants. She said she did not support Mr. Taub's reappointment to the commission. She said if the Council wished to override her request that was Council's privilege. She said her privilege was to nominate people who she felt would serve this Council and the City to the best of their abilities in the position. She felt that Mr. Taub, while a gifted human being, she wasn't in the proper position to serve his community. She said that was her choice and Council had every right to override her choice. She said she had offered three very fine individuals to replace Mr. Taub and Council had overridden those recommendations.

Councilman Schmid said he was disappointed but he understood the Mayor's position and respected that position.

Mr. Fried said the ordinance in conformity with the statute said "the members of the Planning Commission shall be appointed by the Mayor subject to the approval of the majority vote of the Council." He said it was the Mayor's appointment and it was Council's to approve or disapprove.

Councilwoman Mason said so it was an appointment by the Mayor with a majority vote of the Council. She asked if that included the Mayor's vote.

Mr. Fried said absolutely.

Councilwoman Mason said the reason she asked was because the Mayor was appointing.

Mr. Fried said she was a member of the Council.

Councilwoman Mason asked if he was saying that a Council Member could not make a motion.

Mr. Fried said that was his interpretation of the ordinance.

Councilwoman Mason asked if that was as far as the ordinance went just that one sentence.

Mr. Fried said it was all the ordinance called for.

Councilwoman Mason said that was changed during Mayor Quinn's reign because it wasn't that way before. She said that was how recent that was.

Mr. Fried said he would look up the adoption date.

Councilman Crawford said based on the fact that the Council could not override the Mayor in this case he offered the following motion.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That interviews be reopened for the position of Planning Commissioner to specifically include Mr. Breuch and Mr. Dietrich and anyone else who wished to apply for the position by July 24.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said he was in favor a while ago of extending interviews to interview those two people and under the circumstances he was certainly in favor of it.

Councilman Schmid said he would support the motion. He said he felt Mr. Taub, although he had some pros and cons, had done an admirable job. He felt he probably should have been reappointed and he had a little difficulty not reappointing him. He said he would have to take that into consideration when the Mayor's next recommendations came.

Councilman Toth said he would not support the motion and found the whole matter quite distasteful. He felt it was wrong for Council to allow someone to interview for a position and then state that person was not qualified in the eyes of one person. He said ethically he didn't think it was the right way. He personally felt that if that was the position that person should have been taken aside and told there was no chance. He said to allow him to go through the process right to the tail end was a slap in the face. He said he was disturbed with the way the whole process was taking place. He said there were a number of good candidates that were interviewed and talked to and candidates who had served on the Commission and wanted to serve again. He said if they were not acceptable they should have been told early on.

Yes (4-Crawford, Mitzel, No (2-Mason, Toth, Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Schmid) Motion carried

Mr. Fried said the ordinance was adopted in 1986 and it wasn't a recent adoption.

Councilwoman Mason said the ordinance was revised the year that she became a Council Member because there were three different things that changed about the appointment.

Mr. Fried said the book was current and asked if she would like to see it.

Councilwoman Mason asked what was changed then . . .

Mr. Fried said he had no idea what she was talking about.

Councilwoman Mason said the wording was changed and it was "appointed only with the consent of the Council" prior to that time.

Mr. Fried said the ordinance had been the same since 1986.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Gail Zbranchech, 25229 Birch Woods Dr., said she didn't attend very many Council meetings but would like to share with Council that as a citizen and taxpayer she was very disappointed tonight. She said she listened to an agenda that was very basic and nothing earth shaking in it. She said Council fought among each other, they couldn't agree, a lot of things failed and the most discouraging thing she had seen was that all of the Council members could have said what they didn't like within about 20 seconds. She said why Council Members had to take so long to make their point was beyond her and that was why they were an hour and a half late.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Mitzel said he would be preparing a written report on the Area Wide Quality Board and the Stormwater Committee which should get to Council this week.

Councilman Crawford said he had a call from a lady who was concerned about Council action a couple of weeks ago. He said there was the unallocated $50,000 in the budget for sidewalks. He said he thought it was Councilman Mitzel who mentioned a couple of meetings ago that it should be spent, Council agreed and there were 3, 4 or 5 projects listed. He said Council agreed to those without much thought to it. He said since then this call came in and she was concerned about the sidewalk connection on Willowbrook by Village Oaks School. Councilman Crawford's concern was it might or might not be an appropriate connection but before Council proceeded with that connection he would like a little input from the residents, school and other people as to why that connection was as important as thought a couple of week ago.

Mayor McLallen directed that the information be brought on the 24th. She asked Council's indulgence as there were people in the audience present because of Item #11 under the Consent Agenda. She requested Council to let their issue be addressed as they had been extremely patient.

Proposal and authorization to proceed with Phase I

Tony Nowicki said as Council was aware they had been pursuing the concept of Geographic Information System for the City of Novi. He said it was discussed through the budget process and included in all of the narratives to Council and discussed through numerous meetings. He said it was included by reference in Mr. Kriewall's budget report that everyone had.

Mr. Nowicki said a Geographic Information System, (GIS), was a system that was an efficient means of managing and displaying data. He said it was an organized collection of computer hardware, software, and geographic data and was designed to capture, store, analyze, update, manipulate and display all kinds of geographic information. He said some time ago he had the opportunity to have some discussions with Dr. Tapan Datta of Wayne State University, a professor with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. He said Dr. Datta indicated they had several programs at Wayne State University where they could assist municipalities in helping to develop pretty comprehensive computer type systems and applications that appeared to fit and dove tail right into our needs. He said consequently through their discussions Wayne State University presented the proposal in Council packets.

Mr. Nowicki said it was a three phase proposal. He said the initial phase was primarily the development and investigatory phases of the system. He said the final two phases included the collection of data in both phases as well as personnel training and further defining the system, clarifying it and making sure everything was up and running. He introduced Dr. Tapan Datta and his research assistant Najib Elkhatib.

Mayor McLallen said Councilman Schmid pulled this from the Consent Agenda and had a specific concern.

Councilman Schmid said it had surprised him when Council was looking at spending over $450,000 and Mr. Nowicki told him it would be 3/4 of a million dollars before it was over for a system that would put data on a computer. He said he noticed that the overall salaries and wages were $250,033 for the three programs, travel and expenses $8,200, consultants $20,000, etc. He said so this would be a least a half a million dollars to acquire information and put it in a computer. He said it was discussed at budget time and he read from Mr. Kriewall's March 27, 1995 Pre Budget Memo, page 1, #1; "we have added a position entitled Data Management Specialist within the Department of Public Services. This position addresses several outstanding needs within our administration and responsive in general of the needs of City Council as put forth within the past year. Council's aware that we are extremely low in staffing and general administrative over view of the wide range of programs under the preview of the public services with the high emphasis placed." Councilman Schmid said the high emphasis definitely was there, there was a computer committee that had made recommendations which would spend almost $400,000 this year. That was taken out of the budget or at least parts of it and Council agreed they would take a look at some of those areas. He said for the most part that was taken out of the budget $385,000 for computers. "on redoing our computer system." Councilman Schmid said not so. He said it was absolutely essential that an administrative person be on line to deal with the advent of GIS. "

Councilman Schmid read "This position and related GIS program would be paid from the Water, Sewer, Drain and Road Funds." He said it was always easy to say how these things would be paid for. He said if $150,000 was taken out of the water fund, $150,000 out of the sewer fund and a couple hundred thousand dollars out of the Road fund something doesn't get done in the Water, Sewer and Road Fund. He said it was not free money; it was a little like Federal dollars. Everybody says the Feds would pay for it but the money comes out of these funds for computers. He said it astonished him that it costs a 1/2 to 3/4 of a million dollars to accumulate data to put in a computer. He said that was all it was; it had a fancy name and title and the other item on this was the computer they were going to set in the mall and people could use it.

Mr. Nowicki said he was making reference to the Kiosk system.

Councilman Schmid said that was why he pulled it off the agenda because he thought it was an awful lot of money and it was something that had really been put on the back burner maybe

notwithstanding how it would be funded. He said it seemed to be an awful lot of money and he appreciated Wayne State's interest in this and it in no way had any reflection on their proposal but was a matter of economics to him.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Nowicki said the first phase was $30,00 or $40,000 and he could live with that. He asked what that phase did for us and if the first phase was done and not the rest what would we have. He said in effect there would be a system set up ready to take in the information and that would be phase 2 and 3 so we wouldn't get the information.

Mr. Nowicki said phase 2 and 3 were primarily the data collection and the development of the associated data bases with those data sources.

Councilman Schmid said he would gladly listen but the reason he brought it up was he thought it was a large amount of money, highly labor intensified $250,000 and he wondered if it was a good deal or not. He said Mr. Nowicki said it was a wonderful deal.

Mr. Nowicki said they felt it was and in the packet of information was a letter from Les Gibson dated July 5, 1995 and Mr. Gibson indicated that he "was favorably impressed with the professionalism of the Wayne State University people. They should be very helpful in bringing the total project together. A preliminary estimate of $750,000 over the next three to five years if it does nothing else indicates the magnitude of this effort."

Mr. Nowicki said it was a substantial effort bringing Novi into the 20th century, moving the City ahead, providing the information that we have to sit and look for on pieces of paper. He said it was an automated system tracking process in order to review plans, disburse electronic data between the City of Novi to various consultants. He said internally it would provide the mechanism to control and monitor the control of site plan reviews, to review it on screen and in essence to be brought up to the paperless operation that the City should be.

Councilman Schmid said he could repeat what Mr. Nowicki just said in three words. He said what it did was put all the data in the computer.

Mr. Nowicki said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said so it doesn't bring the City to the 20th century; it would put all the data in the computer which you could get out like anybody else could get out. His question was why did it cost 3/4 of a million dollars to gather the data and put it in the computer.

Mr. Nowicki said the data did not cost 3/4 of a million dollars.

Councilman Schmid said he knew that it was to gather the data to put in the computer. He said Wayne State submitted a beautiful book and write up but why did it cost 3/4 of a million dollars to gather the data and put it in the computer to get to the 20th century.

Mr. Nowicki said it didn't cost 3/4 of a million dollars to gather data. He said his memo dated July 5, 1995 analyzed all the costs and each phase of the particular projects. He said he would go through them if Council liked.

Mr. Nowicki said it started off with $418,341 as proposed by Wayne State University. Again, this was a three phase process.

Phase I - The development of the system.

Phase II and III - The data collection

Phase II - would cost $189,573

Phase III - would cost $184,160

Mr. Nowicki said that was a far cry from 3/4 of a million dollars. He said the next phase of the GIS would be identification of every parcel within the City and putting that on a map. Then when the Assessor needed information on a particular parcel they looked at one particular parcel and they had everything they needed. He said that was approximately $140,000 but that $140,000 was only if that information was not available through Oakland County. He said Oakland County was moving ahead on their GIS program so we intended to configure the system so we can make use of the information and the data that they collect and provide us at minimal cost. He said Phase I would provide for us the ability to interact with other systems.

Mr. Nowicki said the next phase was the Planned Record Maintenance and Control. He said the planned file racks that almost reach the ceiling in his office, literally hundreds of sheets of paper and plans that were on file with the City of Novi that provided every construction drawing within the community, all of that information was scheduled to go on computer so there would be an efficient way to store, retrieve and use that information when needed.

Mr. Nowicki said incidentally all of the information would be available through the network that Councilman Toth and the Computer Committee put in this past year.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Nowicki didn't have to go on; that his question was not what was going to be put in it and how valuable it would be. He said certainly it would be valuable information and Council had talked about putting this information in computers for along time. He said his question to Mr. Nowicki and this Council regarded bidding as he thought every other major expenditure went out to bids. He asked how he knew it cost $418,000 to get the information that Wayne State had proposed. He said Mr. Nowicki was taking an estimate from a group of people that said this was what it would cost. He asked how he knew it would cost $418,000. He said it was a beautiful write up and a beautiful program but didn't Council think they should get some specs and go out for bids and find out what this really costs. He said they might be a third of what any one else would charge but how did Council know that.

Mr. Nowicki said he was sure they were cheaper.

Councilman Schmid said to put this on the Consent Agenda to spend this kind of money without going out for bids and just from a proposal he thought was in error.

Mr. Nowicki said he was sure they were cheaper than most any place else.

Councilman Schmid asked how he knew that.

Mr. Nowicki said for a comparable community that was a little larger than Novi, the City of Troy, which basically had the same square miles had spent approximately $2 Million to date. He said $900,000 of that went into a paid consultant.

Councilman Schmid asked how he knew the City of Troy didn't make a very bad deal.

Mr. Nowicki said may be they did.

Councilman Schmid said he was just bringing up questions that make him wonder why this didn't go out to bid. He asked why he jumped on the first thing that came forward and why was it put on the Consent Agenda.

Mr. Nowicki said it was his job to make the best deal he could for the City of Novi to protect our interests. He said he thought they had an opportunity to forge a unique relationship between an urban university, Wayne State University, with highly technical and capable people to help guide Novi into the future and into the computer system. According to Les Gibson the very last paragraph said "Since the City will be contracting with Wayne State University another unit of government and for a professional service the bid process is not required."

Mr. Nowicki said further the proposal as submitted by Wayne State University was a not to exceed dollar amount. He said it was on an hourly basis, time and materials. He said earlier today you pointed out a couple of individuals that potentially wanted to know what their involvement would be. He said if they were not used the City would not be invoiced for those costs. He said it was a time and material basis.

Councilman Schmid said if the City commited itself to this kind of expenditure, $418,000 or in excess of that amount, for a project of getting information, putting it in a computer should or should this not be a bid item based on the Charter.

Mr. Fried said the Charter required all items to be bid items in excess of $5,000 except if the Finance Director said it was not in the best interest of the City to submit the matter out for bids.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Gibson's memo was the ruling factor in this. He asked if he said that specifically.

Mr. Fried said he had not read it.

Mr. Nowicki said it was in the packets and Councilman Schmid asked him to give it to Mr. Fried.

Mr. Nowicki said they were not committing the City of Novi for $418,000 nor were they committing the City of Novi for $750,000. He said what they were asking for was an approval of the concept of the proposal as submitted by Wayne State University and further they were requesting authorization to proceed with Phase I only of the program and that was approximately $44,000.

Councilman Schmid asked what we would have if Council spent $44,000 on Phase I and Council decided not to proceed.

Mr. Nowicki said the benefit we would have would be the system configuration, the design of the system, architecture of the system, how to organize it, what the system components would be, the recommendations.

Councilman Schmid said there would be no information.

Mr. Nowicki said on the contrary he thought there would be information. He said on Page 10 of the proposal was a list of exactly what Phase I contained.

a. Assessment of user needs - Complete evaluation, meetings with every department and every individual that would have use for that system. Also it would determine what the needs of the Community would be.

b. Obtaining available GIS-based map for the City of Novi -

Councilman Schmid thanked Mr. Nowicki and said it was not a personal thing. He said it was a large dollar item that should go out for bid or at least have another approach rather than just taking the first proposal that came forward. He said when Mr. Nowicki said Phase I could be done and not need Phase II Mr. Nowicki was locking the City in. He said the Council could say no any time but that would be like throwing $44,000 away.

Mr. Nowicki said on the contrary if Councilman Schmid would let him continue he could provide him with a list of deliverables.

Councilman Schmid asked if he would expect Council to proceed with this program all the way through.

Mr. Nowicki said that was up to Council. He said he would provide Council with the information as obtained in Phase I and it would be up to Council to obligate the City for any future funding.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Fried if he had read Mr. Gibson's memo.

Mr. Fried said he had and wanted to check the Charter.

Councilman Toth said the total program, $418,000, was a three phase program that was well over two years and would take us into September of 1997 if Council exercised the whole program. He said the important thing was to consider Phase I because it was where the data base and the information that was needed to be compatible with the County and the State was looked at. He said Wayne State University had some resources that were extensive and that Novi could make use of. He said they made a formal presentation to us and went through all the data that they had. He said they would supply the City at the end of Phase I with an updated thoroughfare plan, GIA based road way map for the City of Novi, some parcel information and related data base and a service data base. He said these would be pilot programs that would be done during Phase I and they would allow Council to determine what should be done. He felt this was a really very important phase and at that point Council could then make a decision to continue on and in what direction they should go.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the Wayne State University GIS Proposal and authorization to proceed with Phase I be approved.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said he would hope that Council could get an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not Council could do this.

Councilman Mitzel said the City Charter Section 12.1 said "formal bids shall be required as outlined below except: A. employment of professional services."

Mayor McLallen said this was a legal motion.

Yes (5) No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

12. Resolution - Budget Amendment 96-1 - GIS System

Mayor McLallen said contingent with this was Item #12 which was a Resolution for Budget Amendment 96-1 concerning the GIS system. She said the amendment was in the amount of $187,000.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That Budget Amendment 96-1 be approved.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following 1995-1996

budget amendment is authorized to provide for the funds needed

for the GIS system:

APPROPRIATIONS

Construction (187,500)

Capital Outlay (Data processing equipment) 187,500

DRAIN REVENUE FUND

APPROPRIATIONS

Construction (187,500)

Capital Outlay (Data processing equipment) 187,500

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said this was another expenditure that was not justified and this City was spending money like it was going out of style. He said he would not support the motion.

Councilman Crawford said the previous motion approved Phase I which was not to exceed $45,000 and asked why there was a budget amendment for $187,000.

Mr. Nowicki said if Council would read Mr. Gibson's memo of July 5, 1995 the second to the last paragraph Mr. Gibson states "Since it is difficult to estimate a specific time line I would recommend assuming the work will be done in the first year. This will allow the project to move as rapidly as possible. In subsequent years City Council will be requested to rollover any unexpended balance needed to complete the project."

Councilman Crawford said that Phase I said it would be completed within 14 weeks after the authorization. He said he was in favor of this project but didn't understand the $187,000 when only $45,000 was needed to do the first phase.

Mr. Nowicki said that was Mr. Gibson's rational in putting this together and said he couldn't answer for him. He said Council had the information that was supplied and whether Council went with the complete budget amendment or did something less that was totally up to Council.

Mr. Kriewall said Mr. Gibson wanted to deal with it in larger increment and he and Mr. Nowicki had discussed it after Mr. Gibson had made his recommendation. He said Mr. Gibson's budget amendment covered beyond the first stage. Mr. Kriewall said the amount could be reduced to whatever Mr. Nowicki had recommended as an expenditure if Council was not comfortable.

Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Kriewall if the $187,000 was for a year.

Mr. Kriewall said it was and would be over what ever length the total project was.

Mr. Nowicki said no it was not. He said if Council would look at his memo and added up all the costs it would come to about $750,000. He referred Council to Mr. Gibson's memo, paragraph 3, "As you will recall from our earlier discussions and budget deliberations this project will be paid for from the Water and Sewer Fund (50%), Municipal Street Fund (25%) and the Drain Revenue Fund (25%)." Mr Nowicki said the Drain Fund went through the Stormwater Financial Review Committee and every one approved that. He said the budget amendment before Council on the last page of the handout was for appropriating approximately $187,500 from the Municipal Street Fund construction account to the Capital Account. He said the same thing with the Drain Revenue Fund from the construction account to the capital account. He said it was not approving the expenditures of those dollars now it was just shifting that money into the other accounts.

Councilman Toth said it was $375,000.

Councilman Crawford said it was $187,000 from each of those funds. He asked if Council had to approve appropriations from the Water Fund.

Mr. Nowicki said according to Mr. Gibson they did not.

Councilman Crawford said it was just these two and the $187,000 from each of those funds was staying in that fund but just going to a different line item.

Mr. Nowicki said exactly correct just a different line item that could not be spent unless Council authorized it.

Councilman Crawford asked how he would appropriate the $45,000.

Mr. Nowicki said it would be in a proportional basis like he just outlined 50% to Water and Sewer, 25% to Drains and 25% to Roads.

Councilman Crawford said he still didn't see the need for $187,000 out of each fund but it had to come to Council for approval beyond the $45,000 anyway.

Yes (5) No (0) Absent (2-Pope, Schmid) Motion carried

Mayor McLallen said it was time to go back to the Mayor and Council Issues and there were also several other issues that if the Council would like any of these held over to another meeting since it was 1:00 a.m. they could do that.

Councilman Toth said to finish them off.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

1. City initiated Rezoning - Sec. 17 - R-3 - Councilman Mitzel

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

That Council direct the Planning Commission to hold

the public hearing within 60 days and the recommendation that

it be placed on the Council agenda within 30 days after that.

MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SUPPORT

2. Expiration of Detroit Water & Sewer Agreement - Councilman Toth

Councilman Toth said he had a couple of concerns and knew she had a meeting scheduled Wednesday, July 12, with the Detroit Water Department. He said the agreement would be coming up shortly for renewal and he would like consideration given in the agreement to the underground storage tanks that were discussed by the DPW or perhaps the water towers.

Councilman Toth said the other concern was that in the agreement he would like a minimum pressure supplied by the Detroit Water Department. He thought that there was a minimum needed for the health and safety of the residents. He felt if they couldn't supply that minimum pressure they had some problems and they should take appropriate action. Councilman Toth said since Novi was making monthly payments the easiest way would be to hit them in the pocket book and give them a percentage reduction if the pressure starts dropping. He said if Novi didn't have sufficient pressure in the summer time then something should be taken off the bill. He said if his Michigan Bell Telephone doesn't work for a week he could take 25% off the bill and he didn't see why the same thing couldn't be done if the water pressure dropped.

Councilman Toth said he was also concerned about the remainder of the system and thought assurance was needed from the Water Department that the system was large enough outside of Novi to supply Novi with the necessary pressure. He said the 72 inch main might supply some pressure for a few years but with all the development that was taking place by the time it was operational Novi might get a trickle out of the tap.

Councilman Toth suggested that the staff find out what kind of other agreements were in place with surrounding communities. He said he didn't have the time but he would check with Northville, Farmington Hills and Livonia. He said the north Woodward area seemed to have the best agreements because they bought in bulk for a number of communities and had their own water tanks.

Mr. Kriewall said it was a one time arrangement they made with several communities to sell water to them as an authority and they did cut themselves a real nice deal 10-20 years ago.

Councilman Toth said that was all Novi needed was a one time deal.

3. Senior Staff Planner - Councilman Toth

Councilman Toth said serving on the Consultant Review Committee they felt it was part of their job and did recommend to the staff to prepare some financial data. He said Council had a memo from him dated June 15 and it summarized some of the data that was collected by the staff. He said it gave a breakdown and the considerations were to look at the idea of hiring a senior staff planner. He said the position could be an "at will" employee and it would provide a senior staff planner on staff during normal working hours 40 hours a week. He said perhaps the senior staff planner could handle some of the more complicated projects such as the Town Center, the Grand River/Beck Interchange, Vistas of Novi and things of that nature. He said this person could also provide us with special reports. Councilman Toth said it would also give Council a second professional opinion and a different technical viewpoint and full time profession services and administrative interaction with other staff members during regular working hours. He said it would also give a professional focus just on the City of Novi and a dedicated reaction to Council initiated development direction.

Councilman Toth said that he was concerned with Council's track record. He said they had hired people such as Dean Miller who was experienced in the field of computers and handled the City's computer systems. He said also Mr. Nowicki had Haim Schlick who was a senior professional and very competent in his field. He said it was discussed at the meetings that within 8 to 10 years the majority of major development would be well over with and this individual would probably be ready for retirement. He said it was a consideration to look at and asked for the opinion of the other Council Members.

Councilman Crawford asked if the report was a result of the consultant review committee.

Councilman Toth said that it was.

Councilman Crawford said in his personal opinion this was not the charge of the Consultant Review Committee and was surprised that it came from the committee. He thought they were there to review consultant proposals, requests and actions but not to get into hiring or proposing hiring of additional permanent staff for the City. He said it had nothing to do with consultant review.

Mayor McLallen wanted to correct that issue. She said it was an issue that was discussed at consultant review but it was not a consensus and a voted upon position of the entire committee to bring it forward. She said it was coming forward from a single member of the committee and not the committee as a whole.

Councilman Crawford said if there was considerable staff involved in compiling these numbers and suggestions it was inappropriate of the committee to do that. He asked if it was intended to replace the consulting philosophy in the City in regards to planning or was it to supplement that.

Councilman Toth said it could be done either way. He said it could be done to supplement a portion of it depending on the individual hired.

Councilman Crawford asked if one individual could be hired to take care of all the planning needs in the City that was now provided by the consultant.

Councilman Toth said that would be up to the Council to decide that.

Councilman Crawford asked what the intent was; was it to replace the consultant with a full time person.

Councilman Toth said there were two intents. One was to save the City some money.

Councilman Crawford said the City would save money by hiring one person over the consulting firm we have now.

Councilman Toth said that was correct.

Councilman Crawford said he was not completely familiar with the firm but knew there was a senior planner, couple of consultants that the senior planner had, some sort of office personnel and other staff. He said that was about 4 or 5 people and asked how they could be replaced by one in house person.

Councilman Toth said the considerations from the staff were that they would just need some secretarial support.

Councilman Crawford said then one person would replace everything else.

Mayor McLallen said because of the late hour and this was a fairly significant issue she recommended that Administration take this document as presented and respond to it with further information and bring it back to Council.

Councilman Mitzel said if that was done then Administration should be directed to evaluate many in house out sourcing issues for the entire year.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That Council direct Administration to include this in

the study that is due by the end of the year.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford was concerned with what it would entail in staff time to research this proposal.

Councilman Mitzel said Council had already directed Administration during budget time to do this for almost everyone else in the City.

Councilman Crawford asked Administration if they anticipated several people working several weeks to obtain that information.

Mr. Kriewall said they already had significant data and as Councilman Mitzel indicated it could be combined with the City wide approach they were taking to privatization vs in house staffing on various positions.

Councilwoman Mason suggested Council quit talking about this and get on to whatever else had to be done so Council could leave.

Yes (4-Mitzel, Mason, No (2-Crawford, Schmid) Absent (1-Pope)

McLallen, Toth) Motion carried

MANAGER'S REPORT - None

Councilman Mitzel said in the packet there was a public comment period notice for fiscal year 96-98, Transportation Improvement Program for the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). He said one of the projects listed on that was the I-96/Wixom Road interchange upgrade and nothing was listed for Beck Road. Councilman Mitzel asked if Administration was aware of what was going on and if a comment to SEMCOG was appropriate. He said the comment period was June 29 through July 27.

Mr. Kriewall said Beck Road already went through three or four months ago. He said he had a meeting today with the Mayor and Pat Nowak from M.D.O.T. facilitated by Senator Honigman.

Councilman Mitzel asked for a quick one page follow up.

Councilman Crawford requested in regard to their previous action providing this in house compared to outside sourcing. He asked if they could include the charge of the Consultant Review Committee and whatever documentation there was on their responsibilities and charges.

ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

Mr. Fried pointed out that Council had in their packets a copy of an opinion from Judge McDonald granting the City summary judgement in the case of Sunset Excavating vs the City of Novi. He said the judge based his decision on a case that the City had taken up to the Court of Appeals in 1989. He said it was a leading case in the State of Michigan on construction contracts and had caused a lot of concern to construction people. He said additional cases would flow from this. He said it was a good decision and thought there would be success in the future with those kind of cases too.

Councilman Mitzel said Council received Michigan Municipal League Updates and asked if Mr. Fried had been following and could keep Council up to date on anything he felt Council should be commenting on. He said there were many issues about land, Subdivision Control Act, Day Care Zoning, etc.

Mr. Fried said he received the MML Updates also and they were all affecting Novi. He asked if Councilman Mitzel wanted him to comment on them as to their approach to them.

Councilman Mitzel felt that Council should be utilizing contacts in Lansing to effect changes that would be beneficial to Novi. Mr. Fried said OK.

Councilman Mitzel said at the June 5 meeting Mr. Rogers had been directed to propose an amendment to the P-1 Ordinance, concerning the Marty Feldman rezoning case. Councilman Mitzel said he sent an amendment to the City within a week and he wanted to thank him for a quick response and asked if it had gone through his staff and if it was ready for the Planning Commission. He asked if the Planning Commission could hold a hearing and get it to Council so those changes that were agreed upon could be made or at least looked at and get this moving.

Mr. Fried said he would look and see where it stood in his office.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Minutes

Councilman Mitzel pulled the June 5 and 19 for corrections.

Councilman Mitzel said on June 5 page 51 he questioned dialogue and the other was the votes for the Police/Fire Committee.

Mrs. Stipp advised that the conversation on page 51 was correct and that the votes had been corrected to 3 votes for Helen Stabler on page 70.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the minutes be approved subject to the change on

the vote for the Police and Fire Needs Assessment on page 70.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

Councilman Mitzel said he pulled June 19 just to correct Member Pope as absent/excused.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the minutes of June 19 be approved subject to

correction.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried unanimously

Mellem - Section 15 - Leavenworth Storm Water Detention Basin

WHEREAS, present conditions in the City of Novi, Oakland

County, Michigan, necessitate the construction of a storm-

water detention basin in the City of Novi;

WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said construction have been

prepared by the City Engineers.

WHEREAS, after evaluating the plans, it has been determined that said 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 construct a stormwater detention basin within the City of Novi in accordance with the plans prepared

by the City Engineers, 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 owners(s) and other parties in interest in the

property, described in the Declaration of Taking, which

property the City of Novi needs to acquire for the construction of the stormwater detention basin.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all resolutions and parts of

resolutions insofar as they conflict with the provisions of

this Resolution be, and the same hereby are, rescinded.

Councilman Mitzel removed Item #9 and spoke with Mr. Kapelczak concerning this. He said Council used to receive diagrams showing where the parcels were located and he requested that the maps be again attached to these items.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Supported by Councilman Crawford

That the Resolution and Declaration of Taking - Mr. &

Mrs. Yousef Mellem - Section 15, Leavenworth Storm Water Detention Basin be adopted.

Yes 5-Mitzel, Toth, No (1-Mason, Absent (1-Pope)

Crawford, Schmid,

McLallen) Motion carried

Committee

WHEREAS, the City of Novi recognizes the Lake Property Study

Committee, Committee membership is from Council, Planning

Commission, City Administration, and members of the residents

of the area under study.

WHEREAS, the Lake Property Study Committee was assigned by

City Council in October, 1994, to study future options for

this property and report back, and,

WHEREAS, the Planning & Community Development Department was

assigned to provided assistance to the Lake Property Study

Committee, working in conjunction with other City Departments,

and residents, and,

WHEREAS, the consensus by the Study Committee to date,

reflects that the site being developed with a multi-use

facility that provides community meeting space and

banquet capabilities, passive recreation areas, open scenic

vistas, and,

WHEREAS, the need is acknowledged by the City of Novi for the

Lake Property Study Committee, to continue to explore, interview, study, and inquire, as to the various uses for the property located at thirteen Mile road and Novi Roads,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the "sunset" date of the

Lake Property Study Committee is extended from June 30, 1995 to December 31, 1996 in order to compete its work.

Councilman Mitzel removed Item #10 because the Resolution was extending the sunset date from June 30, 1995 to December 31, 1996. He said that was an 18 month extension. He felt that December 31, 1995 would be more appropriate.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

That the sunset set date be changed from June 30, 1995 to December 31, 1995.

Motion died for lack of support.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the resolution be approved as presented.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Toth said he would not support the motion because he felt 18 months was too long. He said if they wanted an extension they should make a presentation to Council and indicate why they needed that amount of time. He felt they should come back with a final report.

Councilman Crawford said there was a presentation regarding what they had been doing, what they proposed to do and why they wanted the extension. He said if this could be wrapped up in less than 18 months he would be happy to do it because he and Councilman Schmid were on the committee but in the event they don't it would save them from coming back and asking for another extension. He said they had been meeting usually monthly and had things they worked out and had things they wanted to work out.

Yes (4-McLallen, Schmid, No (2-Toth, Mitzel) Absent (1-Pope)

Crawford, Mason) Motion carried

Project

Councilman Schmid removed Item #13.

Councilman Schmid said he had figured out the materials.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That MDOT Agreement 95-0572, Novi Road Signalization

Project be approved.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) Motion carried

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 a.m.

MAYOR

CLERK

Date approved: