MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 AT 8:00 PM EDT

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE ROAD

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

Council pledged allegiance to the flag.

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

Dennis Watson - Assistant City Attorney

Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

Greg Capote - City Planner

Tony Nowicki - Department of Public Services Director

Tonni Bartholomew - City Clerk

Mayor McLallen asked if there were any additions or corrections to the agenda as presented?

Councilwoman Mason said Madam Mayor I would like to add #13 to Revisit the Retirement Window dates.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

To approve the agenda as amended.

Mayor McLallen said I have two items I would like to add under Mayor and Council Issues. One is a request to the Department of Public Services to investigate road improvements in the works and what road improvements are further needed on Haggerty Road between Eight and Ten Mile, a status report, an update and some further issues there. Also, I’d like to bring onto the agenda an up- date on the Fuerst property, status, funding and possible resolution under Mayor and Council Issues.

Councilman Toth said are you putting this on the agenda tonight?

Mayor McLallen said yes; these are short.

Councilman Toth said why can’t they be submitted to us to look at instead of a discussion period? I’m not prepared to discuss those items and I don’t really want them on the agenda tonight.

Mayor McLallen said I’m trying to introduce them. We can send them wherever we want after they are introduced.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

To approve the agenda as amended.

Councilman Toth said I’m not going to vote for the agenda as amended. I feel that the Fuerst property and also road improvements should be provided to us in written form so we have a chance to analyze the information before it’s discussed at a public meeting.

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

Kevin Kohls said I am representing George Keros. He has a property that is proposed for rezoning under Item 7 on your agenda tonight, Matters for Council Action, and I would request to be given an opportunity to speak at that time in connection with that proposal.

Mayor McLallen said so noted Mr. Kohl.

Loretta Szur, a resident of 51000 Nine Mile Road said she wished to inform the Planning Commission that on 9/13 a meeting was held and Southwest Association of Novi has been formed.

On October 11 a meeting is scheduled to discuss the future sewer plans that are scheduled for our area. That’s it and thank you for your time.

Ruth Ann Jirasek representing the City of Novi Homeowners Association said she attended the quarterly General Meeting held last Tuesday and the topic of discussion was the fact that several administrators had responded expediently to CNHA’s numerous requests. We have been able to obtain information pertinent to homeowner needs and in some cases have had the opportunity to have these City workers attend the general meetings and address our concerns. We have discussed everything from sidewalk maintenance to couples being married 50 years or more. I am here tonight to publicly recognize the following for their immediate response to requests in the professional manner in which the business was conducted: Steve Babinchak, Lt. Dave Butler, Dan Davis, Les Gibson, Jackie Halterman, Bruce Jerome, Tony Nowicki, Chris Pargoff, Doug Shaeffer, Cindy Stewart, Cindy Uglow and Dennis Watson. We have several issues that will be coming forward in the near future and look forward to working with the City. Thank you.

Diane Chippewa, 48800 W. Nine Mile said she just wanted to add onto what Loretta was saying about our first meeting. I think I told you at other meetings we are going to be trying to hand out the Natural Beauty Roads petitions. We have about 34 signatures so far but we are still working on it so we’re going to still hold off on that a little bit before we turn it in. Thank you.

Mayor McLallen asked if any other members of the audience wished to bring any issues or comments to the Council? We will close this audience participation and remind every one that there are two more opportunities to address the Council later in this evening. With that we’ll move on to the Special Presentations. This evening we have three. These are items of information and interest to the general public. The first one is an introduction of the Beautification Commission; a newly formed Charter Commission and Mr. Aruffo you are the spokesperson.

A. Introduction of Beautification Commission - Ernie Aruffo

Mr. Aruffo said to Mayor McLallen and members of the Council it is a real pleasure to be here and to do this thing that we have looked forward to doing. That is to introduce to you and to the City the members of the Beautification Commission. What I am about to read is a brief, biographical sketch of each of these ladies and they will stand as their name is called:

Katherine Cosentino is not a gardener but values beauty and has sold flowers and flower arrangements in the past. She brings her legal background as well as her management and organization skills to the Commission.

Barbara Greenberg is an advanced master gardener, enjoys all types of gardening and has donated hundreds of hours of volunteer time to the Committee. She is willing to share her knowledge and gardening skills with Novi.

Elinor Holland cannot be here this evening because of a serious operation that was performed today on her eyes. But, Elinor Holland is the President of the Novi Garden Club, a member of the Farmington Garden Club and is active in the Michigan Federation of Garden Clubs, District 1. She promotes gardening for people of all ages. Elinor also claims to enjoy dishing the dirt.

Connie Lake-Noble has been heavily, heavily involved in volunteering in the past with scouts and 4-H Club and at Novi Schools. She very much appreciates the beauty of flowers and came to the Beautification Commission wanting to do more for the City.

Patricia Taub is absent because of the holiday. She has been a resident of Novi for ten years. She has a sincere interest in the community, appreciates the growth its had and wants to help create an eye appealing City.

Pamela Superfisky, having fifteen years of gardening experience, has a love of and knowledge of flowers and landscape. She has a commitment to Novi where she has lived for 23 years. She has watched Novi grow and change and would like it to develop beautifully.

Mr. Aruffo said you might have noticed that the numbers of the Commission are seven to one. This means there are 86% women and 14% men.

Now, I have an item of official business. Mayor, I know that you normally do not pass motions but we have an unusual situation because the Administration asked this Commission to assume a responsibility that is carried by the State Enabling Act. Under Subsection 2-180 functions, Subsection 1, "we are to consider and propose programs which would include the physical appearance of the community and implement such programs as may be approved by the Council."

The strange thing is that we have already done this because this year’s program of beautification awards for the arterials has gone forth by this group at the astonishing rate of within three weeks. Farmington Hills normally takes eight months and we are astonished that we have accomplished what we have. We have already reviewed 179 sites and we’re ready to make a presentation of approximately 75 awards which will be done with your approval, Mayor. You will set the date, the video taping has already gone forward and we’re racing against the cost and we would ask you for permission or motion from the board to approve according to the State Statute. I know normally you don’t make motions at this time but, because we’re already into it and have the flowers before the cart, would you consider passing a motion to allow us to proceed.

Mayor McLallen said Members of Council would we honor Mr. Aruffo’s request?

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

To honor the Resolution to empower the Beautification Committee to go forward.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Aruffo thanked the Council.

Mayor McLallen said thank you, all the members of the Committee, for your generous help. We are looking forward to it.

B. Proclamation, Re: Lloyd and Kathy Rohlig - Heroic Action of September 4, 1995

Mayor McLallen said this was really a special item and I’m sorry they were unable to be with us. New citizens to Novi, they’ve lived here less then a year, were instrumental in saving the life of a lady whose house was burning on Eleven Mile Road. We have a plaque for them. This is the kind of neighbor we all hope we have and it is delightful to know that they kind of want to be anonymous heros. But, on behalf of City Council I do have a plaque to give them, which I will get to them personally, to thank them for not looking the other way and saving this person in their time of very much devastation.

WHEREAS, Congratulations and citations are in order for Lloyd and Kathy

Rohlig for the saving of the life of Sally Smith on September 4, 1995;

WHEREAS, A catastrophe was avoided because of the skillful and quick response

to the danger and knowledge of life saving demonstrated by the Rohligs; and

WHEREAS, This courageous action in averting what could have been a tragic

loss to family, friends and community, was an act of heroism which deserves

special recognition by the governing body of this city.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and City Council

hereby extend sincere appreciation to Lloyd and Kathy Rohlig and urge all of the

citizens of the City of Novi to recognize and to support the Rohligs for their unselfish

acts of heroism.

C. Crossroads - EDC Presentation - Blair Bowman

Mr. Bowman said first off I’d like to thank the Council very much for the invitation and the opportunity to present our findings to you. First of all, I’d like to explain just a little bit about how we came to be here tonight. I appreciate that you have a very long agenda and we will try to move through this quickly but there’s some, what we feel to be some, very important material that we’d like for you to consider and hopefully give us some guidance and work in cooperation in future proposed projects.

Mr. Bowman said the Novi Chamber of Commerce has many goals, but one of the goals is to more pro-actively work with the community and cooperatively work within the community to establish and promote a balanced community and a basis for the overall quality of life for both the business sector and the residential and citizenry. The Novi Chamber of Commerce established just a little over two years ago, a little over a year ago now in its second year, the Economic Development Committee and I chair that Committee. What we did was, after about a year of existence we were kind of looking to find our legs and find out what exactly this Committee was able to do and accomplish. We decided to look for and research from an objective basis where the City of Novi stood from an economic development basis. We set out dealing first with the Statement of Purpose and a Statement of Approach. The Statement of Purpose, I think, is important enough to read to you. It’s in the report that:

"The Novi Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee has the following purposes and objectives.

To promote a diversified and balanced community.

To communicate the importance of business to the overall quality of life in Novi.

To encourage economic growth by attracting new businesses while at the same time working to maintain Novi’s existing quality business base.

To gather and document information pertaining to important business issues and then present them along with the business input to the appropriate City Officials and the residential Community at large.

Also, to foster communication between the Chamber, business, educational, residential communities as well as the City Administrative, legislative and planning bodies."

Mr. Bowman said our committee concurs with the resolution adopted by a previous City Council and Planning Commission where in 1986, in the Statement of Purpose, the City of Novi affirmed the following principles and visions for the City of Novi.

"Novi is a diverse and balanced community. We want businesses of all sizes to thrive here with full recognition of our responsibility to plan for a City that can afford itself." That’s extremely important and I want to repeat that: with full recognition of the responsibility to plan for a City that can afford itself. We will encourage commercial investment in the Community and the innovative and ambitious use of property. The Committee and the Chamber fully encourages the re-establishment and the maintaining of the balance as referred to in that resolution.

Mr. Bowman said what we also determined was that the Committee did not want to be simply just a nay sayer or a problem pointer. We wanted to get into a situation where we could objectively research data, propose the information and do something, again, from a positive standpoint, actually solve problems and work towards the better of the overall community. In doing that, the Committee wanted to be pro-active and insert its input on issues for the assistance of new quality of life and quality business issues. We wanted to develop a formal information document, which we have that’s before you tonight and present that to all facets of the community.

Mr. Bowman said after developing information and having that reviewed by the overall Chamber of Commerce then it was our intent to have the Chamber of Commerce be able to take pro-active positions on particular issues.

Mr. Bowman said the first thing we did was we looked a little bit through some of our very good quality members, Detroit Edison, Oakland County, at their Economic Development Departments. They assisted us in determining and pinpointing what Economic Development was. It can be defined many different ways and from many different schemes and through equations and evaluations but basically economic development is the development of new business bringing new jobs, new income, which then allows for spending and tax base which then creates the opportunity for new businesses and new jobs and so on and so on. Bottom line, the idea was is that economic development when handled in a community minded spirit and done in a proper, logical fashion is a good thing. Therefore, what we wanted to do was take a look at where Novi stood as far as economic development was concerned. We, therefore, decided to look at where the current tax base was and that’s the first film.

Mr. Bowman said this slide shows the breakdown of the total tax base for the City of Novi with approximately 55% being homestead and 45% being non-homestead or industrial, commercial or other non-residential. From a basic overall standpoint when looking at this snapshot it seemed to be that Novi was in quite good shape as it stands currently. From that then we wanted to determine, because there were statements at least that we had heard that while many of the combined Novi non-residential tax base payers certainly might be big payers individually they certainly could not equal the combined total amount and payment of taxes by the residential section of Novi. So in looking at this, the breakdown is 55% /45% . We wanted to see then what the next slide shows and that is what percentage of area is dedicated, in fact, to those separate categories. We found that in the City of Novi approximately 85% or the land is dedicated to homestead and 15 % is dedicated to non-homestead. Therefore, this showed, at least what we had as an assumption going into it that homestead in and of themselves do not generate enough tax base to cover their own services. Individual homeowners typically pay in taxes something less then what they use in City services.

Mr. Bowman said we wanted to then look at what development trends, what economic development trends had occurred in the recent past in the City of Novi. Going back to 1985, for that eight year period between 1985 and 1993 we wanted to look at the total number of housing building permits issued in Novi as well as surrounding communities. As can clearly be seen, we have a situation where Novi is obviously extremely high in the single family residential and in the multi family residential. It was one of the fastest growing communities, if not the fastest growing community, during many of these years. Again, residential is a very strong component of the economy. It is a very good thing, it brings residents which make up part of the community so this, again, was thought to be a very positive aspect.

Mr. Bowman said the next slide shows the non-residential side of things during the same period of time. Again, Novi faring strongly as to compared to surrounding communities, Novi was you know, probably third or fourth depending on the category of the non-residential permits. When compared with and looking towards from a stand point of a geographic relationship, you know, Novi was kind of by rights in the next location to be developed and to work towards future growth. Then you look at some of the surrounding communities, even Milford and Commerce, during that same period of time, similar growth cycles occurring. Wixom, on the other hand, is with a significant amount of growth in these sectors over and above all the other outer lying communities. So, this again, started at least to show us that while Novi is currently in a good mix and during these periods of time it looked to be that Novi was enjoying at least a reasonable mixture of even non-residential development we kind of thought maybe there wasn’t so much of a problem and wanted to look a little bit further at the then more current periods.

Mr. Bowman said the next slide shows 1990/93 and some of the objectives or some of the things that we thought we might find started to show themselves in this area. This, again, is total number of permits pulled in the industrial and commercial sector and you’ll see in the City of Novi from 1990 to 1993 that only eleven new permits were pulled, and as compared to almost 40 new permits in that same period of time in the City of Wixom. You can see that even during this period of time that the growth had slowed to a point where even Milford Township, Lyon Township and Walled Lake surpassed Novi considerably with regards to these types of development activities. So, something again was emerging as far as what we saw as a trend in the downward cycle of these types of permits being issued. For some reason again there is a tremendous amount of growth during this period of time going on in Wixom as compared to Novi and other communities.

Mr. Bowman said we were concerned, again, about using only objective data from strong sources such as the Assessing Department, Oakland County Planning and the U.S. Census Bureau. The data at the time we compiled the report that was available was on industrial permits only and only through about 11 months of the 1994 period. But it is very striking when you look at it from the standpoint again. You can see an accelerated growth going on in the City of Wixom with high quality and particularly industrial growth and the City of Novi in that period of time, 1993/94, issued zero industrial permits. It starts to then again show that even while during an eight year stretch in time that the City of Novi had a reasonable amount of activity that even though they’re currently sitting at a tax base mix that would be by most standards a reasonable mix the trend is now in position where it’s striking and showing a real slow down and stalling in these types of quality industrial and commercial activities.

Mr. Bowman said what I want to do now is show this trend as pointed out by the next film. Again, back in 1988, it can be illustrated by the green being the commercial/industrial portion of the tax base and the red being the residential; in seven short years the tax base structure was at 64% industrial/commercial and 36% residential. It is now gone down to where in 1995 only 15% of the newly included tax base was non-residential and 85% was residential. Again, this is a pretty significant trend as clearly displayed by the graph.

Mr. Bowman said what I wanted to do is the next section of this is really quickly turn over to Jim Koster his section of the report was something very knowledgeable giving a quick interpretation of what industrial/commercial development activities would mean to the school systems. There has been an indication since Proposal A that non-resident development means less and while that may be partially true I think there still is an important aspect of it and Jim Koster who is Assistant Superintendent here in the Novi Schools, he’s an expert and can give a quick run down on what post Proposal A has held for the City of Novi.

Dr. Jim Koster said I have some slides; let me quickly go through and see that they are in order. Mr. Koster said I am employed by the school district as the Assistant Superintendant. I’m not here as a representative of the school district however, I am here as a representative of the Chamber and to explain the effects upon the taxation and the community upon the school district. As you can remember in one of Blair’s slides he gave a presentation of residential to commercial. As you can see in the Detroit Free Press dated 9/9/95, just two weeks ago, there appeared an article where they analyzed zip codes in the seven county area. Sure enough, it’s not a surprise, but northern Novi and western Novi had the most residential growth than any other area in the seven county area.

Dr. Koster said as I approach the mid century mark I find out that I am now an older boomer rather than a baby boomer. What does this mean to the school district? Prior to Proposition A taxation to the school district was relatively easy. All property, agricultural, developmental, commercial, residential and personal property were all taxed the same and all the taxes came to the school district. Under Proposition A the flow in the tax dollars took on an all together different and complicated flow. All property is now divided into homesteads and non-homesteads. For the school districts in each of the homesteads and non-homesteads you’ll see that there’s 6 mils. In each case that does not come to the school districts; that goes to the State of Michigan. Although you pay it to the City of Novi the City of Novi turns around and pays it directly to the State of Michigan. Under the homestead, which is residential, in addition to the six mils that goes to the State, the residents pay 5.49 directly to the school district. On the non-homestead part 18 mils goes directly to the school district. 1993 for General Operating was the pre-Proposition A and what happened is all property went from 29.4365 to homeowners paying 6 to the State and 5.49 to the school district. Business paying 6 to the State and 18 to the school district.

Dr. Koster said this is where it gets relatively confusing. This is a not-homestead property tax right here. This is the SEV $576,000,000 for the school district. How does the school district get their money. As you can see, from two graphs ago we have money from both non-business and from the State of Michigan. The school districts, Novi and all 537 school districts in the State of Michigan does not calculate how much money they receive on a per pupil basis; that is now done by the State of Michigan. State of Michigan simply states this "At whatever, in a community, the 18 mils does not generate the State will make up the difference. The amount per pupil is fixed and in Novi’s case the total amount per pupil for 1995-96 is $7,247. That multiplied by our students is that $31,000,000 number up there. Now the 18 mils generates the red graph and whatever the 18 mils does not generate the State makes up the difference. The amount for pupil stays the same. Let’s say for example, over night, there became Twelve Oaks II and moved the SEV from $576 million to $750 million. What would that do to the school district? The amount stays the same, the 18 mils would generate more money and the State would give us less. Let’s assume the following night Twelve Oaks III comes along and moves the SEV from $750 million to $950 million. The business pays the red the State pays the green. The bottom line does not change. In every year thereafter the State will tell us what this bottom line is. We, the school district, the administration nor the Board of Education has any say in that number.

If we go back to the previous slide showing the flow of the tax dollars marking the homestead; some of what the non-homestead gives, the $10 million, plus the $21 Million from the State of Michigan that equals the per pupil. The same basis of calculation occurs in the homestead 5.49, that millage rate is fixed, it’s an amount per child and if the SEV goes up the millage rate would go down. Same theory holds true.

Now you ask yourself the question where does the State get the money to give to Novi?

From the $21 Million, remember the 6 mils comes down from the non-homestead and the homestead and within this big pool of money there’s a General Fund allocation from the State of Michigan as well as a 2% increase in the States sales tax.

Dr. Koster said from the standpoint of the operational aspect of the school district it doesn’t make a big deal of difference. However the baby boomers or the older boomers, whoever they may be, move into the community in droves and they bring with them children and the school needs an infrastructure to hold those children. Fortunately, just two days ago, this community gave this school district the expansion of the infrastructure to hold the children; but as more children move in who knows what will happen in the future. That’s where the debt is. The debt millage is applied equally to both non-homestead and homestead. What you see is the 4.65 mils that was before the bond issue passed Saturday. Point being, that the debt level is unequal to both homes and non homes. So if this community decides to be nothing but a bedroom community, with nothing but homes, that generates children then the infrastructure from a school standpoint will have to be created. The brunt of that taxation will be on the homeowners. Whereas, if the economic community changed and had more commercial and industrial that rate would undoubtedly go down.

Dr. Koster showed another slide and said this is the current debt schedule of the school district to the year 2020-2021 with the new bond issue in place. In the year 2020/2021 theoretically we would be debt free. This is based on the current blend of residential and non-residential and as you can see if there was a larger influx of non residential, that being non-homestead, that line would probably go like this. Where a good majority of the taxation would pay for the school districts infrastructure generated by the business end and not solely by the homeowner.

Mr. Bowman said thanks very much Jim, I appreciate that. Just in summary, I think what’s been shown at least is clearly that a growing community, a developing community, such as Novi needs quality economic development. Not only from the school system standpoint but also from a standpoint of city services. We are not advocating, by any means, that a flood gate approach be used here but a cooperative quality approach to economic development, I think, is critical. One of the most telling tales from the standpoint of our research was looking at the current tax base ratio and assuming that you’re happy with that, and assuming that things are reasonably strong from that perspective the City of Novi would need to 1,000 new homes developed that would require $25 Million in new non-residential SEV. Last year almost 1,000 housing units were constructed and only $7.5 Million in new non residential tax base was added. Again, that trend and that skew that continues places an unreasonable and exhoribitant burden on all the existing businesses and residences in a community such as Novi. What we are looking to do is attempt to, like it or not, reality or perception or not, there seems to be a leap frogging approach going on today in this community from a standpoint of decisions makers and commercia/industrial users. What we are looking to do is propose that we take our message out, and information out, to the various citizenry and community bodies and propose that a task force be established that would include members from the residential community. We have actually taken the opportunity to present this information to the Novi Homeowners Association group and also include business members, include the City of Novi decision making bodies and try to come up with and find where a common ground is and logical locations for business and development to occur. I think that, again, if we look at the issues objectively and reasonably I think we’re going to find more common ground than one might think is there currently. Hopefully, to avoid and set aside some of the we vs they, us vs them, approach to things, extend a hand out and sit down at the table and see if we can’t go to work and try to find, again, at least to level the playing field off and try to at least reverse the trend that we’re seeing out there currently which I think is a trend that has to be concerning to all. I very much appreciate the opportunity and would be willing to answer any questions, either myself or Dr. Koster.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Bowman, Mr. Koster, thank you very much for coming tonight. At this point, this is a lot of information, significant information for this Council. The Council may wish to have a broad discussion in time but are there any short questions members of Council would like to ask.

Councilman Schmid said he had several questions. One, Mr. Bowman we certainly appreciate the Chambers activity here. However, if we look at this program, your work, Novi is in an excellent position today.

Mr. Bowman said I wouldn’t disagree with you.

Councilman Schmid said probably one of the best tax base communities in the tri-county area based on this growth. It’s not surprising that residential is taking off in as much as commercial came well before the residential in this particular community. In 1975 there was virtually no homes here, relatively speaking, and then Twelve Oaks came and massive commercial growth, massive industrial growth. Then later and in the last few years the residential is catching up. So you are skewing, a bit, the problem that we’re having. That’s a positive problem that the residential is now coming and we’re getting the multi thousands of dollar homes in the area. I think there’s room for looking at our Master Plan. Since 1975, that I’m aware, every planner that we’ve had one of their charges and I would ask Mr. Rogers I assume you looked at this, to take a look at this and see if we still have enough property zoned commercial, enough property zoned residential and enough property zoned industrial to eventually, and when this City grows out, to have a good tax base as you suggest. Up until now, and up until this report, it’s been my impression and I think Mr. Rogers would confirm at least from their standpoint we have sufficient property. So we may be having trouble getting some industrial property and maybe there’s some things we can do on the ordinances and so on. I do however, challenge the statement that everything is jumping onto Novi. In fact, Novi remains the fastest growing community in the tri-county area, certainly one of them. Both residential and commercial, ten months if you use figures for ten months I can understand that perhaps its been a long ten months but look at the last five years and our figures remain very positive. So Madam Mayor I am impressed with this report. I think, however, there are some things in here that have to be clarified. I think Mr. Rogers should take a look at this and see if, in fact, we’re getting off course. In fact, we have not been off course to this time. One of our problems in Novi, and I’ve been around probably as long as you players, we’re having trouble keeping the quality development coming in. We can get all kinds of development; we want quality and we’ve been very successful in doing that. Industrial I think we have to work on. Commercial I challenge if we have to actively work on that.

Councilman Schmid said one of the areas that Novi has been looking forward to for many years and it affects the schools. One way to control the tax bases is control density and that’s why in the City of Novi at least at this stage in time has designated the western half of Novi for large lots. If you have large lots you have less homes,if you have less homes you have less school children to have to supply the schools for. So we are also moving in a direction that would benefit the schools in keeping large lots and we hope to max out our community somewhere around 60,000 people instead a 100,000 or 150,000 perhaps at one time people had in their mind and which this community would hold. So as much as I appreciate your report we have to look at it carefully to be sure that the trends are quite as serious as you’ve suggested.

Councilman Toth said thank you for a very good report. However, the Master Plan was developed over a number of years and identifies percentages and we always felt, and I looked at that very deeply, that we have the right percentages of commercial, industrial and residentia property. Since my experience on the Council and my experience on the Planning Commission I have found out that we really can’t dictate development trends. At one time we had a spread of commerical development and we had a spread of multiple development and now we’re experiencing spreads of residential developments. It wasn’t to long ago that we were concerned that we were not developing enough residential at one time. Quite frankly, the City of Novi has some of the toughest residential development laws on the books and many developers have told us that it is hard to develop in the price of the property and the development costs are in there. But, that’s reflecting the quality of homes being built here and the up scale homes are selling out there. Obviously, they are selling good even though we have a water moratorium on; we can’t provide City water that they’d like to have. I find that kind of hard to say and I really think your committee should look at the Master Plan. If that document has some concerns for the EDC group and so forth I think those should be brought before us.

Councilman Toth said the other thing that has a serious impact are some of the decisions that are made in Lansing. There’s not enough research funding, there’s not enough seed money being provided in what some of these industries develop. I think some of your efforts should be concentrated in directing it towards Lansing and directing it there so at least businesses have a chance to grow. Quite honestly, the figures that you give on Wixom are probably very impressive but they are experiencing a spurt of growth that they haven’t seen in a long time. I don’t know whether I would want all that in the City of Novi. I think we have a lot of industrial area and commercial area that’s being developed and I for one have never sat at either this Council or Planning Commission and said that we were going to completely develop in ten years or five years or fifteen years. That’s entirely up to the person that purchased the property and when they decide to develop. There are some impacts, there are some tremendous impacts, on the school system.

Mayor McLallen said we’d like to thank the Chamber for bringing this forward and we will obviously chew on it for awhile and continue to explore ways that we can further some of the conversation that started here.

Mr. Bowman said that is all that we ask and look forward to that opportunity to work on further research and identifying the issues and concerns that have been expressed. While we stand comfortably by the research because they’re facts and figures primarily drawn from completely objective sources we think there is a lot of room for additional discussion and work. So, we look forward to that.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mayor McLallen said at this time City Council has a Public Hearing scheduled. The Public Hearing is for the street naming.of the existing Wixom Road and the newly constructed Wixom Road,. This hearing was at the request of Council. There had been a name proposed by the Street Naming Committee and there was some concern that, perhaps, not enough alternatives had been looked at. So, hence we are having a Public Hearing.

Mayor McLallen said if there is any member of the audience that wished to address the Council we’ll let Mr. Cohen present the issue and then we will hear from the members of the audience.

Mr. Cohen said I am here before you on behalf of the Street Naming Committee. The City Manager has asked for me to present the Committees final recommendation for the renaming of Wixom Road.

Mr. Cohen said on August 15 after considering input from property owners on Wixom Road the Committee made the following recommendation. That the extension of Wixom Road be named Wixom Road and that the "L" shaped portion of Wixom Road be renamed Dinser Drive subject to the Street Naming Appeals Board approval of the following two variances:

1. Section 31-54, Paragraph 3, "Streets intersecting at right angles should be given separate names.

It was the consensus of the Committee and those residents surveyed that the Road should remain one name.

2. Section 31-54, Paragraph 1, "Streets having center lines offset 125 ft. or less shall be given the same name. Thus the east/west portion of the existing Wixom Road would thus be called Delmont Drive.

Mr. Cohen said we determined that the east/west portion should not be called Delmont Drive

and made that decision accordingly.

Mr. Cohen said on August 28 the Street Naming Appeals Board met per the City Manager’s request. At that meeting the Appeals Board agreed with the Street Naming Committee’s recommendation and decided to grant the subject variances. The motion passed 3-0. The Committee’s next step was to present its findings in the form of a resolution to Council. This was done at your September 11 meeting. At that meeting you requested that this issue be held as a Public Hearing and that the Committee present alternative street names for you to chose from. Thus the Committee met again on September 18. The Committee now recommends the following alternatives: Dinser Drive which was our original recommendation, Grand View Drive which was a name that was recently suggested by a resident and Knapp Drive. Knapp is the historical owner of the property in that section. Thank you for your time and good luck with your decision.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Cohen would you point out for the viewing audience and, perhaps, the people that are here the three legs and what the proposed names, at this point, are.

Mr. Cohen said the extension was going to be called Wixom Road and the east/west portion of the existing Wixom Road was recommended to be called Dinser Drive and also the north/south.

Mayor McLallen said at this time are there any members of the public that wish to address the City on this issue. This is a Public Hearing.

Barry Klotz said I was here two weeks ago and the name that we submitted was not submitted by myself. What we did is I took an Atlas and came up with about 52 possible names that people could put a check mark by that they thought would be a more appropriate name than Dinser Drive. We submitted the survey to the ten residents on the east/west section. We received eight of them back and we also in the survey said you could write in a name if you didn’t like any of them. No one wrote in Dinser Drive. We received eight of them back and we submitted to Mr. Cohen our top three selections. Two of them were unable to be used as street names because, I guess, our first choice was Birchway and it conflicted with one of the other street names and he said tree names weren’t to good to use. The second one was Sunset ; I don’t know what the reason was for that. Of the eight surveys we got back five of them had chosen Grand View. What I would like to say is that the residents there are going to have to go through a lot of rigamaroll to change everything that is mailed to us and I just hope that in your decision that you take that into consideration. We got to go through a lot of stuff.

Mayor McLallen said and you are one of the residents who live on the east/west portion.

Mr. Klotz said yes.

Mayor McLallen said thank you and are there any other members of the audience that wish to address the Council.

Edna Hipp said I live on the north/south end and yes I know there will be a lot of things we’ll have to change as far as our mailing, etc. I looked on this as a new person because I haven’t been there that long but I have to say I support the City’s decision as far as Dinser Drive and I support it for several reasons. I support it because as an owner/mother I look at emergency vehicles trying to find me and emergency vehicles around this town and other towns that I have contacted know where Dinser’s are. If I need them they’re going to find me. I feel it’s very important; they have been there along time and have earned that right and I support that in here. I do understand about the name changes but that’s just something that we’ve been very fortunate to have and it doesn’t happen very often in the City to change a street name but usually it is after some body who is existing in the area or on that street for a long time. Thank you.

Del Meyers said I’ve lived on the north/south side of Dinser for ten years now. I personally voted for Old Wixom but the letter we got back was six voted for Dinser Drive and five voted for Old Wixom, which for some reason was ruled out. I have no problem with Dinser Drive and I’ve lived next store to them for ten years. I don’t know where the other name came from except from the east/west side of the town. I thought 6-5 meant it was a done deal.

Mayor McLallen said are there any other members of the audience, this is a Public Hearing, that wish to express their view on the naming of these roads? Seeing none, I will close the Public Hearing at this time and ask Council to address this as Item 1A under Matters for Council action.

Councilman Toth said it requires an amended agenda.

Mayor McLallen said yes, we should amend the agenda but we don’t take action during a Public Hearing.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting of September 11, 1995, and Special Meeting of September 18, 1995 - September 11 Removed by Councilman Mitzel

2. Communications from Robert Clarke, ABC Cab, Re: MVRs - Refer to Staff for Report

and Recommendation - Removed by Councilman Crawford

3. Ordinance 905-18.125 - Amendment - an Ordinance to amend Section 202 of Ordinance No. 84.18, as amended, to amend Article 3 of said Ordinance, to amend the "Schedule Limiting Height, Bulk, Density and Area by Zoning District: contained within Section 2400 of said Ordinance, to amend subsection 2402.2 of said Ordinance, and to amend the RA Designation contained within he Zoning Map of said Ordinance, to Identify the RA Zoning District as a Residential Acreage Zoning District and to revise the purpose of said District - II READING

4. Ordinance 95-18.124 - Amendment - Amend Article 21 of Ordinance 84-18, Standards for uses within the P-1 Zoning District - II READING

5. Authorization to prepare an agreement between the City and Holtzman & Silverman Realty Company for cost participation - associated with the proposed Meadowbrook Road ditch Enclosure adjacent to the Munn Landfill site.

6. Approval of the Six-Year Road Program and Authorizing Resolution - Removed by Councilman Toth

7. Recommendation to reject bids for the 1995 Bituminous Paving Program and re-bid in

conjunction with the 1996 Bituminous Paving Program in the Spring of 1996

8. Approval of RFP to Farrand and Associates in the amount of $15,400 for Recreation Facility Design Services North Novi Park Planning - Removed by Councilman Mitzel

9. Reject the Proposal of Michigan Dek Hockey Incorporated for Roller Dek Hockey on

City Property

10. Approve Application for Pinball Arcade License Renewal - Novi Bowl and Recreation, 21700 Novi Road

11. Award Bid for Interior Office Construction to Dennis Building Services in the Amount of $5,703.00

12. Document Acceptance and Adoption of Resolutions:

A. 13 Mile Road Improvements

1. Driveway Grading Permit - George & Mary Thompson, $100.00

2. Driveway Grading Permit - Robert & Francine DeLauder, $200.00

3. Driveway Grading Permit - John & Marilyn Woodruff, $4,575.00

B. Mystic Forest Subdivision

1. Drainage Easement - Riggio Development, Gift

WHEREAS, Riggio Development, are the Owners of certain real property located in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a Drainage Easement attached hereto and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property; the rights setforth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and Benefit.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of the Drainage Easement attached hereto.

C. Autumn Park Subdivision

1. Storm Sewer & Drainage Easement - Trinity/Novi Development, Gift

WHEREAS, Trinity/Novi Development, are the Owners of certain real property located In the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a Drainage Easement attached hereto and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property; the rights setforth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and benefit.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of the Drainage Easement attached hereto

D. Andover Pointe Subdivision

1. Drainage Easement - R & R at Andover Pointe, Gift

WHEREAS, R & R at Andover Pointe, Inc., are the Owners of certain real property Located in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a Drainage Easement attached hereto and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property; the rights setforth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and benefit.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of the Drainage Easement attached hereto.

2. Drainage Easement - R & R at Andover Pointe, Gift

WHEREAS, R & R at Andover Pointe, Inc. Are the Owners of certain real property Located in the City of Novi, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, as described in a Drainage Easement attached hereto and made a part hereof; and

WHEREAS, Owner desires to voluntarily convey (said property; the rights setforth in said easement) to the City of Novi for public purposes; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that said conveyance is in the publics interest and benefit.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of the Drainage Easement attached hereto.

E. Miscellaneous

1. Release & Indemnity Agreement - Palmer & Lisbeth McKenney

2. Release & Indemnity Agreement - Chei Long Tsai

13. Schedule time of Special Joint City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of October 9, 1995, for 7:30 pm

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Consent Agenda Items 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and Item #1 September 18 minutes only be approved.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I

Mayor McLallen said at this time we’ll move to Matters for Council Action Part I. This is the appropriate time to take action on the street naming. The proposal this eveing was to name the continuation of the north/south leg of Wixom Road; I think that was proposed to be continued as Wixom Road, the east/west piece and the easterly portion.

Mr. Kriewall said our recommendation was for its entirety to be Dinser Drive.

Councilman Schmid said the entire road?

Mayor McLallen said the Administrative recommendation was to name the east/west portion and the old north/south portion all Dinser Drive. We have heard other comments this evening. That was the Administrative report.

Councilman Mitzel said I do have a question for the Appeals Board, Street Naming Appeals Board.

Mayor McLallen said, Mr. Cohen?

Councilman Mitzel said were you a member of the Appeals Board?

Mr. Cohen said no I’m not but I was at that meeting.

Councilman Mitzel said you mentioned there were two variances that the appeals board granted one which was concerning the streets but right angles should have different names and the other streets have a center line continually. In the criteria for the appeals one of the criteria was undue hardship if this would be followed. I never saw any mention of what the undue hardship would be if we were to follow our own ordinance.

Mr. Cohen said the Appeals Board never really formally stated their reason other than the fact that they felt that that was the best way of doing it. The main concern was confusion even though that’s the ordinance. In this particular situation several residents had called myself and we had some people stop in and they were concerned about having two separate names and having confusion finding their house. They want to keep it the way it was, one road. Then we started thinking is this going to be confusing for dispatch if we have two roads there? So that’s how, I presume, they came up with their decision.

Councilman Mitzel said I was looking at the original survey results and the top two for the east/west were Old Wixom Road and then Delmont and Delmont would comply with the ordinance. Then the top two for the old north/south were Dinser Drive as the gentlement pointed out and Old Wixom Road. It was mentioned that Old Wixom Road was too similar to Wixom Road and that’s why that one was rejected. So, it seems that in the survey Delmont and Dinser Drive were originally the two most popular for the east/west and north/south.

Mr. Cohen said it really depends on how you intrepret the survey. If you look at it from how many people voted for Old Wixom on both sides of the road you’ll find that 5 or 6 people wanted the whole road to be completely one road. Even the fact that, also, people called us and were concerned about the confusion. We felt that maybe it should stay one road as Dinser Drive and the Appeals Board agreed with our decision, our recommendation.

Councilman Mitzel said no questions at this point. At what point do you want a motion?

Mayor McLallen said anytime.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To accept the recommendation that the new extension of Wixom Road be named Wixom Road.

Mayor McLallen said its been moved and supported to name the continuation of the north/south leg of Wixom Road Wixom Road from 11 Mile all the way down to 10 Mile. Is there any further discussion on that leg?

Councilman Schmid said it is certainly late in the discusssion. I’m not suggesting that I won’t support it but its a shame that we can’t get a name that doesn’t denote Novi as opposed to Wixom. We have confusion on the south half of the City with Northville mailing addresses and so forth and so on. Now we have a Wixom Road and every body will think they are in Wixom. I guess there’s nothing we can do about that. There was never any suggestion to change that whole name?

Mr. Kriewall said they set a back up change.

Councilman Schmid said to each one? What’s Wixom spelled backwards?

Councilman Toth said I kind of favor the idea of sending this back and changing the entire road. In looking at it I would probably be in favor of leaving the old part of Wixom Road as Wixom Road and changing the new part that we put in and renaming that entire strip. People are actually getting a new road and perhaps getting a new name for it and I’m of the opinion that we should try to make the changes now. The people that live on the existing unpaved portion of Wixom Road should probably just leave that Wixom Road then and change the new route into something more suitable to represent some of the more historical aspects of the area or perhaps something else. I kind of like Bob’s suggestion and I don’t think it’s ever too late. Somebody’s going to be impacted no matter what we do tonight and right now the impact should be on the road that we just developed.

Mr. Kriewall said I think it’s important to find out that for the residents on the old Wixom Road, I think it’s to their advantage to have the new stretch of Wixom Road named Wixom Road because most of the traffic will end up staying on Wixom Road and that’s why we straightened it out in the first place. I think if you leave the old Wixom Road Wixom Road and name the new Wixom Road Beachwood Drive everybody’s going to drive on the old Wixom Road looking for Beachwood Road. That would really get confusing.

Councilwoman Mason said first I don’t agree with Mr. Kriewall. I think that the purpose of straightening it out was to bring it north/south and have another through road. Is that correct?

Mr. Kriewall said yes.

Councilwoman Mason said yes, it had nothing to do with names. Second, I don’t care for the Administration coming up with a name that people have to live with. Absolutely not. I’ve been here 36 years so now I’ll look for Mason St. Max Sheldon, there, we should name something for him cause he’s been here longer than me. So I think that that is not OK and I agree that we should leave Wixom Road Wixom Road, rename the new one that we just paid to pave. My question to Mr. Cohen is who’s on that appeal board?

Mr. Cohen said representatives from the Police Department, Fire Department and Water and Sewer and the Department of Public Services.

Councilwoman Mason said right, so it has nothing to do with all these residents that have to change their address. When five people out of six come up with a name I cannot understand why three representatives from this City do not listen to those citizens. I think that’s the thing that happens all the time. It’s up to those citizens who have to live with that and pay those taxes to rename those streets. That’s all I have to say at this point.

Mayor McLallen said, at this point, there is a motion on the floor which was to name the north/south complete road from 10 Mile to 11 Mile Wixom Road. Is there any further discussion on that particular motion?

Mayor McLallen said all those in favor of the motion which is the naming of the entire mile segment Wixom Road please signify by saying aye.

Yes (4) No (2-Mason-Toth) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

Councilman Toth said in the packet of information that we received, there’s some names to avoid when naming the streets. Now, I happen to live on a street that’s named after a tree and I wonder what you have against naming streets after trees in the City of Novi.

Mr. Cohen said that particular list was put together by the Committee merely, because historically, most the streets were named after trees, bridge, forest, whatever is on that list and the whole idea of creating that list is to pass it on to people coming in with subdivisions, developers. Stay away from these names we already got enough of them, you’re just going to come into our Committee and you’re going to get turned down. Come up with something creative and that’s the reason why we try to avoid those names. They’re already existing names.

Councilman Toth said I could see not naming one after President Clinton but other than that some of these other names on there, forest, bridge, woods, lake, those are quite popular. I do find on your map there’s an awful lot of confusing names. You have Birchwood Dr., Birchwood Ct., Warrington Drive, Warrington Ct., there seems to be a lot of duplications in some of these subdivisions that the Street Naming Committee seems to overlook.

Mr. Cohen said that’s why that list was made on June 6, 1995.

Councilman Toth said have you considered any other ideas for renaming that’s to be in concert with what you have on the survey, the Old Wixom Road or Old Wixom Lane.

Mr. Cohen said we really wanted to use Old Wixom Road. The problem with that is there’s a police department and fire department on our Committee and they were saying wait a second this is going to cause confusion for us. We’re going to have someone going down Wixom Road when they are suppose to be an Old Wixom Road and someone might die. It’s a pretty serious situation and not only do we have this ordinance in place, true you need to get some variances there and there, but the main idea is to get rid of conflicting street names. In my opinion it doesn’t make sense to have Old Wixom Road and Wixom Road right next to each other. It just will cause confusion. Secondly, from a planning aspect it would be good to get away from the industrial/commercial name and get one or two residential names. Now, some people disagree with Dinser as being a residential name but it is truly more residential then Wixom road or Old Wixom.

Councilman Toth said the funny part is if I go down there a year from now and talk to those residents they’re all going to refer to that as Old Wixom Road. No matter what we call it now it’s still going to be referred, probably for the next 20 years, as Old Wixom road. Even the dispatchers will probably refer to it as Old Wixom Road. They’re going to ask them if they live on New Wixom Road or Old Wixom Road even though we call it something else. We know that from past experience.

Councilman Crawford said this all seems so logical to me I don’t know why we are reinventing the wheel here. It was entirely logical to name the portion that we just recently paved and extended to the south Wixom Road which would be a continuance of the road that is approximately 3 miles long. It also seems very logical to me to name the east/west portion Delmont Drive which would continue easterly from Wixom Road and run right into the present Delmont Drive. There would be no confusion there; that is the second choice of the residents also. The first choice, Old Wixom Road, has been stted it is not an appropriate name because of the confusion. The north/south portion of the Old Wixom road, number 3 on out map it’s not up there, seems most appropriate to be Dinser Drive which is also the request of the residents. All of those requests would conform with our ordinances. Therefore,

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the east/west portion be renamed Delmont Drive and that the north/south portion that we have yet to rename be called Dinser Drive.

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

1. Appeal of Water Late Fees - Mrs. Diane Casanova

Mr. Kriewall said Council had been provided with a history of the appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Casanova regarding the late charges they have not paid to date; and those have been rolling along. The summary of the Water and Sewer Department provided to City Council indicated that we cannot be responsible for the mail in terms of notification and the Water and Sewer Department seems to be following the proper procedures. However, the Casanova’s appeal is based on the fact that they claim that they did not receive the initial water bill in the mail and that they shouldn’t be responsible for paying the late charge so assessed. I think at issue and what drives the Water Department position in this instance is that any body that every wanted to pay their water bill late would tell you that it was lost in the mail and that becomes a legal problem in terms of operating a department. So our City Attorney probably needs to respond to the complexities that that generates and quite frankly that is the standard excuse that everybody uses whether they received their water bill or not is that it got lost in the mail. I would point out that some of the water bills are rather large that get lost in the mail, for mobile home parks, Guardian Photo, and the amount of the late charge is a substantial sum of money in some instances. I think we have to have a uniform approach to how we assess late charges and establish our billing procedures and we follow conventional municipal norms that are adopted throughout the state, to my knowledge. So, it is really more of a legal question or a question of appeal that Council could probably rule on at this time. But, I believe that any appeal that’s brought to City Council and looked at in the light of something lost in the mail has some significant ramifications. So, that’s kind of the history of the situation but I will tell you that we normally cannot waiver in terms of late fees be it on water bills or even tax bills because the standard excuse, normally, is that something got lost in the mail.

Mayor McLallen said the appropriate body to have any party contest that, is this Council?

Mr. Kriewall said apparently.

Mayor McLallen said that is why this issue has come to the Council.

Councilman Toth said he would like a ruling on this; it is an Administrative matter that seems to be tossed onto our table here. I would like the City Attorney to come in on just under what arrangement do we have the appeal of water fees. Since those fees are established normally by ordinance, those are handled by the Administration and the appeal process should be some Administrative procedure and I don’t understand why its been brought to the Council here. I would like an attorney’s opinion on this before we proceed.

Mr. Watson said I think the reason it came here is because there is no appeal board or appeal body set up within the ordinance to otherwise handle these matters. There’s a provision in the ordinance that calls for people to be charged service charges for the water, there is a provision for delinquent fees if the payments aren’t made on time. There’s no provision for them taking an appeal from that. So what you have is a general appeal section within your code that says in lieu of a particular appeals action that you have an appeal to the City Council. It says "an appeal may be taken to the City Council by any person adversely affected by and claiming error in any order, requirement, permit decision or refusal of an administrative officer carrying out or enforcing the provisions of the code." So, for lack of a specific body set up to handle this kind of stuff it comes to the City Council.

Councilman Toth said I understand what was said but I also think this Council should direct the City Administration to come up with an appropriate appeal process, run it through the Ordinance Review Board, get it in as a policy because I don’t think this Council should see this type of information coming across our table every time some body has a problem with their water bill.

Mayor McLallen asked if Councilman Toth would like to make a motion to that effect.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

To direct the Administration to establish an appeal process.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said is that intended to be the answer to this problem? Are we going to postpone a decision on this problem until that’s resolved?

Councilman Toth said no, right now what I want to do is prevent having more of these problems come across this Council table. I mean that’s direction to the City Administration to start handling this, make sure there’s an appeal process in place and to go through the proper channels. Go through the Ordinance Review and, you know, all . . .

Mr. Kriewall said you would have to adopt an ordinance on it.

Councilman Crawford said I agree with that motion but we still need to address this problem.

Councilman Toth said and we will still address this tonight.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Kriewall. This is the first instance I recall having this come during the last two years. How often does a situation like this get to the Council table?

Mr. Kriewall said it was the only time it’s ever been to the Council table in 25 years.

Councilman Mitzel said OK. So, I guess I’m not certain if we need to write a whole ordinance section to handle something that’s happened once in 25 years. So I won’t support the motion. Thank you.

Councilman Toth said number 1 there should be an appeal process in place for any administrative matters. There should not be just a blanket catchall and bring it before Council. That should be a last resort and I am not asking that in stating that this just be for water problems but any problems, any ordinance that we have should have an adequate appeal process. That’s just a simple administrative matter and if you’re not going to pass the administration the right to do the administration then your going to be saddled with all the administration work and that’s not necessarily the role of the Council.

Mayor McLallen asked is there any further comment or discussion on the motion as stated? All those in favor of directing the City Administration to send through the appropriate review process to establish a policy for an appropriate appeal process please signify by saying Yea.

Yes (5) No (1-Mitzel) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said as Mr. Crawford correctly pointed out there is still the issue of the specific appeal that is in front of us. What’s the pleasure of Council?

Councilman Toth said we are talking about what kind of monies and . . .

Mayor McLallen said $7.95.

Councilman Toth said he would listen to the rest of Council.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the appeal of late fees be denied

Mayor McLallen asked for any further discussion.

Councilman Mitzel said, Mr. Watson could you comment on what Mr. Kriewall indicated about precedence whether appeals granted on a request such as this.

Mr. Watson said I think Mr. Kriewalls concerns a correct one and that’s not so much whether you grant relief or not in a particular case but whether that case has some outstanding reason to indicated that there’s an error, that there was a problem in the procedure followed. It would appear from what’s been submitted to you is that the people claim that they didn’t get it in the mail but there’s nothing to indicate either from the administration or elsewhere that there’s been a problem getting things out in the mail. I think as long as you have records that the bills are being sent out in the mail that there’s really no way to distinguish one case from another when somebody tells you simply that they didn’t get it. Water bills are something that come on a quarterly basis, it’s something people can expect to get and anticipate to get and if they don’t receive them can make some inquiry into that. So, in the absence of something to indicate that there’s a problem from the City’s end in getting these bills out its just a practical problem more than anything else trying to distinguish one claim from another.

Councilman Mitzel said thank you.

Councilman Crawford said that’s precisely why I made that motion. Assuming it was lost in the mail, however, an Edison bill, cable bill, a tax bill may be lost in the mail and we, if we had the authority, could not grant waivers on all those just because someone said it was lost. So, I sympathize with them but I think it would be very dangerous to start granting exceptions when someone does not receive a bill for whatever reason.

Mayor McLallen said the motion was to deny the request for an appeal.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilwoman Mason said, I just wanted to mention that at this point we should be through these first three items for Council Action Part - I. So, we are running quite far behind for every body’s benefit.

Mayor McLallen said, thank you for that comment Ms. Mason.

Mayor McLallen said the Council packet contained a series of maps dated this spring showing the extensions.

Mr. Nowicki said in August of this year Council delayed some action or postponed it regarding a request from the developer to design a sewer down Nine Mile Rd. That delay/postponement was pending some more information and discussion regarding sewer capacity and sizing in the Nine Mile Road area. Here, tonight, is Frank Naglich of JCK. Frank has done most the capacity analysis on the entire system and right now we will introduce Frank and have him come up and go over some of the information he has found.

Mr. Naglich said you should have in your packet a memo that I prepared some time back indicating that there is sufficient capacity in Novi’s outlet sewers and treatment plants to provide for ultimate development within the City based on current zoning. Based upon that conclusion we have drawn a map that you also have in your packet indicating concepts of where additional sanitary sewers would be provided in the future within the City.

Mayor McLallen said this map essentially shows the existing system by a series of keys. The existing system and existing boundaries and proposals that actually exceed the boundaries but are still capable of happening.

Mr. Naglich said that was correct.

Mayor McLallen said does the Council have any questions on the information given to us?

This is given to Council in preparation of some development initiatives so that we will have an understanding of capacity.

Councilwoman Mason said this was not an action item tonight right? This is simply a presentation.

Mayor McLallen said no it was simply a presentation.

Councilwoman Mason said I did go through the one study, January 28, 1994, and I came up with, when looking at the totals, I came up with 3,090 units left where you had 5,800. So I just wanted to point that out that was the first page. Second page, was under G "it should be understood that the capacity analysis has not addressed the capacity needed for any of the sanitary sewer arms or sub trunks that will have to be extended or may need relief to serve future development. These needs can be studied as development proposals are presented." But I feel that those needs have to be studied, in my opinion, prior to any development proposals; so we can see where we stand with the amount of money that we’ll be spending and the amount of money a developer would be spending. So, I would encourage us to look to see where the fees come from where we can do a better study. The report of January, 1994 concluded "however, it was indicated there in the capacity of the City sewers that would have to be extended to accommodate the area may require detailed studies to determine our sufficiency." Once again, I think we have to look into that before we go any further with any, you know, with any request from any developer. So, I think that we should get it all together a little better, in a better form, before we can tell a developer that they can tie it to the sewer. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Mr. Naglich said, yes that’s true we should look at all these in detail. However, the timing is so important if we do that well in advance of knowing where the developments are, what density they would propose, what the street layout is and such it would require complete changes after we get this information. I think it’s something that can be done readily in advance of the development and developments . . .

Councilwoman Mason said right because I think we pretty much know where those developments are going to come in. We know who owns the property and we know who is going to be asking for sewers. I don’t think anybody that could tie in would want a septic tank, you know, in each one of those homes if they can have a sewer there.

Mr. Naglich said yes. The concept map here does show the sewers in general layouts and they can be refined quite readily when the time comes. As a matter of fact we do have more information on the Nine Mile Road sewer in hand tonight. Because that proposal is eminent.

Councilwoman Mason said I would like more in-depth and the Council to have,.

Councilman Schmid asked is this all there is? Is that all your going to say all night long?

Is this the report?

Mr. Naglich said if you have questions I’d be happy to answer them.

Councilman Schmid said is every body done?

Mr. Foyt, JCK, said also in your packet you were given a couple of district maps

that were labeled the Nine Mile Sewer. Those two maps show districts, SAD Districts, that have been established for the Nine Mile Road Project. When that Nine Mile Sewer went in it was essentially going west of Taft Road. That sewer line was put in, there was a cross country piece that went through Section 28; that sizing is adequate to take any development out to Napier Road. We sized that line. There was essentially a bottle neck when we did the development along the Nine Mile sewer and that’s where we have the Center St. sewer. A small bottle neck that would have possibly been the controlling key holding back development out towards West to Napier was up- graded. So, that’s why you do have two SAD Districts that kind of overlap. There’s one district established for the Nine Mile sewer itself but then an overall larger SAD. Right now we are anticipating that the tap fees on that were 50 bucks a tap and that would cover that whole district. That’s what’s laid out on these two maps. There is capacity within the line to take it all the way out to Napier if you all want to.

Councilman Schmid said you just said tap fee what? $50 a tap?

Mr. Foyt said right. There was estimated, and again on the bottom notes on these two sheets they show you the estimated tap fees for both of those districts.

Councilman Schmid said let me be sure I understand this. Your suggesting that you could put a sewer from Beck Road to Napier Road with a pumping station, which is going to be required, and so forth for 50 bucks a tap?

Mr. Foyt said no, sir. The upgrade that would have been the bottle neck in that system was replaced that would have eliminated any kind of sewer capacity problem down stream. There’s no lines in these SAD’s west of Beck Road. Everything is between Beck Road and Taft. The $50 SAD tap fee was for the small bottle neck that was existing along Center St. that was taken out and upgraded. That’s part of the Nine Mile SAD Project. So the way it stands right now any pipe that’s in ground has the capacity to service any development out towards Napier.

Mr. Kriewall said this matter was brought to City Council because there was some Council concerns about a prior proposal to have a developer funded sewer brought westerly of Beck Road out to Napier Road. I guess, Gary, nobody’s really answered the question is this in conformance with what we are trying to do with the Master Plan and building sewers in western Novi?

Mr. Foyt said the Master Plan, if you want to talk to that Frank, I mean we do have capacity in the system, we have capacity internal within the lines to take the sewers out west. There’s not going to be anything along Nine Mile . . .

Mr. Kriewall said but your firm has seen the developer’s proposal, tentative proposal, you’ve gone to a subdivision meeting and looked at what they are proposing to build westerly to Beck Road to service that area near Napier Road. Does it reasonably conform to what our plans are?

Mr. Foyt said they are proposing to put in a lift station. That area, essentially anything west of Beck Road wants to fall and drain towards the west. I mean, there is a break point and that portion of the City is in the Huron River Watershed it’s not in the Rouge River Watershed where predominantly the rest of the City remains. So, everything gravity wise wants to flow to the west. The Master Plan called for ultimately that region out there to be serviced by lift stations and that is the concept that he is looking to bring and try to develop by putting the small lift station, forcing it back upgrade and tying into the Nine Mile sewer just west of Beck.

Councilwoman Mason said the thing is Mr. Kriewall again, and I love you dearly but you are not the DPW.

Mr. Kriewall said I used to be.

Councilwoman Mason said you were but you always, like bring this in when we’re doing something like this. This is very serious. We didn’t have water at Ten Mile and Taft a couple of years ago. Are we not going to have sewer capacity for the people who already live here? This is very serious. I think we have to do a better research; this paper tells me nothing, I could have written it, I’m not an engineer. I think the engineers have to give this a serious look along with the DPW. You have to give us a serious look about true capacity, how the people who live here already are affected and how well this system is going to work for the new subdivisions coming in. This is no little thing this is another hughee like the water. You can’t go dig wells for sewer, you know?

Mr. Kriewall said he thought we had that report.

Councilwoman Mason said I have never seen, recently, tied into this an in-depth report regarding this situation.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Kriewall was mentioning a Master Plan that the City has for sewers west of Beck Road. Are you familiar with the Master Plan that the City has for sewers west of Beck Road.

Mr. Foyt said yes; this is what we propose as the Master Plan.

Councilman Schmid said just the Nine Mile sewer.

Mr. Foyt said this includes the Nine Mile sewer.

Councilman Schmid said where’s the rest of the Master Plan?

Mr. Foyt said it was just refined in the recent days to fit this Master Plan.

Councilman Schmid said I understand there is capacity at Beck Road and East. Mr. Kriewall was trying to get you to say that there was a Master Plan west of Beck Road that we have seen, that you have developed. I’m not talking about this request that was made a couple three years ago, four or five or six years ago to look at Nine Mile sewers. I’m talking about a Master Plan of the City of Novi for sewage capacity west of Beck Road. Is there such a thing?

Mr. Foyt said that is what this Master Plan falls; yes.

Councilman Schmid said this is not a Master Plan this is one sewer that goes from Beck Road to Napier Road. That’s not a Master Plan for sewer. Is there a Master Plan? This is an easy question. Is there a Master Plan in the City of Novi for sewer capacity west of Beck Road?

Mr. Naglich said this was it.

Councilman Schmid said one sewer?

Mr. Naglich said this is the whole Master Plan.

Councilman Schmid said and will these districts designate the sewers?

Mr. Foyt said there are two maps and both that Master Plan that Mr. Toth is looking at is really sized and based on the current zoning . . .

Councilman Schmid said the Master Plan for the whole western half is it going to be service from Nine Mile Road and Beck?

Mr. Foyt said no.

Councilman Schmid said is it true that everything, almost everything, west of Beck Road is going to have to be pumped?

Mr. Foyt said generally that’s so, yes.

Councilman Schmid said so there’s no gravity flow from there?

Mr. Foyt said very little.

Councilman Schmid said I don’t want you to speak of it tonight but at some point in time you should be speaking of what a pumping station is and the cost of it and the maintenance of it and some of the things that the original sewer installation will not be covering down the road or may not cover. Maybe you’ll figure that into that. Beyond that, and perhaps Mr. Kriewall is going to have to write a memorandum or something as to the reasons why we are looking west Beck Road for a sewer capacity. At one point in time, at least, and I think I said this last time, that there was no plans to put sewer west of Beck Road at least in the immediate future thinking, and I understand there’s some troubles with septic in some of those particular areas. This is all RA or large lot one acre or more zoning. The second question, if there is ever anything brought forward there has to be a cost estimate as to what it would cost based on the present zoning per tap, per acre of buildable land. Then that has to be in the equation to see if it’s even remotely affordable.

Mr. Foyt said what has happened in the past in many areas, many cities and communities, is private developers have extended sewer lines to serve their properties at no cost to the communities themselves.

Councilman Schmid said I know that, Mr. Harris wants to do that in this case or he wants to study it at least but he isn’t building it yet and he’s not going to take care of the pumping of it, probably. Right? I don’t know I’m asking you.

Mr. Foyt said I don’t know either. I don’t know about that particular situation.

Councilman Schmid said so those are some of the questions that have to come forward and at some point this Council is going to have to make a decision whether they want sewers west of Beck Road.

Mr. Foyt said that’s correct.

Councilman Schmid said and down Nine Mile Road, although I see it curves a bit, taking out all the trees and so forth as you put sewers in. This is going down the road, right?

Mr. Foyt said the question that we were asked was is there enough capacity in the City system to provide for development throughout the City.

Councilman Schmid said I’m sorry and I concur there’s probably capacity. If that was the only question, thank you.

Councilman Mitzel said I believe that, as the discussion was just talking about this Master Plan, it’s a proposed plan as of right now. Council has never officially adopted any Sanitary Master Plan. Is that correct?

Mr. Foyt said not that I know of.

Councilman Mitzel said so this is just a proposed plan similar to what came forward last April 25. Mr. Fried had recommended that if Council wasn’t going to adopt it it say proposed as you put on this map.

Mr. Foyt said that’s what we’ve done.

Councilman Mitzel said I have a question for Mr. Watson; at some point it would be helpful, at least to me as a Council Member, to know what benefits and disadvantages there are to leaving the plan as proposed and never adopted or going the step and actually adopting the plan. I don’t expect a verbal response right now but you may be able to give us some pointers as to what we should be looking for here. That may help in deciding whether issues, such as what was brought forward with the Nine Mile Road, should be pursued because that was my concern. Does this proposal for Nine Mile Road follow our proposed Master Plan. But yet we hadn’t adopted a Master Plan and at what point if we start implementing the proposed plan do we, by default, adopt it and those types of concerns.

Councilman Mitzel said another question that I brought up when we had postponed that action was whether or not when the sewer were to be built down Nine Mile if any properties there on septic tanks would be required to tap into it. I had heard some verbal indications that they probably would but it would still be nice to have an answer on that because I’m not sure how that will play depending on distance to the road and such of the residents.

Councilman Mitzel said my final question tonight was, I believe Mr. Foyt had mentioned that there was a SAD for $50 a tap to reimburse the upgrade section. Isthat actually an SAD or is that a payback district? I’m a little confused on the terminology, but . . .

Mr. Foyt said it’s a payback agreement and I think the City Attorney would be in a better position to answer that.

Councilman Mitzel said OK.

Mr. Foyt said there are two, and maybe if Dennis, can you help me.

Mr. Watson said yes. When the Center St. improvement was made and when the Nine Mile Road infrastructure was put in it was determined that that would be a benefit to areas that weren’t immediately benefitted but were farther to the west. So, determination was made to spread a certain amount of that cost over those areas farther to the west and I think that’s the $50 that we’re talking about. That’s basically a contribution to over sizing it so it will take those flows eventually. It’s really not an SAD it’s just there will be a payback charge or tap charge attributable to that.

Councilman Mitzel said that would only have happened if the sewer were to be extended to there and that area would be serviced.

Mr. Watson said correct.

Councilman Mitzel said if we were not to extend the service to that area that amount of money would, I suppose, be paid for out of the Sewer and Water Fund; and would it be reimbursed then?

Councilman Mitzel said thank you.

Mr. Kapelczak, JCK, said if I may just have one comment, just one little short comment. When Mr. Naglich did the capacity study throughout the City he used your current Master Plan Zoning and I think that as the City goes through its development that they should carefully watch that capacity with zoning. It has to be watched because obviously if the zoning or any density increases come into play it will crucially react upon the capacity of your sanitary sewers. So that should be watched very closely. That’s just a point that I didn’t see that should be watched.

Mr. Nowicki said what’s happening to this proposal right now is the developer had requested that our engineers, JCK and Associates, design the project for them and that would be to extend the sewer from approximately Beckenham west to Napier or where ever else they would need to tie into that system. That was the essential request; at least that came to me. The request that I had put forth to Council was if Council wanted to entertain that then the first option would be the preparation of agreement between the City of Novi and the developer that would fund the feasibility analysis, that would fund the design of it and in order to accomplish that task make sure that there would be no financial drains upon the City itself and that it would all be developer funded.

Mayor McLallen said it has been brought up this evening that this is a proposed sewer plan that this Council has not been formally presented with. So, it’s going to be very difficult for this Council to make decisions on a isolated portion of the plan without a comprehension and quite frankly probably an adoption of the Master Plan. It appears that we are getting horses and carts mixed up. I understand the pressure to look at this and the need to look at this but a number of questions have been raised and so as the administrator in charge of this system I’m asking for information from you; which do you see as the most beneficial. Shall your department educate this Council on the benefits and cost to the City of this proposed plan and then highlight the sub costs of the specific area that’s being requested?

Mr. Nowicki said we can do that if Council wants and there would be a cost associated with it and part of that cost can be rolled into an agreement between the developer and have him or that particular developer fund the feasibility analysis which would get us to the point of evaluating the environmental impacts of that proposed design. It would allow either JCK or the engineer of choice, whoever, to review again the capacities, to look at what’s there, the options. Again, one of the big concerns that we have is of course the road and the environmental impacts and that could be evaluated through this agreement and again at no cost to the City. That would be my intent and hope.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Nowicki just as a point of information all of the sewer on this map is a single color and yet probably everything east of Beck Road and south of Grand River is an as built situation. Correct?

Mr. Nowicki said yes I believe so.

Mayor McLallen said so it might be helpful to see what the future is because the large portion of that Master Plan adopted or unadopted is actually built. Is that correct?

Mr. Nowicki said the majority of it is built, yes.

Mayor McLallen said those are just issues that I feel emanating from this Council this evening and since this is an information only are there other issues we want to send back to Administration and we can wrap this up fairly quickly?

Councilman Toth said we currently have 8 existing pump stations in the system right now and 2 proposed pump stations and your proposal on the west side is for another 6 lift stations?

Mr. Foyt and Mr. Naglich said right.

Councilman Toth said explain for me and the audience what the difference is for a pump station and lift station and then what’s the maintenance on both of them.

Mr. Foyt said the lift stations and pump stations are needed because the sewers are normally put in at grade or on a gravity grade so that you have gravity working with you, water rolls down hill and it’s essentially collected at some larger transmission main and then taken off to the treatment plant. The main intercept for all sewer leaving Novi is in the Rouge River Watershed in the south easterly section of town. Around the Beck Road area generally is a dividing line between the Rouge Watershed and the Huron Watershed. Natural grade west of Beck Road wants to fall to the west. In other words, if the water drops on the ground it’s going to run in that direction to the west. Everything east of that generally flows in a south easterly direction. When the sewers are put in the ground they are laid at grade so that they drain because you’ve got the top of the earth wanting to go to the west and the sewers want to flow to the west. Now, to get the sewers collected at a point you have to lift them and bring them back up hill and that’s where your lift stations or pump stations come into play. They actually collect the water, the waste water, in a central point and then pump it back up hill to the first spot that you can get back into your gravity drains that will then drain it to the east and onto the treatment plant. The maintenance cost of those generally is your electricity cost. If you get into some of the larger lift stations, pump stations like the one we just put in on Meadowbrook Road you also have standby generators. It was such a large lift station any power outage could be very damaging to the whole wastewater system. Smaller the lift station the smaller the cost but you are faced with long term maintenance, long term utility costs with each one of those lift stations and that really boils down to the size of the lift station. The larger the one the bigger the cost; the smaller one the smaller the cost. Everything else as far as the pumps that’s a one time cost but you do have to continue its maintenance and those dollars.. What you could anticipate on an annual type usage for maintenance we can get you that information I just don’t have it with me tonight.

Mayor McLallen said any further comment Mr. Toth.

Councilman Toth said that’s all I have right now except that the lift stations that you have, you have six of them in line to take it over Garfield Road basically. Do we have enough gravity from Garfield over to Beck.

Mr. Foyt said the districts almost mirror image the Storm water Master Plan. If you look at how the Storm water basins are set up the district more or less follows those general same areas. The reasons for the number of lift stations will be because you do have some higher elevations between districts and you can’t go far enough west to bring the districts back together. You know Napier is the City limits line. You would have the same thing if we had another six miles to the west you would have been able to bring all those things in the Huron River Watershed and more or less follow the line of drain down to some central point and at that point pick it up and pump it back east. But because it’s only 2 miles from Beck to Napier, not enough distance to bring those watersheds back together.

Councilman Toth said thank you.

Councilman Schmid said I am probably going to repeat myself but assuming this is even going to be looked at by this Council and when they’re talking about cost of lift stations it’s a whole lot more than electricity and you know that. It’s a great deal of maintenance and electricity is probably the cheapest item that would be involved. Are you ever going to have to replace the pump?

Mr. Foyt no we said maintenance . . . .

Councilman Schmid said OK. I think we need to know the number of uses and based on the present zoning, they are one acre lots at minimum so it would be pretty easy to calculate how many uses you’re going to need in the whole western part of Novi. Once you have determined the number of uses it’s going to be really easy to calculate if you can afford to put that type of sewer capacity in that area with pumping stations and so forth which may in itself stop the project. Assuming that the zoning stays the same and the Chamber today spoke very accurately, I think, when they said you’ve got to be careful on your residential when you’re talking about maintaining a community; be sure you maintain your commercial and industrial. Now they may be talking about putting commercial in the western part of Novi, I don’t think they are, although there’s some developers would love to do that but I don’t think that’s in the books. So really, you’re taking residential, acre lots, so you would be able to figure almost exactly the number of taps you’re going to have.

Mr. Foyt said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said so that information would be extremely valuable and then the cost of the lift stations, environmental impact of the various areas you are going to have to go through including the roads, zoning of course we already talked about because we already have the zoning and that zoning is acre lots at a minimum with some indication that it may go higher. So all those things, I think, they’re going to have to take into consideration before we can make a reasonable decision if it seems affordable. In addition, of course, some sound other than rhetoric about the possibility of septic systems. There’s new septic systems on the market today that each of you know about and we should have information regarding those also. They tell me these new ones you can almost put them in a swamp land if they’re adopted by the County. Thank you.

Councilwoman Mason said as Joe has said this is just an unofficial sanitary sewer. I think to we should look . . . We had a community south of us that had a problem with the extension of sewers that brought sanitary waste back into parking lots, back into yards because it was not a well thought out extension. So, really this is very serious; more serious than a water extension so I just think that we should be looking into it much better than what we’ve done. I don’t think we should take any money from any developer, for any study, to serve extensions west of Beck Road because you kind of have then committed to putting it west of Beck Road or having a problem of having someone want the money back if we don’t do that. So I am certainly not for taking money from any developer to do this study to see about bringing it west of Beck Road.

Mayor McLallen said any further comment by members of Council on this issue? Mr. Nowicki, I believe a number of issues have been raised not the least of which is the preparation of costs of a detailed study. I would hope to hear back from the Department of Public Services on this issue fairly soon.

3. Request for Variance from Section 11-276 of the Design & Construction Standards - Programmed Products.

Mayor McLallen said the next item before us this evening is a request for a variance from Section 11-276 of the Design & Construction Standards. This concerns a sidewalk along Clark St. in conjunction with the Programmed Products site development.

Councilwoman Mason said she sold two vacant pieces of land for principals who own another corporation who own Programmed Products so she wanted to know what his opinion was. Did he want her not to vote since it had nothing to do with this particular business but two principals of Programmed Products had two pieces of vacant land listed for another corporation they own.

Councilwoman Mason said the principal in this corporation was principal in another corporation that she sold the vacant land for.

Mr. Watson said he didn’t think that requires her to disqualify herself.

Mayor McLallen said we appreciate your disclosure.

Mr. Mamola said he was the architect for Programmed Products and with him was David Sharon from Programmed Products. I believe in your packet you have received opinions on this matter from your planner, Brandon Rogers, who I believe recommends support of this variance, and from your consultant engineers, JCK & Associates and in their opinion they feel that the extension of the sidewalk is engineering, there is engineering feasibility. Therefore they are recommending that this variance not be granted. I think if you look around at most things in the world an engineer will tell you that most things are engineeringly possible or feasible. This issue is not about engineering feasibility it’s about timing, it’s about safety and it’s about the practical application of your ordinance.

This project began early in the design phase with close involvement with neighboring residents to the east and to the south. To the east on Clark Street and to the south on Eleven Mile Road and to cut through the long chase of that what we ended up concluding was that we will have to provide sidewalks for the most part along Clark Street, along the frontage of Grand River because that’s a part of your planning ordinances. Although not on this particular diagram, there is considerable amount of berming, landscaping and buffering between the proposed use, the expansion of Programmed Products and Leavenworth Creek. What we’re dealing with here tonight is a little 40 foot section; it’s an orange sidewalk extension on the plan that would go over a creek. The creek is down in topography several feet at least and dead-ends at a rather mature hedge, small tree kind of line that’s on the neighboring residents property. I think when you look at what happens when you get to the end of that sidewalk or how you have to get to the end of that sidewalk should this 40 foot have to be constructed several things take place. 1) A pedestrian or a bike rider would have to belong to the residents property to get onto the side walk at that end or they’re coming along the other direction along Clark Street and exit the sidewalk have to cross over a bridge or walkway constructed over a culvert and dead-end and get off abruptly trespassing on a private owners residence property. Or they would transverse between this hedge row and the house and is what is viewed as somebody’s front yard. I think you should have, I believe, a color photograph that depict the view of this front yard.

Our alternatives tonight are two. 1) We are asking obviously not to have to construct this 40 foot walk until such time, we understand this would involve a private agreement between the City of Novi and the petitioner, as the balance of this walk wherever it is, whether it’s near Clark Street or within the ROW is constructed. The petitioner is not trying to end up with a missing link in your sidewalk system it’s just the practical application of this timing. Before I get to the other alternative I’d like to speak about the timing a little bit. We expect a permit to be issued, a permit which involves storm drainage at this culvert location, Wednesday of this week from the DNR. We are all ready to begin construction of this project, permits have been filed and they are ready to be pulled from your building department. They are all pending issuance of a DNR permit. We cannot begin construction of this project until we have a DNR permit in hand. Again, that’s suppose to be Wednesday.

In the conversation that we had at the Public Hearing. we represented to the homeowners and to the Planning Commission that the construction of this project would not involve construction traffic on Clark Street except for the sidewalk and there’s some water main extension work here. The balance of the construction would occur with access off of Grand River respecting the homeowners that live in that subdivision in the back. To do this, it’s a rather tight and confined site, we need a staging pad which is about this 40,000 sq. ft. addition. We need to get the footings and foundations in within the coming weeks, underground plumbing and pour that slab and that becomes our staging area for the balance of the construction. So if we’re to keep our representation to the neighbors, if we’re to respect the private rights of these homeowners on the corner we need some sort of relief. The other alternative, if you should decide that we must construct this 40 ft. sidewalk as a part of the project, is please give us relief from having to do it at this particular time. We’re requesting that you grant us perhaps 30 days to prepare the necessary design documents and submit them through the DNR and get our permits. If not, we don’t have some relief of some sort, this project will not begin construction this year and I don’t know what the owners will do whether they will stay in this town or not. That’s up to them but it really does jeopardize this project at this time. So the choices are to grant us relief from constructing this last 40 ft. of sidewalk on our property if applicant will grant an easement and enter into a private agreement with the applicant and the City of Novi. Two, yes construct that 40 ft. missing link if and when the walk a little further to the south ever gets constructed and if not some other relief that would allow this project to continue. If there’s any questions about the particulars I will stand by.

Councilman Crawford said in the material side I believe I understood that you are building a five foot sidewalk and not an eight foot safety path per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Is that correct?

Mr. Mamola said that’s correct. There was considerable discussion at the Planning Commission level when we were there for site plan approval. The type of walk, where it was, we initially had, what I would call, a meandering walk that came in and made use of this area more as a park like type feature. It was clear that the Planning Commission required us to construct a walk, which would meet the ordinance requirements, but also which would minimize the construction into this wetland area. There’s a little pocket of wetland right in about this area so because of that the walk came as minimal as it could yet functional.

Councilwoman Mason said my one question was #3 on JCK’s letter, Mr. Mamola, where it said "the plan presented with this request shows the basin to be placed within the future right-of-way and with the influence of the proposed sidewalk neither of which is acceptable." In reading Mr. Rogers things and then looking at JCK’s I was confused about that.

Mr. Mamola said I’m sorry I didn’t hear you. . .

Councilwoman Mason said it was number 3 on JCK’s letter. It says "also stated in the applicant letter "the plan presented with this request shows the basin to be placed within the future right-of-way and within the influence of the proposed sidewalk neither of which is acceptable" so I guess what I didn’t understand is JCK saying you have to move the detention basin some place else so that it wouldn’t have anything to do with the sidewalk?

Mr. Mamola said the size and exact location of that detention basin has varied as we’ve moved through the final site plan. Earlier there was a driveway which linked the parking area to Clark Street and that affected this detention basin which is in and around that area. That drive has been eliminated and again it’s partially a desire of the homeowners there not to have the drive onto Clark. So, that allowed this basin to go a little farther that way. In my letter I was referring to the topography in and around this area as being somewhat restrictive. We were initially asking for about 140 ft. variance but when we realized that we could in fact construct the paved walk we reduced that to a request of 40 ft.

Councilman Mitzel said I would like to just verify with the City Attorney if Council has the authority to grant a time extension to the construction of this sidewalk.

Mr. Watson said yes you do.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Council grant an additional 6 month time extension for the construction of the sidewalk in question.

Mayor McLallen said it’s been moved and supported to grant a 6 month extension from the time required to put this sidewalk in place.

Councilman Mitzel said I made that motion based on the September 20 letter that we received from JCK indicating that it is feasible to construct the sidewalk and that construction of the project continue pending the construction of the sidewalk part. In other words, so the sidewalk would not delay the project. That is the intent of my motion that the project can move forward and they can secure whatever necessary arrangements need to be worked out with the engineering and such for the placement of the sidewalk. JCK’s letter seems to indicate there are alternatives to bridging that’s feasible. The six months, I thought if that’s not enough, I want to put a reasonable time frame in there; something that’s not going to stop the project but yet will still get the sidewalk done. I think it’s important that our sidewalk system start being completed and this is another step.

Councilwoman Mason said I guess that was my question with the motion and the second is will the project continue to go forward without being held up with just an extension being given to the sidewalk. Is that the intent of your motion. In other words, they can continue building that building and adding on their 40,000 sq. ft. and so forth and just extending the sidewalk portion here 6 months.

Councilman Mitzel said my intent was to allow the project to go forward and give them additional time to work out the sidewalk details but still have the sidewalk built.

Councilwoman Mason said yes; I wanted that clarified because I didn’t understand that very well.

Councilman Toth said to the maker of the motion the recommendation from the Planning Consultant was that a separate agreement be entered into with the City and that an appropriate cash deposit policy should be reviewed with the City Attorney. Your motion for a six month extension doesn’t cover any of that and I feel that there should be those conditions imposed at the same time. That the separate agreement be drawn with the City Attorney and an appropriate cash deposit be placed to ensure that in six months that sidewalk is completed.

Mr. Watson said I think there is a way to handle that under the zoning ordinance and it calls for with the granting either of a temporary certificate of occupancy or a final certificate of occupancy, the posting of either one and half times the amount necessary or two times the amount necessary to complete site improvement. I think under the zoning ordinance we can require the posting of dollars to do that.

Councilman Toth said do you want that as part of the motion?

Mr. Watson said I think the motion should indicate that that will be the condition of the granting of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy as the ordinance would call for.

Mayor McLallen said Member Mitzel are you comfortable with the attorney’s position.

Councilman Mitzel said yes, that’s acceptable.

Councilman Crawford said I certainly would like to see this project go ahead, however, I’m not sure this is the correct solution. In general, I’m in favor of putting in sidewalks even if they "lead to no where", however this extra 40 feet, the expense and the permitting it’s going to take to put that piece in that leads to no where, at this time, I think is kind of an undue burden on the petitioner. I would be more in favor of holding an escrow or coming up with an agreement as was suggested by Mr. Mamola that if and when the private property to the south is ever acquired or changed in order to extend that sidewalk, at that time they would complete that extra 40 feet. I don’t think that was the way that motion was stated nor was the intent of it. Therefore, I won’t vote for that motion and I would encourage my fellow members not to and perhaps think of this other alternative.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers what is the potential of the property, to the south, of the development in the next four years?

Mr. Rogers said there’s a nice house on the corner.

Councilman Schmid said so it isn’t going to develop is what your saying.

Mr. Rogers said I don’t foresee that being removed in the foreseeable future and as you make the turn on Eleven Mile you have a number of single family homes, none of which have a sidewalk on the north side of Eleven Mile, which they should have if it’s ever subdivided. You understand on the south side of Eleven Mile from Clark Street over to Ware we have a bikeway system going in and I have listed the projects that have been putting it in and they’re being built. So it’s not going to be in the foreseeable future.

Councilman Schmid said with that information and perhaps I was remiss in getting back into the room I concur with Mr. Crawford’s assessment, understanding I seconded Mr. Mitzel’s motion. I think we could put money in escrow and complete this at some point in time when and if that does develop.

Mayor McLallen said the motion is to grant the request for Programmed Products to proceed and put their sidewalk essentially off for 6 months and that there be funding guarantee that will happen if this was in the ordinance.

Mayor McLallen said is that essentially your motion Mr. Mitzel?

Councilman Mitzel said it is.

Yes (4) No (2-Crawford, Schmid) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said the issue of the sidewalk needs to be resolved by March, 1996.

4. Woodlands Permit Replacement Tree Determination Appeal - Mini-U Storage

Mayor McLallen said there was a facsimile in our blue folder this evening from the attorney’s for the petitioner and it’s a request for them to move this issue to November 20. So they have asked that this item not be on the agenda this evening.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the Woodlands Permits Replacement Tree Determination Appeal - mini-U-U Storage issue be moved to November 20.

Councilman Schmid said I don’t have any problem moving this but I thought this was just talking about the value of trees. It had nothing to do with the appeal.

Councilwoman Mason said I made a motion that we move it to November 20.

Mayor McLallen said is there support for the motion?.

Councilman Crawford said support.

Councilman Toth said what’s the reason for moving it?

Councilwoman Mason said they requested that we move it to November 20th that’s the reason for me saying we should move it to November 20. Should we have an issue about this I think it only, in fairness, that that’s the right thing to do because they did request it. That doesn’t mean your going to do anything on November 20th it just means that your going to move it to November 20th, you know. That was my motion, Mr. Crawford supported.

Mayor McLallen said the motion is . . . .

Councilman Schmid said are we going to have discussion on this motion, I know you are but I was wondering if Ms. Mason is.

Councilwoman Mason said no.

Councilman Schmid said my only comment was I was not aware, perhaps in error, that this was the continuation of the appeal process. I thought it was merely a further continuation of the appeal process.

Yes (5) No (1-Toth) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

5. Boards and Commissions

Mayor McLallen said at this time please note that within your packet there’s the ballot for boards and commission appointments. During the break please fill it out and get it to the City Clerk and we will announce the results under Matters for Council Part II.

6. Vic’s Market - License Agreement: Return of Check in the Amount of $28,212.94 for Conveyance of 0.09 Acres of City Land not being purchased by the Developer.

Mayor McLallen said now that the SAD has been established this money will be returned to the developer and the City will be paid through the SAD.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That the check in the amount of $28,212.94 be returned to Vic’s Market.

Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Joe Dunnabeck, 22000 Beck Road said late this afternoon I registered a written complaint with the Building Department. Mr. Don Saven wasn’t there but I gave it to his assistant. The developers at Singh Developing at Beckenham Subdivision at Nine and Beck is flooding my property a half a mile south of Nine Mile on Beck Road. What he has is 15 deep well pump dewatering his area and he’s dumping it into the swamp at the corner of Beck and Nine. It goes into a culvert under Nine follows the ditch along the west side of Beck Road to Stratford which is the street that goes into Barclay Estates. At that point it’s flooding my low lands at Stratford and Beck Road. I was down there this afternoon and I’m sure I can measure it has increased at least 12 inches and I want to get something done on this right away. I threatened the fellow over there that I was going to shut their pumps off. All they have is a great big generator but I don’t know why the developers can just go in there and start dewatering. I don’t know what it’s doing to the people’s wells along Nine Mile Road but it is certainly affecting me a half a mile away.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Dunnabeck we will direct the City Administration to promptly get a response to this and take all the appropriate measures to protect your property rights.

Mr. Kriewall said we will look at it first thing in the morning; we probably already have.

Mr. Dunnabeck said thank you very much.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Kriewall have a report back to the City Council by the next meeting on the status.

Diane Chippewa, 48800 W. Nine Mile, asked about the unofficial sewer plan for Nine Mile. I really appreciate your comments Councilperson Mason about how serious a matter this is. I don’t really think that time is important in the fact that I think times important that it’s approached cautiously and not quickly for the people who want things done in a certain period of time because the residents that are living there now and the people who come in future developments are going to live from the repercussions of that be it good or bad for a long time. So, I’m not saying I’m taking a stand for or against sewers at this time for our area but just that it is very cautiously examined before any kind of decisions are made period. The meeting Loretta spoke about we’re having with Anthony Nowicki and Cliff Sieber and we’re having it with the homeowners on October 11th here in the building to answer some of the questions that they can answer for us now and then hopefully take the homeowners concerns into any plans that they might be making for the area in the future.

7. Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.541 - southwest and southeast corners of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road from Town Center District (TC) and General Business District (B-3) to Town Center District (TC-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Mayor McLallen said this is an issue that is brought forward through the Community Development Department. This was a City initiated rezoning and the recommendation of the Planning Consultants, Community Development Department is for approval.

Councilwoman Mason said my question was what does that mean "any other appropriate zoning district?"

Mayor McLallen said that’s the language that’s always in the rezonings which if discussion turns up something new and exciting it can be addressed but every time a rezoning petition is brought forward that language is in there.

Councilwoman Mason said but we don’t necessarily have to have that language in there is that right Mr. Watson?

Mr. Watson said we put it in there so the Council has that alternative to rezone to other zoning districts.

Councilwoman Mason said but I mean a motion could be made just to change it to TC-1, that’s it.

Mr. Watson said if you adopt this it will simply be TC-1 the other appropriate is for the purposes of the notice to the public so they know.

Mr. Rogers said City Council received a report upwards of nine months ago and there were a number of areas of the City that Council wanted to have the Planning Commission review. The area in the Town Center south of Grand River, the area on Eleven Mile over near Crescent Blvd. Extension and Section 10 the PD-1 RM property. So, the Commission is still studying the last two items but moved ahead with the first two, the southeast and the southwest quadrant, to bring a more orderly zoning pattern; in my opinion a more liberal pattern for development consistent with what the Council has done in the past year and a half in the southeast quadrant rezoning the Main Street area, the Novi Pavilion project buildings under construction and more recently the Main Street Village area. All of which have been rezoned to TC-1 leaving in the southeast quadrant a rather mixed pattern of zoning largely on the frontage of some B-3 down near Trans Ex area and TC zoning on the corner and some little market places between the Novi Pavilion and Vic’s Market which is still zoned TC. It has been the Planning Commission and the Planning Department staff’s desire that we would south of Grand River have PC-1 zoning north of Grand River maintained a TC zoning because of the substantial development that’s already set the flavor of those areas. We had a number of reports, they’re all attached here, I have two little maps which I think clearly show what is being proposed, some backup memoranda that I did.

We had a Public Hearing on August 16 and we had one person protest. A Norm Hyman representing George Keros who is in the audience tonight represented by a partner of Mr. Hyman’s. The discussion at that time largely set it on the south west quadrant where there had already been a preliminary site plan approval granted for what we call the Novi Grand Project of Mr. Keros’. On the little map that you have following my report the south west quadrant, the far lower corner of that map, there is a bold face outline of some property that makes up substantially the area between Grand River, Novi Road and Flint Street, that has an approved Preliminary Site Plan for a three or four store commercial development anchored by a 20,000 sq. ft. maybe office supply company. I’m not sure of the name of it. At that time, Mr. Keros had petitioned for TC-1 zoning but the petition was withdrawn so I indicated that on the plan. His most recent approved Preliminary Site Plan, if you will look at that little inset on the map for a minute you’ll see a parcel there called 013 on Novi Road and that has been assembled by Mr. Keros. It is Shirley Cash’s property, she’s right behind me here, and she’s a participant in some manner in this project so that map should be updated to include Novi Grand’s Project by adding in that little notch there, 013.

There was extensive discussion and I re-read tonight the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting about how to protect the, I can’t say vested interest because the shovel isn’t in the ground yet, but how to protect the status of Mr. Keros who did receive approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. I recommended it and I had to under the present zoning. It was a fairly good plan; there has to be some adjustments. The Town Center Committee wants to address better the river walk along Flint Street. I wanted to see some windows on the west and north side of the building. It was a solid brick wall there. The building was turning its back to an amenity down the road when Main Street is carried up to Grand River from Novi Road, the extension of Main Street.

So, the Commission with the help of our learned Council here passed the motion saying that any site plan that it received, not particularly fingering Novi Grand, that any project in this area on either side of Novi Road that’s now zoned TC that has received Preliminary Site Plan approval would be grandfathered in. It was interesting to read in the minutes here Mr. Hyman even suggested some language to further that objective by having a cut off date of August 16, 1995 so that some body wouldn’t be running in the front door to get a shovel in the ground.

We are here tonight, we have a Planning Commission recommendation 8-1 to you, to recommend rezoning to TC-1 of both sides of the street that are not now zoned TC-1. I read in the packet we have six property owners, that are either within the area being rezoned or are adjacent to the area being rezoned, that are objecting. Only Mr. Keros had come to the Public Hearing; these others had been notified but apparently they didn’t come and so I am told by Mr. Watson that this may require a 2/3 vote. So I looked through the file and it’s my opinion that it would be very suitable to put these two areas that are thought of being the Main Street areas into the TC-1 zoning classification. Whether it’s TC-1 or TC it fits the Master Plan for Center Commercial. They both permit 5 story development but under TC-1, as I mentioned before, there is a limit on how much front yard parking you can have, also the size of any one story retail building. If you have more than one story you can exceed the 7,500 sq. ft. rule. You can have shared parking, you can have curb parking credits, you can have 0 lot lines, you may have projecting signs over certain roads, you can have outdoor cafe’s within the right-of-way. You all know what Main Street talked about and that’s where the TC-1 zoning started. Are there any questions, I would be glad to answer.

Councilman Toth said he had a couple of questions for Mr. Rogers. TC-1 really is 0 lot line zoning and limits the size of the building to 7,500 sq.ft.?

Mr. Rogers said unless you go to a two story like Main Street is being proposed then you can go to a larger size.

Councilman Toth said so if we had a 10,000 sq. ft. building come in for Main Street what impact would that have on this?

Mr. Rogers said a 10,000 sq. ft. would be a standard drug store, Perry’s or an Arbor. It is permitted if you have a second floor of other permitted uses, office, residential, etc. You can go five stories in this district, both districts permit five stories.

Councilman Toth said if we had a theater or something like that being developed say a 10,000 sq. ft. building a small live theater.

Mr. Rogers said upstairs?

Councilman Toth said no just one floor.

Mr. Rogers said well a theater . . .

Councilman Toth said that was one of the things that was talked about in TC; possibly having a theater or an art gallery, things of that nature. 10,000 sq. ft. would not be unrealistic for something that size, would it?

Mr. Rogers said it sounds interesting. I think the 7.500 sq. ft. dealt with retail sales and service. I’d have to check the ordinance. So, you could have a 10,000 sq. ft. legitimate theater of some sort with possibly restaurants upstairs.

Councilman Toth said my concern is the limitations. The south west corner is whereMr. Keros has some property that is under development out there. The rest of the property could that be developed under the TC? I mean physically could it be developed under TC?

Mr. Rogers said yes it could and it could be developed under TC-1. The largest property owner, I guess, in there is Fendt Concrete and whether that’s going to stay with the history of the ownership now, I can’t tell you. In either the TC or the TC-1 automobile related businesses, car washes, used auto parts, gas stations are not permitted. We have two non-conforming gas stations; well one’s vacant the other one is the Mobil Station on the corner.

Councilman Toth said but you’re saying those parcels between the railroad track and Flint Street could be developed as TC currently.

Mr. Rogers said yes they have sufficient depths there.

Mr. Watson said Brandon mentioned there were a number of property owners who filed protect petitions. What the State Zoning Enabling Act provides is that if the owners of at least 20% of the land included in a rezoning proposal file such protest petitions then it takes a 2/3 vote. In this case the property represented by protest petitions totals about 24% of the area proposed to be rezoned; because of that the rezoning if it’s adopted by the Council will take five votes.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Kohls had asked to defer his comments.

Mayor McLallen said thank you for reminding me of that. Mr. Kohls did request the right to speak at this time.

Mr. Kevin Kohls, 2290 First National Building, said I am appearing here tonight for George Keros who is in the audience and pinch hitting for my partner Norman Hyman who is celebrating a holiday of Rosh Hashanah tonight and apologizes for his unavailability.

First, Mr. Keros does object to the rezoning of his property. We did meet at the Planning Commission and ultimately the Planning Commission grandfathered site plans that had been filed. That is a fall back position which certainly Mr. Keros is appreciative of because it allows him to proceed with the development that he’s spent years working to assemble a variety of parcels at the south west quadrant of Novi and Grand River, expended substantial sums over the last six or eight months obtaining site plan approval. But hampers his ability, this non-conforming use status, hampers his ability in a significant way in that he’s now has a project zoned TC-1 that would be developed and built under the TC standards. It’s a lawful non-conforming use. If he wants to change that site plan in the future it could be problematic at best. Most likely it would require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Moreover, if the property was substantially destroyed there would be the question of whether he would have the right to rebuild. Those create significant impacts on Mr. Keros and really in light of the years he spent assembling those parcels in reliance in the TC zoning, the substantial investment he’s made over the past months in the site plan that he has approved, Novi Grand SP95-30; we would ask in light of that that you would accept and exclude his parcel from this rezoning. There’s another reason equally important to the one I’ve articulated for accepting and excluding this parcel. The development plan that Mr. Keros has approved is consistent with the City’s Master Plan, consistent with the Town Center concept. It’s an enhancement to that area of the Town Center. Certainly the Town Center zoning was enacted with the Town Center Master Plan in mind. Mr. Keros followed that lead, assembled the parcels, and now after having done that, having had a site plan approved is being told that his property will be burdened, in essence in perpetuity, with this legal non-conforming use status. It doesn’t seem fair and for that reason we would ask you to reject it. Thank you.

Councilman Crawford said I have a question. Some body said there were six other property owners who protested.

Councilman Toth said you have letters of those attached.

Councilman Crawford said I didn’t see that. I’d like to know where they are but I didn’t see the letters.

Councilman Toth said Metro 25, Don Tuck.

Mr. Rogers said I think I know two of them. One is Joseph Grande and I believe it would be the immediate south east corner of Grand River and Novi Road. I could be wrong I know he owns that property and I think that’s what he’s referring to.

Mayor McLallen asked if that was the old building that has the card store in it?

Mr. Rogers said yes, he has baseball cards and it’s that two story building right on the corner.

Councilman Toth said OK I see them now. What are the other parcels?

Mr. Rogers said the second letter of September 5 is signed by Mr. Keros and I guess that’s the property we’re talking about Novi Grand. So we can pass over the second letter. The third letter is Matthew Staman and I believe that’s the property, correct me, either within your project or adjacent to your project. Oh, Bates Hamburger, sure that’s on the north west corner of Grand River and Novi Road. Mr. Stamans had other properties I wasn’t sure.

Mayor McLallen said but the rezoning isn’t applying to the north west corner it’s the south west and the south east.

Mr. Rogers said yes.

Councilman Crawford said does he have that parcel just south of the Mobil Station on the west side of Novi Road?

Mr. Rogers said no. The applicant, I believe, has all the property including Mrs. Cash’s property.

Councilman Crawford said all right.

Mr. Rogers said the next parcel is Donald Tuck/Harold Tuck. That’s property next to the Novi Pavilion the auto parts area, OK. The last one is Thomas Tokar and that’s the tire store, same area on the south side of Grand River. Those parcels are the left over TC parcels because Mr. Keros’ parcel, the Novi Pavilion, was rezoned. It’s a good exam of TC-1 there’s limited parking in front, it’s got zero lot line, it met all the standards of the TC-1 parking and every thing. So those, I think, are a pretty good representation.

Mayor McLallen said does that help Mr. Crawford.

Councilman Crawford said thank you.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers the TC-1 district really provides greater flexibility does it not?

Mr. Rogers said absolutely.

Councilman Schmid said I mean you’re talking about stories.

Mr. Rogers said well the same stories in both districts is 5 stories, 65 ft. height and its always been that since 1964.

Councilman Schmid said so it isn’t stories.

Mr. Rogers said it’s the set backs, it’s the shared parking, it’s the permission to use certain curb parking for credits. Also, limited parking in the front so we don’t get a sea of parking. I might remind you that Vic’s had to go to the ZBA for their parking in front and in exchange introduced some extraordinary landscaping. But that was a ZBA function. Otherwise, you couldn’t have had that parking, that extensive parking in that district.

Councilman Schmid said you’re bringing this forward at this time, and I know it went through the Planning Commission. I, in fact, listened to Mr. Hyman in Planning Commission for some lengthy discussion, I think, and read the minutes also.

Mr. Rogers said yes, Sir.

Councilman Schmid said but this is to stay in compliance with the general flavor of the Main Street and the total area.

Mr. Rogers said some day I foresee, and I think we all want, that Main Street extension will extend out somewheres along the alignment of Flint Street and have some amenities and Fendt may not be there in the future. Right now it is an adverse impact on Flint Street and the gravel and the mud on Novi Road but it’s there and they are legally entitled to be there. It’s an I-2 use.

Councilman Schmid said and you’re suggesting all those uses that are presently there are grandfathered in. Is that right?

Mr. Rogers said only those that have already received Preliminary Site Plan approval. We’ve done this before and I mentioned it in the minutes up there along Pontiac Trail.

Councilman Schmid said OK. I guess that’s all I have.

Councilman Mitzel said I do have a question for Mr. Watson. In light of the one letter from Mr. Staman let’s point out that property borders the rezoning piece but is not part of it. How does that affect your previous statement.

Mr. Watson said it was not a part of the 24% figure that I gave you. Some of the people that sent protest petitions were within the rezoning, some were not. I only included the ones that were within it. The reason that you received some that were not within the rezoning, the statute does have a second section that I didn’t discuss because it was’nt . . .

Councilman Mitzel said perimeter . . .

Mr. Watson said right, exactly.

Councilman Mitzel said OK I just wanted to verify that you had taken that into consideration. Thank you.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That Proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.541 be adopted, south west and south east corners of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road from Town Center District (TC) and General

Business District (B-3) to Town Center District (TC-1).

Councilman Toth asked are you including the grandfathering of all those that have received Preliminary Site Plan approvals.

Councilman Schmid said yes, consistent with the planners recommendations.

Councilman Toth said I’ll support that.

Mayor McLallen said it’s been moved and supported to support the Planning Commission recommendation for this rezoning. Is there any further discussion?

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

Mayor McLallen said the motion fails for lack of majority vote, it’s not a majority it’s 2/3.

Councilman Schmid said what was the vote? Can we have roll call Madam Mayor?

I voted no, Carol Mason, Hugh Crawford voted no.

Councilman Schmid said can I have a roll call Madam Mayor?

ROLL CALL VOTE: Councilperson Mason - No, Councilperson Mitzel - Yes, Councilperson

Schmid - Yes, Councilperson Toth - Yes, Mayor McLallen - Yes, Councilperson Crawford - No

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Watson could a motion be made to rezone property east of Novi Road in the south east sector as TC-1 and leave the south west corner as TC?

Mr. Watson said you mean rezone a portion of what was advertised?

Councilman Mitzel said right.

Mr. Watson said yes you could do that.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Zoning Map Amendment be approved for the area in the south east quadrant of Grand River and Novi Road to TC-1 and all the property in the south west corner of Novi and Grand River to TC.

Mayor McLallen said alright, it’s been moved and supported to grant the proposed rezoning in the south eastern quadrant but retain the existing TC zoning in the south western quadrant.

Councilman Mitzel said well there’s actually a little bit of B-3 which I believe is the cemetery parcel that would be changed to Town Center then.

Mayor McLallen said OK I missed the B-3 one.

Councilman Mitzel said I made that motion because it seems that we’d be then consistent in the south east corner it would be TC-1 zoning and then the south west corner everything would be Town Center zoning. It would be consistent and basically the whole corner then would be one uniform zoning.

Councilman Crawford said certainly if you include the south east. I know there’s parcels there that objected. I believe that was correct and that was my reason for voting no. People had this property under one zoning and in Mr. Keros case he assembled property assuming he could do something with it and I just don’t like changing the rules in the middle of the game and that’s what I feel we’re doing here. So, that’s my reason for voting no and I will vote no on this motion also.

Councilman Schmid said I supported the motion half a loaf is better then none. The reason I’m supporting this motion is certainly there are individuals who have property and have previous zoning but that’s happened in this City I would guess 500 times where property has been rezoned from one zoning to another. That doesn’t make it right or wrong for those who voted against it but I think to keep the City consistent in a direction that the Planning Commission, Planners and even the Council for a large part has indicated they’d like to go with. That’s why I support it. I think it’s not a adverse impact on the land owners, frankly, I think it enhances their, property to some extent. You could get on either side of that I’m sure. So it’s not like taking B-3 property and making it residential or making it something less valuable. I think it’s probably enhancing the value so that’s why I support it and would hope that at some point in time, if not tonight, we can gender enough votes to continue the program.

Councilwoman Mason said I’d just want to say just because we did it wrong 500 times in this City doesn’t make it right. I feel the same way Mr. Crawford does that when property belongs to someone you can’t change the game in the middle. I think we keep doing these things in the center of town to fit in with the Main Street that we don’t see and we may never see and I will vote no again.

Mayor McLallen said the motion before Council, at this point, made by Member Mitzel and supported by Member Schmid is to grant the rezoning of the south east quadrant of Novi and Grand River Road from TC to TC-1 and the south west quadrant only in the area that’s currently B-3 to TC so that there’s a solid line of TC-1 east of Grand River and a solid portion of TC west of Grand River. Is that the entire motion?

Councilman Mitzel said correct.

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

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Rogers what implication will there be with, I believe, some of the property that has been incorporated in the Main Street right-of-way exchange is currently zoned TC and B-3 along Novi Road? What implications will that have in the development of that whole project?

Mr. Rogers said well there’s certain set back requirements in the TC zone, very minimal set backs really required in the B-3. You can have open air, drive-in, Frank’s Nursery, gas stations, car washes. I think it would be inimicable, absolutely poor planning, to let that B-3 property be developed B-3. I think there’s an exposure there. Now, other properties along Grand River could come in under the TC ordinance but they would be expected to live with the TC ordinance, in my opinion, the set backs and the other criteria. Whether they would have that, because they are relatively small parcels, flexibility to develop as did Mr. Keros’ project Novi Pavilion Office, because he certainly requested that zoning which you granted. I don’t know.

Councilman Mitzel said let me follow up with Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson when we approved that Exchange Agreement part of the Exchange Agreement said that the development would be in conjunction basically what was presented; in the concept that was presented. I’m trying to discern from the map here if there’s certain properties that were within that Exchange Agreement that are now incorporated in the Main Street property that the City formerly owned that was zoned TC and B-3. I’m not sure where the property lines were.

Mr. Watson said looking at the rezoning map I can’t tell that and in particular can’t tell how they related to what was presented to you in forms of a concept of the development.

Councilman Mitzel said my concern was if the zoning stayed TC and B-3 on the former City property how that would relate to our agreement which stated that they . . .

Mr. Watson said the agreement didn’t mandate that the City rezone property. We couldn’t contractually do that. I think that the impact will be that when and if the Main Street project comes in for further site plans they may have to apply, assuming this fails, for their own rezoning as to their particular parcels.

Mayor McLallen said at this time the initiative has failed for lack of support. If there are no other motions being brought forward we’ll move on to the next item.

No. 3 Subdivision (formerly Greenwood Oaks No. 2).

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That a one year extension be granted to Greenwood Oaks No. 3 Subdivision.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said just a question in procedure. I don’t know if we have any policy or guidelines but how many times do we give a one year extension? This project was conceived in 1992 and it’s already been given a one year extension and now it needs another one year extension. I’m not quite sure of the implication; it’s almost like grandfathering might not be the right word but it allows them, I assume, to proceed under 1992 ordinances and such. How long does this process go on and how long should it go on might be a . . .

Mr. Watson said there is no restriction on the number of extensions the City can give.

Mayor McLallen said but every time they come back for extensions the project is reviewed again against any potential ordinance changes. If changes have been brought forward then the project would be discussed.

Councilman Crawford said so if we give an extension today then it’s under today’s ordinances.

Councilman Toth said right, they are not grandfathered in.

Mayor McLallen said they conform to today’s standards.

Councilman Crawford said that answers my concern, thank you.

Councilman Schmid said I think I pulled this off the agenda last week, two weeks ago whatever it was.

Mayor McLallen said yes you did.

Councilman Schmid said the reason I pulled it off the agenda was because this is a third or fourth extension that has been granted. That’s not so important but at that time, I think, the Council will remember that I asked for some back up material as to why they wanted to extend it once again. Now, in the Consent Agenda material last week or two weeks ago it said exactly what it says tonight that they have been negotiating a sewer line or something of that nature and I anticipated some back up material as to what the problem was. Now they’ve been negotiating a sewer line for three years and obviously we haven’t got it so, you know, once again we’ll put this through and once again they will get an extension and once again I asked for something that didn’t come forward. So it’s a big game that was played.

Councilwoman Mason said I think Mr. Kriewall can tell Mr. Schmid.

Mayor McLallen said a motion was made by Mr. Toth and supported by Member Mason for the approval of this plat. Is there any further discussion on the issue?

Mr. Kriewall said yes, I just wanted to give Council some history on the sewer services as it relates to this parcel. The existing agreement with Greenwood Oak Subdivision was built with septic tanks and this particular area was left out of the platting process. Come to find out it would not perk adequately so there was an attempt by the developer to take this property into the same sewer that services Briar Pointe, Roma Ridge and that other district along Ten Mile Road. It was determined that there was not sufficient or existing capacity in the sewer to take this project into it. So for the past couple of years, and I know they haven’t been to active lately but about a year, year and a half ago they were looking at bringing a sewer all the way down from 11 1/2 Mile and Beck Road across from Pioneer Meadows and across the Paul Bosco property to this site and provide service for that area. There has been some kind of exploration going on with that route between their engineers and our consulting engineers. The debate that had taken place over that route had to do with some concerns over peat and poor soils along the westerly side of Beck Road near the Bosco pond. Matter of fact, I think Council authorized an extra for road work in that area a couple of weeks ago. There was also a debate whether the sewer should follow that route or route to the west of the Bosco property which would be in conformance with our proposed Master Sewer Plan. Nothing, quite frankly, has been taking place for some time but within the past three or four weeks we were approached by the developer and his engineer and I think they have had some subsequent discussion with our consulting engineers. They’ve reanalyzed the capacity and the Ten Mile Sanitary Sewer that is already built from roughly where Timberlane Lumber is westerly to Briar Pointe Plaza at Ten Mile and Beck. They have reanalyzed and they have determined that there is a constriction in the sanitary sewer line at some point in front of the either Timberlane or just west of that there is a restriction on two or three man hole runs. Without receiving anything in writing the developer just relayed to us a few weeks ago that they’d looked at the cost of paralleling that sewer and tentatively they are thinking about proceeding with paying for the cost of paralleling that sewer at a 100% of the developer burden. It has not been presented to us in writing but they indicate they would pick up the necessary taps for the remainder of this project. I think it was in the neighborhood of 125 taps or something like that. So, that is the most recent experience that we’ve had with the developer along those lines. Again, we have received nothing in writing.

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion on the floor to grant a one year extension to the Greenwood Oaks No. 3 Subdivision. Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Yes (5) No (1-Schmid) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That Claims and Accounts Warrant No. 447 be approved.

Councilman Toth said I would like to point out one item. Item #334 the blanket cleaning for the prisoners is $468.00. Item #306 is the prisoners food for $88.00. Evidently we’re starving the prisoners but they have adequate blankets. It was a cost that kind of surprised me that we’re spending more for blanket cleaning then we are for food for prisoners.

Councilwoman Mason said I think we get a subsidy for the food. I think I asked about that two months ago, as a matter of fact, at the courthouse. I believe we get a subsidy for the food but apparently we don’t for the blanket cleaning. So we should check but I think we do have a co-op with other communities where we have people come in here being incarcerated and also maybe through the courthouse and maybe through Oakland County; but there is money coming in. So, $88.00 isn’t bad to feed everybody. You know.

Mayor McLallen said it’s been moved and supported to approve the Warrant. Are there any further discussions on this Warrant?

Yes (5) No (1-Toth) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the settlement be granted as presented by the City Attorney.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said did everyone get their ballots in. Mrs. Bartholomew did reconfirm that there was six appointments open on the Aquatic Committee. There had been some discussion as to whether there was five or six.

Mrs. Bartholomew said the results of the ballots were:

Senior Housing Implementation:

Elinor Holland 5 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Mason, Toth

Donna Bavarskas 4 Votes McLallen, Crawford, Schmid, Toth

Gwen Markham 4 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Toth

Rick Ragsdale 6 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Toth, Mason, Schmid

David Sheeran 5 Votes McLallen, Crawford, Toth, Mason, Schmid

James Utley 4 Votes Mitzel, Schmid, Mason, Toth

Elaine Yocum 4 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Schmid

Robert Pheiffer 6 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Schmid, Mason, Toth

Robert E. Shaw 6 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Schmid, Mason, Toth

Carol Bauer 6 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Schmid, Mason, Toth

Joseph Girardot 5 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Schmid, Mason, Toth

Skiles Boyd 6 Votes McLallen, Mitzel, Crawford, Schmid, Mason, Toth

Mayor McLallen said thank you very much and congratulations to all those generous citizens who have volunteered to serve the community.

12. Schedule Special Council Meeting to discuss City Manager Review

Mayor McLallen said the proposed date is October 9.

Councilman Mitzel said I believe it was October 16. What happened was at our last meeting I had inadvertently glanced at our procedure and thought it had said the second Monday of October and our procedure we adopted said the second meeting of October. Checking with the City Clerk she felt that would be our second regular meeting and if we could schedule it on the 16th from 7PM to 8PM that would give us one hour. Whereas, in the Consent Agenda we just scheduled a special Parks and Rec. for 7:30 pm on the 9th.

Councilwoman Mason said and then 7 PM on the 2nd is when we meet.

Councilman Mitzel said the process that we’re following is what we adopted in April; which is everyone has the evaluation forms, they’re due to the chair of the City Manager Review Committee by next Monday. Next Monday at 7:00 PM the Committee is meeting to compile the results of those forms, the results will be distributed to City Council and then on the 16th from 7 to 8 the whole Council will meet to discuss the evaluation with Mr. Kriewall.

Mayor McLallen said and Mr. Kriewall has requested that that meeting be closed. The 16th is a regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That a Special City Council meeting be scheduled on October 16 at 7:00 pm for City Manager Review.

Councilman Toth said I don’t recall the City Council approving that evaluation form.

Councilman Mitzel said April 10 we did.

Councilman Toth said April 10 we approved all the items.

Councilman Mitzel said all the items in the process, the evaluation form and the job description. It was one package passed April 10, 1995.

Councilman Toth said I’ll have to review those minutes. I don’t recall that unless I missed that meeting.

Councilman Mitzel said I’ll call them up if you want.

Mayor McLallen said and the packet was delivered to Council with this evening’s packet. Mr. Mitzel is the Chairman of the Committee and all Council Members please return your papers to Mr. Mitzel by next Monday.

Mayor McLallen said we have a motion on the floor to schedule a special meeting of the City Council October 16 from 7 to 8 o’clock. Is there any discussion.

Councilman Schmid said I will go along with it but I suspect one hour is not going to be sufficient knowing this Council.

Councilwoman Mason said I hope so.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

Councilman Mitzel said I just did pull it up and it passed 7-0 on April 10.

Councilwoman Mason said the reason I put it on is because the proposal was July 10, 1995 to January 10, 1996 and those were the dates when we passed it but it passes the 180 day MERS requirement for windows. So if we change the beginning date to July 24, 1995, which is the day that we passed it, then we would fall within that realm and it would not take anybody out that would have retired anyway.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the Resolution be changed from July 10, 1995 beginning date to July 24, 1995 and the ending date remain at January 10, 1996.

Mayor McLallen said its been moved and supported to rectify or clarify the dates so that it’s in conformance with the required time frame. The date will be changed from July 10 to July 24.

Councilman Toth said I’m going to vote against this for a number of reasons but one that comes to mind right now is that the resolution that has been passed around here doesn’t have the proper date. To amend that resolution you need a resolution with the proper date.

Councilwoman Mason said what do you mean?

Councilman Crawford said it says August 24 and it should say September 25.

Councilwoman Mason said no, I don’t think so.

Mayor McLallen said the actual resolution, which is the interior paper, says July 24 through January 10.

Mr. Klaver said the date at the bottom, however, he’s pointed out where it was adopted that should have been blank or it should have been tonights date.

Councilwoman Mason said or should have said July 24.

Mr. Klaver said could we amend that September 25 and we’ll correct it on the . . . .

Councilwoman Mason said yes.

Mayor McLallen said as long as we want to get this all corrected. Are there any other corrections. The resolution has been amended. Is there any comment?

Mayor McLallen said the amended resolution amending the date July 24 and September 25 .

Yes (4) No (2-Mitzel, Toth) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Computer Advisory Committee - Mr. Toth said the Computer Advisory Committee is working to establish a demonstration of the Police software sometime in November. We are working to establish this within City Hall so that department heads and, of course, all the police officers can get a chance to review this. As we firm up those date we will notify you, let you know so you can come down here. It will probably be a Thursday afternoon from 1 to 6 o’clock. So, I think every has a chance to at least swing by after work and take a look at it. We are going to select, perhaps, the best five or six companies and have them demonstrate the product. So you might be interested in seeing what we are going to consider for the Police Department.

Housing and Community Development - Councilwoman Mason said has now transferred the money over to Youth Assistance for the two years that we had already voted in. So, I just wanted to let you know that I talked to Dan and that’s being done now so they’ll be able to have the money for summer camp.

Storm Water Committee - Councilman Mitzel said the Storm Water Committee is going to be meeting on Wednesday late afternoon.

Cable Committee - Councilman Crawford said the Cable Commission will meet tomorrow at 4 pm at Farmington City Hall.

Mayor McLallen said how the conference was.

Councilman Crawford said just fine it was an excellent conference.

Mayor McLallen said any up dates?

Councilman Crawford said no; I have a lot of information and any one is welcome to see it. It’s going to be passed out to all the Commissioners and that may filter down to individual Council Members if they want it.

Mayor McLallen said what we are referring to is Mr. Crawford attended a National Conference on Cable. . . .

Councilman Crawford said NATOLA. I can never quite remember what the acronym is for. National Association of Telecommunication Advisors or something of which we are a member. Myself, Caryn Collins and Bill Hartsock, who is the Chairman of the Commission, attended.

Mayor McLallen said all the communities were well represented. Any other committee reports this evening?

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Mayor McLallen said I wanted to bring forward the two issues I brought earlier in the evening. Not for discussion tonight but to ask Administration to bring us further information so that we can have a discussion on them. The first one was, if Council concurs, to direct the Department of Public Services to investigate what funding is currently in place and what funding this City should begin to pursue ardently to face the challenges of Haggerty Road between Eight Mile and Ten Mile. If you drive in Livonia in Wayne County Haggerty Road is in gorgeous condition. As soon as you cross over into Oakland County Haggerty Road is in deplorable condition and we don’t seem to be getting any relief. So, I would like the Council to authorize the Administration to begin to find out where we stand and what we can do to improve this situation.

Councilwoman Mason said that is a little different though, isn’t it, Mr. Kriewall, in the sense that Farmington Hills and Novi has that and at one point we even go over onto their side on the east and they come over into our side. So that is one of the problems isn’t it that . . .

Mr. Kriewall said right, number one it’s a County road and number two if there’s any local initiatives to improve it other than the County Road Commission we would normally pursue that jointly with Farmington Hills so that we’re not paying all of their costs.

Councilwoman Mason said that’s our problem.

Mayor McLallen said right but as our community bears the out flow of that and consistently that’s not a happy situation for many, many citizens going up and down. Particularly when you flow across the southern border onto a good road. So, that was my . . .

Councilwoman Mason said the north is nice and that was ours.

Councilman Mitzel said you’re just requesting that the City Administration provide some information to us.

Mayor McLallen said correct.

Councilman Mitzel said do you need a motion?

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That Administration bring forth information on the status of Haggerty Road.

Yes (5) No (1-Mason) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

Councilwoman Mason said Madam Mayor what did they do?

Mayor McLallen said was there any votes from this end of the table on requesting further information?

Councilwoman Mason said no.

Mayor McLallen said the motion was to request the City Manager to bring back information on what funding initiatives and a status report on the immediate future of Haggerty Road which is a County Road which is not getting much attention.

Mayor McLallen said the second request was in . . . Mr. Klaver immediately brought some information down. There was a letter in the correspondence to Council concerning the Fuerst property and a reminder that the Citys lease on this property only extends to the end of the year. This Council has not actively done anything further. We were given some information at our last meeting but I’d like to have the Council decide where we’re going with this.

Councilwoman Mason said it was my understanding at least that you had a committee and, I believe, Mrs. Mutch was involved in that. That we left it where, when we did this, that they were going to come back to us and we were going to get some ideas about funding because the City didn’t have any funding. So we haven’t really heard back from any committees about this property either, is that correct? The burden of money was not with the City or the Council. The burden of money was with the people who were interested in preserving that property. At that time, I believe, we just gave the least or took the option or whatever we did just to allow that committee and the people interested to find some funds. Is that right?

Mayor McLallen said this was just to bring it to Council’s attention that we would like an update. Mr. Klaver has given us some information this evening. There was a document presented to this Council by the Committee at our last meeting. What I was requesting is that Council begin to think if we want to take any action in this. We still have an issue of the status of this property, something will happen to the status of this property in December. We still are open on the funding. I just wanted to bring it back to the Council’s attention before December gets here that we need to come to a consensus by this Council on the property.

Councilman Crawford said would it be appropriate for Council to review that document and the letter today and perhaps have a special report with perhaps some action to follow at a meeting in October which would be the soonest we could do it from the preservation people since they were the ones that were presenting that report and had some ideas for funding.

Mayor McLallen said is it the consensus of Council to bring this back as a discussion item at our next meeting?

Councilman Crawford said for special report and perhaps action.

Councilman Schmid said as a member of that committee Mr. Crawford’s correct. Many months ago, not many months ago three four months ago the idea that this was going to go until December and then the decision had to be made whether the City wanted the property. Part of that decision process was going to be the committee was going to go out and seek funding. I think I saw a letter written as late as maybe the last couple of days really repeating what was said two months ago that the committee was willing to do whatever they have to do to get funding but nothings been done. So it’s going to be critical at the time this December, maybe October, when we talk about this. It has to be funded. We can probably get the property if we trade some property for this property. As the report said we’re looking at $300,000/$400,000 for restoration and somewhat less then that for just keeping it the way it is and there’s no money around, that I know of, to pay for this.

Councilman Crawford said the committee that met with the school board, got a report from Preservation Novi which is where we sort of funneled it off to come up with that report and identify some funding sources. So, I’d like to see that as a special report and someplace on the agenda to take some action if we deem necessary.

Mayor McLallen said is there consensus of Council to make this a discussion at our next meeting?

Councilman Mitzel said I was going to suggest maybe the 16th our next meeting is next Monday.

Councilman Crawford said well whatever, in October, whatever is appropriate.

Councilman Mitzel said our first October regular meeting is a week from today. They did present a report last Monday and I didn’t have a chance to review their report.

Mayor McLallen said the next appropriate meeting that an agenda will accommodate.

Councilman Crawford said which will probably be the 16th let’s shoot for the 16th.

Councilman Toth said Madam Mayor I have a Council issue.

Mayor McLallen said yes, Sir.

Councilman Toth said Mr. Kriewall this set of minutes I received from the Planning Commission is testing my bifocals. I think it’s about 4. type. I think there’s other ways they can save on paper and

Mr. Kriewall said it’s those new computers you bought us, Joe.

Councilman Toth said no, no, no. It’s an awful lot of white space that can be eliminated and that type can be increased a little larger.

Mr. Capote, Planner, said I would like to comment on that if I may. At the last Planning Commission meeting it was requested that all the future minutes be done in a 12. font. So you won’t have that problem in the future as there were other Planning Commissioners that have the same problem. I requested that we do that only, initially, to try to save paper. As we generate so much using the old font and the old type that we could reduce the size of the minutes by about a third using that font. But we will move back to a 12. and maybe just reduce the margin. That’s it.

Councilman Toth said this is just a comment; they could go to a different font, a narrow font and pack a lot more data on the machine.

Mayor McLallen said this is going to get really interesting as we go into this new computer.

Councilman Mitzel said during our budget we had talked about supplying Council with a disk of other minutes as opposed to the paper if they really want and we are going to explore that.

Mayor McLallen said it’s going to be an exciting time around here Joe. Any other Mayor Council issues?

CITY MANAGER’S REPORT

Mr. Kriewall said I didn’t have anything initial unless there’s any questions.

Mayor McLallen said any questions for the City Manager at this time?

ATTORNEY’S REPORT

Mr. Watson said no report Madam Mayor.

Councilman Toth said Madam Mayor we are in the possession of a report prepared by Eclipse. It’s the sale of information by Michigan governments. It’s a rather extensive report and Mr. Watson’s office has copies of this. I would request that within 30 days we receive a written opinion for direction for the City Council and the City Administration with regards to the data that’s contained within this document.

Mayor McLallen said everyone on Council concur with this request?

Councilman Mitzel said is Joe done? I just wanted to say thanks to City Attorney for the quick response on the question on the safety path, snow removal, E-mail and the easement questions I had. Last meeting I’d asked Mr. Fried about the status of a Council directive concerning PD-1 option and how that mechanism works and he had responded verbally. I just would ask that the City Attorney, when that’s prepared in writing, forward it to both Council and Planning Commission so we can all understand the process. I believe, Mr. Fried basically said that if Council gives a directive then the Planning Commission should comply and just to make sure everyone understands what playing field we’re on. Thanks.

1. Mayor McLallen said Mr. Mitzel you had Item #1 the meeting of September 11.

Councilman Mitzel said I had pulled this for two reasons. One, there was a correction on Page 15 concerning the vote on the Woodlands Ordinance. Mr. Crawford had voted yes and I had voted no. Also, this is the second set of our regular minutes I’ve noticed we’ve kind of changed the format a little bit. We’re no longer verbatim; I just want to make sure everyone on Council realized that the minutes that we’re getting now are basically kind of a condensed version of what the synopsis of the meeting. There’s still discussion there but it’s not the verbatim minutes that we were getting before so I just wanted to point that out.

Councilman Toth said I have video tapes at $100.00 a copy if you like.

Councilwoman Mason said who decides to change it?

Mayor McLallen said the ordinance does not require that we have any minutes. The City Clerk is experimenting with a variety of ways to make them more presentable and readable.

Councilwoman Mason said who decides to change it? They’re all verbatim; who now decides not to make them verbatim. Isn’t that something the Council should decide?

Councilman Mitzel said I believe we would have the prerogative to do that.

Mayor McLallen said it was a prerogative of this Council.

Councilwoman Mason said that’s what I’m saying; did any body ask you?

Mr. Watson said your prerogative is to not approve the minutes and request that verbatim minutes be prepared if that’s what you desire.

Councilman Crawford said I don’t think they’ve ever been completely verbatim. This is just a reduced verbatim I guess you might say so it’s not a major change.

Councilwoman Mason said they have been.

Councilwoman Mason said I was going to say if it’s going to be changed I don’t think the City Clerk should be experimenting without the Council knowing the City Clerk’s experimenting. So I say until it comes from Council that they are done the way they were done before. Then if this Council says change them then we change them. We should have got one copy of these saying this is how I can do these minutes. So I think they should not be changed until this Council says to change them. You don’t experiment with things like that in my opinion.

Councilman Crawford said I was going to pull what Rob just pulled because he’s correct. I voted yes and he voted no and on the next page 16; motion by Crawford, second by Mitzel in the middle of the page, I believe that was motion by Schmid, second by Mitzel I’d like to make that correction; that the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem be delegates.

Mayor McLallen said are there any other corrections or additions for September 11?

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To approve of the minutes as amended.

Mayor McLallen said any further discussion on the minutes?

Councilman Mitzel said yes. I’ll approve this set but I’m kind of concerned that for the future Council’s that one of the most useful tools I’ve found, although it does take more time, is the more extended version of the minutes. Granted, in paper format they’re pretty tough to work with but on the computer network you can search, find issues that were discussed and follow the whole discussion and see how the decisions were made. I’m afraid that this format we may be losing some of that. You know, it’s close but I’m not certain if I feel totally comfortable with it. So, in the future I may bring it back that maybe we should go back more towards the old way. I just wanted to point out to everyone that it has changed slightly and it’s more condensed now. .

Councilwoman Mason said I don’t see why we have to go back, why we have to do this and then decide to go back to the old way because we never decided to do the new way so as a Council Member I want it done the old way. Because I don’t have one of those computers and it’s very important for me to read through and be able to make sure that everything is the way that it was. So I’m requesting that we do go back to the way it was before. There’s no such thing as the old way, that is the way we did it no one introduced a new way to this Council. So let’s stay with the old way or the way, OK, until someone comes up and says I think this is better. There are two Council Members who do not think this is better.

Mayor McLallen said alright, at this point, I would entertain that as a motion.

Councilwoman Mason said we don’t, we don’t, that’s my very point is. There is no motion on this. No one told any body to change our minutes.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Mitzel had the motion on the floor though is what I was trying to get at.

Councilwoman Mason said OK.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Mitzel’s motion is to approve the minutes of September 11.

Councilman Crawford said as amended.

Councilwoman Mason said . . . changes.

Mayor McLallen said the change is the motions of September 11.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said Member Mason has brought up a point. We have a new City Clerk who is attempting to assist this Council in being more efficient. This was an attempt, I concurred with her attempt, if it is not meeting with the approval of this Council that’s a valid discussion and I’m delighted to entertain it.

Councilwoman Mason said excuse me. Are you saying that you and the City Clerk decided to change our minutes without asking us?

Mayor McLallen said it was an attempt to make the minutes more manageable and it was noted this Council can now vote that they do not wish to have . . . .

Councilwoman Mason said Madam Mayor I’m telling you we don’t have to vote because you are not this Council and the City Clerk is not this Council. So if there’s going to be changes I would like every body to, I would like every body to, know about them. So, I would like my minutes in the form they were before and if you want them short then the City Clerk can do them short for you.

Councilman Crawford said we have discussed on several occasions how to condense these minutes yet still make them comprehensive. I think this is a good step in that direction and I think we ought to continue this direction. If we need to have a special motion I’ll be prepared to make it. I think the City Clerk’s making a very good attempt to be comprehensive yet brief. I guess that’s all encompassing and I concur with this. Reading the minutes it seems like everything is in there; there is all the pertinent discussion, it’s not like the flash flood or the other brief outlines of our meetings. I think it’s rather comprehensive and I think we ought to continue in this vein until we decide differently.

Mayor McLallen said this is a good discussion, Mr. Mitzel.

Councilman Mitzel said I didn’t intend to initiate a lengthy discussion at midnight here on this issue. I suggest if there’s enough debate on this issue we schedule it as a different item on a future agenda where we can discuss it at a reasonable hour. I just wanted to point it out as we were approving the minutes because I noticed it seemed to be a new trend and just wanted to make sure every one was aware of what was going on with the minutes.

Councilman Toth said I concur with Member Mason. No changes should be made unless this Council approves those changes. I for one am willing to sit and listen to any changes made but I want this Council to see those changes first and make the approval on those before we put that in place.

Mayor McLallen said any further comments on this issue?

Councilman Crawford said is a motion in order then if we’re going to really get into this?

If it is . .

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by

That Council continue to have minutes presented as they are tonight.

MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SUPPORT

Councilman Crawford said OK let me follow up on that. Does that now mean that our minutes will be verbatim as has been expressed here tonight. They have never been verbatim, verbatim minutes would be about that thick. every single word, all they do is transcribe the tape.

Verbatim minutes are very difficult to read for one thing because of the way people speak and the way they read is somewhat different. What is the intent of this Council? Give some direction to City Clerk since we’re the ones in charge and we must give direction to the City Clerk; let’s give it.

Councilman Schmid said Madam Mayor can we move on?

Councilman Crawford said no we can’t move on.

Councilwoman Mason said Madam Mayor can we please move on?

Councilman Crawford said this has been brought up as an issue.

Councilwoman Mason said no it’s not.

Councilman Crawford said what direction are we giving our City Clerk?

Mayor McLallen said one moment Mr. Crawford I would like to direct that this obviously has engendered quite a bit of strong feeling. We are wanting to be a more efficient Council and I think perhaps the Clerk can give us some views, the Council Members can give views but as Mr. Mitzel pointed out midnight may not be the time. So, let’s put this on for a discussion item on the next agenda.

Councilwoman Mason said as far as I’m concerned there’s no discussion; if Hugh Crawford wants to read short minutes and you want to read short minutes fine. I spend Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday night reading my minutes. I have no problem. When I can progress the way Mr. Toth and Mr. Mitzel has with their computers I would be more than happy but I don’t think it’s your place or the new City Clerk to change anything this way. I don’t think there’s any discussion; I want my minutes the way I’ve gotten my minutes for four years. That’s how I want them.

2. Mayor McLallen said Item #2 this evening was pulled by Mr. Crawford; this was communication.

Councilman Crawford said it was supposed to be some additional information that I may have overlooked but I didn’t see it.

Mayor McLallen said the issue was to refer this letter to staff so there would not be information forth coming. If you read the entire, we’re talking about the cab communication?

Councilman Crawford said yes; refer to staff for report and recommendation. That’s our direction.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the staff be directed to bring back a report on communication concerning the taxi cab letter.

Yes (6) No (0) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

6. Mayor McLallen said Item #6, Mr. Toth, this is the six year road grant program and the authorizing resolution for the same.

Councilman Toth said yes. Madam Mayor on the six year road program on page 2 we have in here an item for $18,000 the lobbyist, at $1,500 a month. I question that being placed on the six year road program. All other consultants for the City are placed under the General Administration Fund, I think that’s where it belongs. Furthermore, on Page 3 we have $55,400 for lobbyist. Now that’s a significant raise for the lobbyist in 1996 and 97. That obviously is an error.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Nowicki would you like to come down.

Councilman Toth said it better be an error.

Mayor McLallen said I think I saw him say type-o but I’d like to hear it.

Mr. Nowicki said obviously it will be the same as the previous.

Councilman Toth said I’m not sure it’s going to be the same as the previous. I’m not going to vote for this thing with the lobbyist funds in here. The other concern I have is the Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County. We are spending $8,000 a year for 95/96 and also 96/97. It’s in for 97/98 and also 98/99 and so on. What benefit do we get out of spending $8,000 a year for this association? I don’t think I’ve seen anything that warrants spending that kind of money.

Mr. Nowicki said I believe in previous years this was included under the Police Department’s Budget and it’s my recollection, I could be wrong, but I believe that Council transferred that to the road program or the road funds in this current fiscal years budget deliberations. Again, we may have to check on that. What type of benefits are we receiving from TIA? Well I’m just starting to get now involved with them and spending a little more time in going through exactly what services they are providing. So, I can’t provide you a comprehensive list because again just recently in the past few months or so have I been actually working with TIA. TIA provides crash data, incident data, they work with the school systems on training programs for crossing guards, they’ve assisted us, actually the Police Department, in setting up their crossing guard programs and going through that process. They’ve interfaced between us and Oakland County on a number of issues regarding traffic signals and we are now working with them to try and put together a pilot program utilizing our, hopefully future, GIS capabilities. In that respect, I can just speak for the last few months but previous to that I really don’t know.

Councilman Toth said the other item is the Grand River Corridor Design Study. Is this the same one proposed by the Planning Commission on their original budget proposal?

Mr. Nowicki said yes; that was transferred to the road programs as part of the budget deliberations.

Councilman Toth said and this will be conducted by whom?

Mr. Nowicki said well what we will do is we will prepare, based on the information that was provided, a scope of services and request Council to authorize us to seek proposals.

Councilman Toth said does it go out for bids?

Mr. Nowicki said that would be my recommendation. However, that could change depending on Council’s vote.

Councilman Toth said Madam Mayor I’m prepared to approve this six year road program with the exception of the lobbyist but I’ll defer until the rest of the Council had a chance to speak.

Councilwoman Mason said my question is if the $55,400 is an error then you came up with total expenditures of $1,361,267 which matches. Then you come up with a balance of $1,448,094 but if $55,400 doesn’t belong there where did you match up this Fund Balance to make sure this was right. Because you have an error of $55,400.

Mr. Nowicki said we start with the beginning year.

Councilwoman Mason said you see what I’m saying. All these figures come out right.

Mr. Nowicki said we start with the fiscal year 94/95. At the very top we have the Fund Balance and we start working forward on that. We take the current years numbers based on the audit.

Councilwoman Mason said no, no Tony, it doesn’t matter. To me what I’m saying is, as someone who does accounting from time to time and did it before, how could you come up with estimated costs with a typographical error or a numerical error and then end up with the balance. Did you have someplace in this ledger saying, Oh we’re right $1,448,094? I mean this is like almost backing into a balance because here we have a typographical error of $55,400 and yet the expenditures come out right and the balance comes out right. Now, what happened here?

Mr. Nowicki said I don’t think anything happened here. 95/96 if you back up, 95/96 they’re all projected based on the projects that we have going.

Councilwoman Mason said I understand, you know, I understand it all.

Mr. Nowicki said 96/97 is projected. So, you want to know how one million. . . .

Councilwoman Mason no, what should the $55,400 figure be?

Mr. Nowicki said based on the $1,500 a month it would be the same thing as the other year; it’s $18,000.

Councilwoman Mason said OK now so my point is, and that’s the end of it. The point is there’s an error between $55,400 and $18,000 and yet your expenditures comes up to $1,361,267 leaving a balance of $1,448,094. What I want to know is some place there’s a checks and balance. If Mr. Toth hadn’t seen that error we would accept this paper this way with that balance and that balance has to be wrong because this adds up properly.

Mr. Nowicki said it’s a future balance.

Councilwoman Mason said that is my point.

Mr. Nowicki said it’s a future balance so where would the check and balance be? It’s future, it’s projection so right now what we do is we go back there and correct the numbers and then it all adds up and balances. This is . . .

Councilwoman Mason said well it’s not going to add up and balance because this $1,361,267 in expenditures includes $55,400.

Mr. Nowicki said it includes projected expenditures. The only real number we would have would be starting in fiscal year 94/95 that is provided by the audit. The rest are future projections.

Councilwoman Mason said I won’t agree with that. I just want to point that out to other members of this Council as you could have very easily accepted expenditures in an estimate 96/97 of $1,361,267 when in fact that is not your expenditures. So you probably should look into some of the other things.

Mr. Nowicki said typically with the six year road program....

Councilman Toth said in view of the problems that we have with this we do have a meeting next Monday.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That the Six Year road Program be tabled until Monday so that the suitable corrections can be made to the document and that the appropriate changes can be made and we get a true document that reflects actual monies that will be allocated.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Nowicki I’d asked you a question earlier about the possibility of old curbs in Meadowbrook Glens being replaced with the modern ramp type during the program that’s in here. That was asked to me by some people there. You had mentioned that it could be done but it may change some of the values. Does that have to be addressed at this point or can that . . .

I don’t know if . . .

Mr. Nowicki said typically with the six year road program what happens here is you generally embrace the basic projects in concept. Then when the projects get closer and the dollar amounts are pretty much nailed down through that process then Council accepts those particular projects and the dollar amounts.

Councilman Mitzel said I just wanted to know if we had to worry about the dollar amounts at this point because it’s projected in 96/97?

Mr. Nowicki said yes, we might have to in light of the difference between $18,000 and the $55,400. However, that would require our engineers to go out and survey the site and take a look at all of the ramps that would need to be rebuilt and come up with an estimate of cost.

Councilman Mitzel said that would probably cost more than if it was just included in the payment program when it was done at that point.

Mr. Nowicki said well to go out and do it twice it could make. . .

Councilman Mitzel said I don’t think it would be worth going out and redoing the work twice. I just would like to see it, you know, if it can be incorporated within the curb replacement as part of the asphalt repair program then I think that’s a good idea to do that. Bring it up to modern standards. I would have to agree on the concern about lobbyists being listed in the road program.

Mayor McLallen said its been moved to put this over on next Monday’s agenda and I would recommend that it become not a Consent Item but a discussion item. Is that agreeable with you Mr. Toth.

Councilman Toth said fine.

Yes (5) No (1-Crawford) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION CARRIED

8. Mayor McLallen said Item #8 Mr. Mitzel was yours. It’s the RFP for Farrand and Associates.

Councilman Mitzel said I just pulled it so I could vote no. I have a concern about the strong emphasis on the Golf Course when we have three private sector golf courses already in town. I believe there’s other needs that Parks should address. I wasn’t aware that the request for proposal had gone out that stated that the firm that would be hired would have expertise in Municipal Golf Course design and that one of the Master Plans would include the golf course and another plan would not include a golf course. Otherwise, I would have flagged it earlier. This is the first time I recall seeing it. So I just want to pull it so I could vote no. Thank you.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

To approve RFP to Farrand and Associatiates.

Yes (3) No (3-Mason, Mitzel, Toth) Absent (1-Pope) MOTION FAILED

Mayor McLallen said any further issues?

Councilman Toth said Madam Mayor one comment on that just briefly. We have not directed the City Administration nor the Parks and Recreation to enter into any kind of agreement to operate a City golf course. I think that issue should come and receive direction from Council before they pursue that. It’s a tremendous expense that this Council has looked at in consideration of the Bob-O-Link Golf Course and I don’t, for one, want the City to get heavily involved in any of this type of design until we know exactly what the cost will be and whether or not this City can bear that cost.

Councilman Mitzel said Madam Mayor may I suggest that it be placed on our October 9th agenda.

Mayor McLallen said this was the agenda to have a joint meeting and there was no support for it.

Councilman Schmid said it would be just some hundreds of thousands of dollars less expensive than so called computers Mr. Toth that you ‘re proposing that’s suppose to create a . .

Mayor McLallen said this meeting is adjourned?

Councilwoman Mason said Oh my God I can’t believe you said that Mr. Schmid.

Councilman Crawford said I had my hand up. I had a question.

Mayor McLallen said I was teasing you.

Councilwoman Mason said not everyone golfs.

Councilman Schmid said that’s right not everyone golfs but even senior citizens golf and Carol you don’t golf so you should vote against it.

Councilwoman Mason said I know and I don’t have to golf free Bob either.

Councilman Schmid said I don’t ride bikes on bike paths either.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Crawford has requested the floor.

Councilman Schmid said the one item in this City that might make some money and you guys . . .

Councilwoman Mason said no and it’s also free.

Councilman Crawford said just a reminder to Council that this RFP is not a commitment to build a golf course. It’s just a part of a design of that park. Also, a reminder that Council has directed the Parks and Rec Commission to proceed in this manner and we get right down to the bottom line and we don’t allow them to proceed. When this RFP was before us for them to send out it mentioned an alternate design for a golf course. Now, perhaps some members missed that in the documentation but it was there and we directed them to proceed in that manner and they did and now at the eleventh hour we’re saying don’t proceed in that matter. I think it’s very improper to do that to the Commission with the direction we’ve given them previous to this.

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McLallen said at this point there’s no further business for the Council. There’s obviously some discussion but there’s no further business. This issue will be taken up at the joint meeting. It’s quarter after twelve shall we say good night.

MAYOR CITY CLERK

Date approved: