REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1995 AT 8:00 p.m. EDT

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

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

Council pledged allegiance to the flag.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen (present), Mayor Pro-Tem Crawford (present),

Council Members Cassis (present), Clark (present), Mitzel (present),

Mutch (present), Schmid (present)

Present (7) Absent (0)

-ooo-

ALSO PRESENT: Edward Kriewall - City Manager

Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager

David Fried - City Attorney

Les Gibson - Financial Director

Jim Wahl - Director of Community Development

Tonni Bartholomew - City Clerk

-ooo-

Mayor McLallen said this is the annual presentation of the City’s financial statements.

Mr.Walsh said first of all I would like to apologize for Joe Heffernan. He’s the partner in the account. He is flying back from Florida this evening. He may show up midway through this and if not he gives his apologies. You should have all received previously in your board packets a financial statement package to be a General Purpose Financial Statements and also the management letter. What I just passed out to you this evening is a graph package which I’m going to go over first, if we can get this right. This can also be found in your General Purpose Financial Statements. What I quickly wanted to do today was go over really the opinion letter to the General Purpose Financial Statements just to give you a broad overview of what we do during an audit. This could also be found in your General Purpose Financial Statement which is a thick package. The first paragraph about midway down, I know you won’t be able to see it up there, basically it says that the General Purpose Financial Statements is the responsibility of the City of Novi. They’re not our financial statements they are your financial statements. Our responsibility is just to express our opinion on the financial statements based on our audit.

The second paragraph goes on to say in performing our audit what we are really doing is obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We are auditing on a test basis the items included in the financial statements and then giving our opinion on those. Based on the testing we did we concluded that the Financial Statements referred to above present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the City of Novi as of June 30, 1995. This is what is called an unqualified opinion or clean opinion. This is the best opinion an auditing firm can give a City. You should be happy about that.

Now we will go onto some things that, hopefully, you can read a little bit better here. This is included in your graph package which I just passed out. The first graph in there is a balance sheet for the governmental fund types of the City of Novi. The first column reading left to right is the General Fund. As of June 30, 1995, the General Fund had $5,300,000 in total assets. The majority of those were in cash and then loans receivable from other funds. They also had liabilities amounting to about $2.6 Million. Those would be your accounts payables and other recurring items. Leaving a fund balance of just under $2.7 Million as of June 30, 1995.

The second column is the Special Revenue Funds and the City has eight Special Revenue Funds; the Major Street Fund, the Local Street Fund, Municipal Street Fund, Parks and Rec. Fund, Police and Fire Fund, Library Fund and two drain funds. So this is a combination of all those funds into one. As of June 30th there is about $15,600,000 of assets, primarily, cash in Special Assessments Receivable. Liabilities amounting to just over $6 Million, once again the majority of that being Special Assessments deferred revenue, leaving a fund balance for all those eight funds of $9.4 Million.

The third columns are your debt service funds. You have twelve of those and I won’t go through and name all those for you. They roughly have a little bit over $2 Million in assets about $1.8 Million in cash. Liabilities of about $580,000 leaving a fund balance for the Debt Service Funds of $1.5 Million.

The Capitol Projects Funds which you have two of, the Voted Street Construction and the Park Capital, have assets of roughly $9.6 Million primarily all cash and liabilities amounting to about $3 Million leaving a fund balance in those two accounts of a little over $6 Million.

The second graph we have tonight is showing the revenue and expenditures for those same governmental fund types. In the General Fund we had about $10 Million in total revenue. About $8 Million of that is from property taxes and from State Shared Revenues. Our expenses for the year were $12,500,000. About $7 Million of that were Police and Fire Fund expenditures. Other financing source is really a contribution from the Special Revenue Fund to cover some of the Police and Fire expenditures. There is a special millage which is recorded in the Special Revenue Fund and it gets transferred over to the General Fund.

So, for the year the General Fund ended up about $51,000 of revenue over expenditures. This compares to a budgeted amount of a loss of about $1.4 Million. So we did a lot better than budget.

Special Revenue Funds had revenues of about $9.8 Million; primarily one being property taxes. Expenses about $6,400,000 primarily construction. There’s a transfer out going to the General Fund leaving excess revenues for the year of $944,000.

The Debt Service Funds had a revenue of about $3.3 Million almost all property tax money; $3,447,000 in expenses being your debt service, principal interest payments for the year. An operating transfer in of about $218,000 leaving excess revenue for the year of $82,000.

The Capitol Projects Fund our revenue consisted primarily of interest for the year. They had construction expenditures of roughly $5.3 Million leaving excess expenditures of $4,775,000.

The next graph compares those same four fund types governmental funds revenue for 1994 to 1995. In total we had about a 4% increase in our revenues from 1994 to 1995. The two big categories there, first of all the blue category which is your property taxes, went from about $13,200,000 to nearly $14 Million; about a 5% increase. Proposal A would have limited that increase to about 2.6% for the year to the additional increase basically due to new construction within the City.

The other main category, the red category near the bottom, that’s the State Shared Revenue; that went up about 7% this year. All the other revenues stayed pretty consistent with the prior year.

Mr.Richards said we will now look at the expenditures for those same fund types. Once again we will hit primarily on the biggest expenses. Last year the Police and Fire Fund had about $6.3 Million in expenditures and this year it went up to $6,926,000. About a 10% increase in our Police and Fire Fund expenditures for the year. The big decrease, so we had a net $4.5 Million decrease in total expenses. The majority of that coming in the Capitol Projects Fund, in construction our construction expenses went from almost $13 Million down to about $7,200,000,000. Those are the primary reasons for the decrease.

The next couple graphs will show what the fund balances are for the different fund types. The first one is the General Fund. It’s a five-year analysis. The little red part of it is the undesignated fund balance. That’s the portion that you can basically do whatever you want with. The blue portion is designated for a specific purpose. Back in 1991 we were a little bit less than $2 Million the last three years in particular we have kind of leveled off to roughly about the $2.6 Million range for fund balance. The big change between 1994 and 1995 would be in the undesignated portion. It went from basically nothing to almost a million dollars. That million dollars represents about 8% of your annual expense which is probably somewhere in the mid range for cities.

The designated portion, about $600,000 of that is designated for next years expenditures over our revenue what we project and about $1.1 Million represents monies which we recorded as revenue but we haven’t received the cash yet. So we can’t really spend that money if we don’t have it in as of June 30.

The next ones we have here are the Special Revenue Funds. These would be the late funds I talked about previously. Once again, we did a five-year analysis on those. I won’t go into great length of these. Our Street Funds have about $2.6 Million of Fund Balance as of June 30.

The Special Assessment is not really a fund; we kind of broke out the Special Assessment portion of each one of these funds keeping that separate because we can’t spend that money except on the Special Assessment Projects. That was about $2.4 Million.

The Drain Funds, there are two of them, there’s about $3.3 Million. Then we have Police and Fire, Parks and Rec. and Library all with positive fund balance and all pretty consistent with the prior years.

The Debt Service Fund we also broke down between Special Assessment Debt Service Funds and the City wide debt. The City wide debt is the little red bar. As you can see, we have very little fund balance to service the Debt Service Funds. So, typically we just levy enough property taxes to cover our debt service and there is not really any surplus.

The Special Assessments are monies which are restricted to pay off the Special Assessment Bonds as they become due. So, we really have no access to that money either, either one of those two.

The next graph compares the Capital Project Fund Balances for five years. We have the Voted Street Construction Fund and the Parks and Capital Fund. The Parks and Capital Funding didn’t come into play until 1993 when we issued $16 Million in combined bonds between the streets and the parks. That’s why 1993 went up so high and now we’re spending out that bond money and we’re down to $6 Million and I’d expect in the next few years that will keep being depleted.

The last one in this packet is the Water and Sewer Fund Analysis. We took a look at the water and sewer sales for the last four years and then also an estimate for the 96 year, based on budgeted numbers, and then we also compared that to the working capital. The Working Capital would be our current assets which are primarily cash and receivables compared to our current liabilities. This would not take into account any of the long term debt. As you can see, our water and sewer sales have been increasing pretty steadily the last four or five years. A combination of raising the water and sewer rates in 1992 and increasing the population and new construction. The Working Capital has also been increasing, I think that was all planned and we recommend that you project that out going forward. We have a lot of debt service we need to cover and eventually our construction will end and our water and sewer sales will level off and we will still have all those bonds out there to still pay and our costs will keep rising. So, we don’t think that $13 Million is excessive in any sense of the word.

The next thing I’d like to get into would be the management letter. You all should have received this in your board packet. Last year, I think it was at the Council meeting, we were asked to look at a couple of these city’s operations and do a more detailed analysis of that. This year we picked the Parks and Rec. Fund and the Water and Sewer Fund.

Exhibit one would be an analysis of the Parks and Rec. Fund for the current year. As you can see the Parks and Rec. Fund operated at a deficit of about $66,000 for the current year. These numbers are sometimes a little misleading based on the timing of our revenues and expenditures. Somebody pays for the program early we count it as a revenue even though the expense might not have incurred. Over a long period of time every thing evens out; these might not be completely accurate at this point in time.

Looking at that analysis you can see that the property taxes that are levied approximately will cover all of our wages and related benefitted costs. So the $496,000 on the top line will basically cover our personal services which are our wages. You can also see that our program revenue will do a little bit more than cover our program expenditures. There is obviously some that make money and some that lose money. We also have in there a transfer from the General Fund of about $140,000. One of the reasons for the excess in expenditures in the current year we have our Fuerst estate gift of about $92,000 and under the expenditure’s side we had Capital Outlay for the Fuerst estate of about $191,000. We had received money in the past as revenue which we are just spending this year. So, it’s a little bit misleading in that regard. Without that in there we would have actually operated at a profit this year.

Exhibit two takes a more detailed look at each one of the activities from in the Parks and Rec. Fund. This list is not all inclusive, at the bottom there’s a line that says Other; so we grouped a bunch of the smaller programs together. So, as you can see the first column is Program Fees, the second one is Program Costs and the third one is really whether we operated at a profit or not with a 100% being break even. I don’t think as a city you should be looking at these and saying they lost money let’s get rid of it because a lot of things the city does for the convenience of the citizens a lot of these programs are worthwhile even if they don’t make money. I think the city realizes that.

Exhibit three, getting into the Water and Sewer Fund is a little bit more detailed analysis of the prior graph I showed you. About half way down there is a line that separates’ things that says Total from recurring operations. That’s probably the line that you really want to look at. That takes out some of the things like bond issues, debt service and just looks at your water sales and your sewer sales and compares it to your normal operating expenses. As you can see in 1993, 94 and 95 the income from current operations has been steadily declining and estimated for 1996 we’re getting close to the break even. So, although we have a lot of working capital water and sewer rates have to be continually looked at and obviously our costs from the City of Detroit are getting increased every year and we should consider looking at that every year and making a decision whether we want to increase rates.

That’s it for our presentation and I would be happy to answer you have on any of these graphs or on the financial statements.

Mayor McLallen said are there any pertinent questions or would the Council like to make this a discussion item later in the evening?

Councilman Schmid said I don’t know if it’s pertinent Madam Mayor but it’s a question. Looking at graph five on page 5 of the graphs, you showed, the City of Novi comparison of General Fund Balances. Explain again the undesignated, designated and the rather wide variance in 95.

Mr. Richards said basically the undesignated portion is stuff that is not being kind of set aside for anything specific. So, that increased this year just based on the operations of what was due as of the end of the year. I guess timing in purchase orders could have some affect on that.

Councilman Schmid said that’s about $1.5 right.

Mr. Richards said yes and also our budget for last year would have projected a bigger net loss for this year so we would have designated more of the fund balance to cover that loss. So this year we have about $600,000 designated but next year’s expenditures over our revenues, for the budget that was adopted by the City Council, had the General Fund being at a deficit in 96 of $600,000. We designated a portion of this fund balance to cover that. You look back last year that number would have been a lot bigger and you would have designated a lot more of the fund balance.

Councilman Schmid said 1994 was how much?

Mr. Richards said 1995 final budget said that we’d have a $1.4 Million loss. I don’t know how many times it was amended during the year but if that was the starting point out of that $2.6 Million a million four would have been designated for next year. This year it went down to $600,000 so that’s picking up $800,000 right there if you want to look at it that way.

Mr. Gibson said one other item that contributed to it is you’ll notice last year 1994 was substantially down and that was the year we had a problem with that tax levy for debt service; that’s what accounted for that.

Councilman Schmid said one other quick question on the Fuerst property and the report of the expenditures under Parks and Rec. what was the $191,881? What does that represent? Do you know? You may not know.

Mr. Richards said I know its construction related construction and engineering costs I guess. .

Councilman Schmid said what did we construct?

Councilman Mitzel said two softball fields.

Mayor McLallen said are there any other members with comments or questions for the auditors? Seeing none we will accept the report and thank you for all the work. We appreciate it.

2. PRESENTATION: Historical Marker from John Thompson of the Historical Commission

Mr. Thompson said this is the marker made by Alex Del Vecchio’s company, the hockey player, for the Novi Cemetery on Novi Road off of Grand River.

Mayor McLallen said that is really handsome. This is the second such marker we’ve had placed in the City. The first one was on the old Town Hall.

Councilman Schmid asked if Alex Del Vecchio donated it?

Mr. Thompson said no it was his company that made the plaque.

Mayor McLallen said no, he made it I don’t think it was a donation. That’s really handsome and I understand that it is scheduled to be installed on Wednesday this week at 4:30 p.m. and everyone is invited to witness that.

Mayor McLallen said Mrs. Bartholomew did we have to set a vote for the November 27 meeting?

Mrs. Bartholomew said yes.

Mayor McLallen said we’d like to add as Item #15 calling a special meeting on November 27th to have interviews for boards and commissions. That’s next Monday at 7:30 p.m..

Mr. Fried said Mr. Galvin called and asked that Item #6 be placed later in the agenda. He was unable to be present at this time and he wanted to address the Council on that item. Item #6 is the adoption of Ordinance 95-18.530.

Mayor McLallen said it’s only here for first reading.

Mr. Fried said I’m just repeating what he asked for.

Mayor McLallen said members of Council what’s your pleasure?

Councilman Schmid said based on the reading of the minutes and so forth this is a fairly highly complicated issue or at least controversial if not complicated. I would think that the petitioner would want to be here even though it’s the first reading it’s an important reading. I don’t care if we move it up or back but it’s going to take some time is all I’m suggesting it’s not going to move rapidly I don’t think.

Mayor McLallen said would the Council prefer to drop Item 6 down to after Matter for Council Action Part II perhaps down into Item 12? Mayor McLallen said how about we rearrange Items 6 and 12 we’ll just flip flop them if that’s agreeable. That would give him a 50% chance to get here.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That the agenda be approved as amended with Item 15 to schedule a Special Meeting of Council on November 27 at 7:30 p.m. and the rearrangement of Items 6 and 12.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Phil Morasco said I am the General Manager of Twelve Oaks Mall but this evening I am representing the Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Mayor McLallen said did Santa Claus make it?

Mr. Morasco said right on time.

Mayor McLallen said excellent. Santa was arriving at the mall at 7:00 p.m. this evening.

Harry Avagian said he would like to make a couple of remarks on behalf of LARA. I’d like to congratulate the three new members to the Council, Mr. Clark, Mrs. Cassis and Mrs. Mutch and certainly, congratulate the Mayor upon her reelection to her post of Mayor. As we start this new term with the Council, I guess you really started last Monday night, I’m hoping that this Council can work in a way whereby you bear in mind the real reason why you are here. That is to serve the citizens of this community. They don’t necessarily have to agree with what you have to say or you agree with what they have to say but you owe them the respect and the dignity necessary as citizens who take time to come to a Council meeting to respectfully listen to their points of view. I think this Councils’s able to do that. I just want to say this at the very first Council meeting though please let’s stay with the issues and let’s not allow people to come before the Council and to deal with personalities and stories which are not germane to what’s best for the City of Novi. I think that as I look back upon my three years of being President of LARA we’d like to maintain the positive kind of relationship that we have had with City Administration and City Council. That doesn’t mean that we’re here to get every thing that we ask for but what it does mean is that you give us the time of day with the necessary respect and dignity to allow our citizens to express themselves whether they are from the lakes area, the southern part of the City or for that matter any where. Along with that Madam Mayor and Council, I want to say the term that is usually very appropriate here is to make the Council user friendly. Let’s not set up environmental conditions which create a situation that make people feel intimidated who come before this Council. Likewise, a message for those who use this Council for their own personal gain or pet peeves let’s encourage those people to stay on the issue.

We are a civic organization, we have a very active homeowners group in the lakes area and we are in general agreement to be able to work together for the betterment of our lakes community. I ask for your cooperation only to be able to listen to what we have to say and to take into account our comments and our recommendations before you act on issues affecting us. Thank you very much.

Mayor McLallen said thank you for your comments Mr. Avagian.

Phil McKenna, community planner here representing the Solomon Group and on behalf of the Solomon Group who is very interested in Item 6 which you just moved down to Item 12. Can I take it from that that we will have an opportunity to speak when that is considered?

Mayor McLallen said yes.

Mr. McKenna said OK thank you very much.

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin said I’m here this evening as a private resident. Item 2 on your agenda regarding the block grant funds and the safety path I think there’s still some things you need to take a look at. We have never yet seen any engineering showing where the safety path is going across the Shawood Canal. We’re also still concerned because everything we’ve seen and everything we’ve heard says that the path is going to go to Lake Shore Park and then it’s going to start from Lake Shore Park. Are we doing anything with the hill at Lake Shore Park which is basically the worst area? Please keep that in mind.

Regarding Item #12 on the agenda which is the PD-1 Option I was at the Special Planning Commission meeting on November 8. I was invited by one of the Commissioners to be there because of the area involved. I am still in support of the PD-1 Option, I’ve read through the packet that you have tonight and I would suggest that rather than deleting the PD-1 Option delete the Commercial from it. I have never understood why it was in the ordinance when it was first proposed seven, eight whatever years ago. I don’t think you need to change the PD-1 Option. This is the only area left in the City with it. We get the PUD’s, you know, let this go in. From what I’ve seen of the proposed project that’s going to be up there it’s going to be a great use of the land and it’s going to be environmentally sensitive. For some reason my comments were not contained in the Council packet and I also speak for Ruth Hamilton who was at that meeting. We are both in support of that project that is proposed to go in.

The last item that I want to address is #11 the future of the lake property. I’ve seen Mr. Mitzel’s proposal and I want to remind you all that no matter what you do on this property there still is a landlocked piece of privately owned property owned by Mrs. Helen Pembroke. Please recognize that and whatever you do with this property take into consideration that there is private ownership in there. Thank you very much.

Mayor McLallen said Ms. Gray I understand that there are some engineering designs that Mr. Pargoff has concerning the pathway and if you’d like to speak to him you can see them.

Mrs. Max Roder, wife of Det. Roder, an almost 25-year employee of the Novi Police Department said good evening. On November 2nd my husband returned home with his pay envelope and a communication with attachments, purportedly from the City of Novi although no person or department was taking responsibility for it nor was it on City letterhead (see attachments). This communication demanded that by the 17th of November, he turn over to Cheryl McNamara, wife of Sergeant McNamara one of my husband’s immediate superiors, his 1994 Federal 1040 minus dollar amounts or his legally entitled benefits would be terminated and he would face financial sanctions. The supposed purpose of this demand was to establish that our university enrolled dependent child was in fact Federally qualified.

I have checked with friends that have children of the same age. Their insurance carriers, not the employers do indeed ask for a signed declaration that the child is a Federally qualified dependent. This sworn statement is then returned to the insurance carriers, not the employers. This process, according to Dennis Watson, City Attorney, is no acceptable because there is nothing to preclude the City from demanding this most confidential document. Wouldn’t you think that an original sworn statement, by an officer of the law would carry more veracity than an adulterated copy of a copy?

Now, if Blue Cross does indeed demand that the City collect copies of our 1040's, I want the City to provide to me the documentation of this. If not, I want the City person(s) responsible for this demand to document to me in writing, with appropriate back up materials, their method for either proving or disproving that this is indeed a true copy of a copy. This is necessary since the Privacy Act of 1976 states that the IRS "may" provide information to states, cities, etc." to carry out their tax laws." Since this is not a city income tax issue, you will not be getting a copy of the original from them. I would like this information within the same 10 business day time frame given in the memo.

Additionally, it is none of the City’s business if we do in fact file a joint or separate return. But suppose for the sake of argument that we do. I do not work for the City, nor are they my financial institution. Therefore, they are not entitled to know even so much as my social security number, never mind any of the other confidential information on both the front and back of form 1040. I have to wonder if this is not really a quest for information other than the reason stated. Even if it isn’t, it is very questionable.

In addition to the 1994 1040, a sworn statement had to be provided stating your intention to deduct this child as a 1995 dependent. It further demanded a 1995 Federal 1040 had to be provided by May 1996. In my conversation with Mr. Watson, I suggested that since the Federal Government allows for a legal extension until August, the City was being presumptuous in not allowing people to exercise their Federal rights. The reply was to the effect that a request for an extension could be gotten from the City. So, it would appear that in order to exercise your Federally guaranteed rights, permission must be obtained from the City. Does anyone else besides me see a problem with this?

Frankly, I have a big problem with this whole invasion of privacy. It seems more than excessive in relation to what other insurance carriers, not employers, require. Not only am I bringing this to your attention, I am requesting from this Council tonight, a directive that the information I have asked for this evening be furnished to me. Thank you.

Mayor McLallen said would the Administration please follow up on that.

1. Adoption of Resolution, Re: 1995 Budget Carry Over Items.

RESOLUTION NO. 96-9

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following 1995-1996 budget amendments are authorized:

INCREASE

GENERAL FUND DECREASE)

REVENUE

Transfer from Police and Fire Fund $ (21,385)

Appropriation of Fund Balance 300,836

$ 279,451

APPROPRIATIONS

TREASURY-Capital Outlay (check protector) 1,200

BUILDING AND GROUNDS-Capital Outlay (building improvements) 29,801

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION-Capital Outlay (sidewalks) 50,000

POLICE DEPARTMENT-Capital Outlay (communications equipment) 31,564

POLICE DEPARTMENT-Capital Outlay (vehicles) 68,932 FIRE DEPARTMENT-Capital Outlay (land acquisition) 40,000

FIRE DEPARTMENT-Capital Outlay (building improvements) 9,000

FIRE DEPARTMENT-Capital Outlay (fire equipment) 14,224

FIRE DEPARTMENT-Capital Outlay (communications equipment) 3,830

MUNICIPAL GARAGE-Capital Outlay (building improvements) 50,000

PLANNING COMMISSION-Other Services and Charges (10 year transportation plan 2,285

CONTINGENCIES (NEW BALANCE $234,448) $ (279,451)

LOCAL STREET FUND

REVENUE

APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE $ (57,719)

APPROPRIATIONS

CONSTRUCTION $ (57,719)

POLICE AND FIRE FUND

REVENUE

APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE $ (21,385)

TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND $ (21,385)

PARKS AND RECREATION FUND

APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE $ 61,000

RECREATION-Capital Outlay (stage) $ 61,000

DRAIN REVENUE FUND

APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE $ (197,402)

CONSTRUCTION $ (197,402)

VOTED STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND

APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE $ 1,438,965

CONSTRUCTION $ 1,438,965

REVENUE

APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE $ 444,835

CONSTRUCTION $ 444,835

2. Approval of Traffic control Order P95-01 - 20 Miles an hour on all roads within

Maples of Novi Development.

3. Approval of Traffic control Order P95-02 - 3 Way Stop at Waverly Drive, Independence

Drive and Cantebury Drive.

4. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-03 - 3 Way Stop at Independence Drive, Centennial Drive and Sleepy Hollow Drive.

5. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-04 - 3 Way Stop at Cantebury Drive and

Centennial Drive.

6. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-05 - Westbound Kirkwood Drive to Yield at

Centennial Drive.

7. Approval of Traffic control Order P95-06 - Northbound Centennial to Stop at Fourteen Mile Road.

8. Approval of Traffic control Order P95-07 - Northbound Wakefield Drive to Stop at

Fourteen Mile Road.

9. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-08 - 3 Way Stop at Wakefield Drive, Tanglewood Drive and Collingdale Drive.

10. Approval of Traffic control Order P95-09 - 3 Way Stop at Collingdale Drive, Tanglewood Drive and Sleepy Hollow Drive.

11. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-10 - Eastbound Palmer Drive to Stop at Sleepy

Hollow Drive.

12. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-11 - No Parking on Both Sides of Waverly Drive

Between Independence Drive and Decker Road.

13. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-12- No Parking on the West and North Side of

Cantebury Drive between Waverly Drive and Centennial Drive.

14. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-13 - No Parking on the North Side of Independence Drive Between Waverly Drive and Sleepy Hollow Drive.

15. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-14 - No Parking on the East Side of Centennial

Drive from Sleepy Hollow Drive to a Point Approximately 200 feet North of Magnolia Court.

16. Approval of Traffic Control Order P95-15 - No Parking on the West Side of Centennial

Drive from Primrose Lane to a Point Approximately 250 Feet South of Webster Court.

17. Approval of Street Name Change in Mockingbird Subdivision of Kelly Court to Red Pine

Court.

18. Approval for City Attorney to draft cost sharing agreement between City and West Oaks

Veterinary Clinic for storm sewer improvements on Austin and Iva Drives.

19. Approval for final pay estimate and balancing charge order - 11 Mile Road Improvement

project (Beck and Taft).

20. Amend 1996 City Council Meeting Dates from November 11th and 25th to November 4th and 18th due to Veteran’s Day Holiday - Offices Closed.

21. Approval of Pick up Truck Purchase from Red Holman Pontiac/GMC through Oakland

County Purchasing in the amount of $18,919.50.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the Consent Agenda be approved as submitted.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

1. Planning Commission Appointment

Mayor McLallen said next was the appointment of the Planning Commission seat whose term was up in June of 1995. At this time I would like to nominate Michelle Bononi for the position of Planning Commissioner. Michelle has been a resident of our community for three years. She has come to us from western Pennsylvania by way of Hartford, Conn. She is living in Royal Crown where she is serving as First Vice President of Royal Crown Board of Directors. She holds a bachelor’s degree from St. Joseph’s College in Conn. and has professional experience in planning in area site plans, woodlands and wetlands, ordinance development and especially land use law. While she has been working on the board in the Royal Crown Subdivision, Michelle has actively enabled the residents to become more acquainted with our woodland and wetlands ordinances and has been successfully meeting with the developer before they turn over the major reserve areas in that particular homeowners association. So she has quite a bit of knowledge of what is going on in our community and therefore I recommend Michelle for this position.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Mutch

That Council accepts the Mayor’s recommendation of Michelle Bononi for the vacant seat on the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said I would like to point out that this appointment replaces Bob Taub. Is that correct?

Mayor McLallen said that is correct.

Councilman Schmid said I would like to point out that I think Bob Taub has done an outstanding job while he was in the capacity of a planning commissioner. He has served the City well. I’ve seen him grow in that position over the several years that he’s been there or the few years that he’s been there. I see him contributing significantly to the City at this time and I commend him for that and should he not be reappointed he should feel proud and I would hope that he comes back to the City for another position with the City of some type if not in fact for the Planning Commission. So you should feel proud Bob, as you have done an outstanding job.

Councilwoman Cassis said I would like to echo what Bob has said. The job of volunteering in this City takes many long hours and Robert Taub has done this with dignity for three years. He is a passionate individual who I’d like to say had a special interest in being sensitive to the citizens of this community. He was a planner and not only did he extend himself in many different ways and spend many hours in devotion to the City but his family would have to be thanked for their time too in allowing him the time that he spent in planning for the City. So, as with any volunteer that we have we appreciate their time, their efforts, their energies and we want to remember them with a special courtesy and a special respect. I think Bob has commended him on that and I would like to add my commendation to Bob and his family and I do think he has served this City extremely well.

Councilman Clark said I would join with the comments of the other members of the Council. We have to bear in mind that we have a process as it’s presently constituted where the Mayor proposes and we dispose in the sense of acting on the recommendations that the Mayor places before us. We often find ourselves in the position such as we do tonight when we have to make a choice between individuals. There is no question that Robert Taub is a dedicated member of this community and has served this community well as a member of the Planning Commission. However, we also have to bear in mind that when a name is placed in nomination as the present system is constituted when that name comes before us placed in nomination by the Mayor we have to look at that individual and their credentials fully and fairly. To do otherwise would be to say to other members of the community that no matter what your talents, dedication or willingness to serve might be that you would not be given full consideration because we might individually feel that another individual would serve the same purpose equally as well. That’s why I say that we are faced with a difficulty this evening. But we have to base our decision tonight on the qualifications of the person who has been placed in nomination before us by the Mayor. Again, I echo the sentiments of my fellow members of Council in terms of dedication and the public service that has been rendered to date by Mr. Taub as a member of the Planning Commission.

Councilwoman Mutch said I had the distinction of serving as Mr. Clark and Mr. Mitzel did with Mr. Taub on the Planning Commission. I would like to say that Mr. Taub was very supportive to me as a new member of that Commission and provided continuing support during my time on the Planning Commission and for that I am particularly appreciative. I would also say that I have had the pleasure of serving on another Commission with the person that the Mayor has nominated and so it was my pleasure to second that nomination. We have in the community so many people who are not only qualified but willing to serve that it is sometimes difficult to make changes but in this particular case whatever our decision we will be making a good choice.

Councilman Mitzel said I was just going to concur with the comments Mr. Clark had made.

Mayor McLallen said any further comments at this time? The motion was made by Member Crawford and seconded by Member Mutch to accept the nomination for appointment of Michelle Bononi to the vacant Planning Commission seat that was held by Mr. Taub.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said Michelle is in the audience and I would like to introduce her to everyone. Congratulations and you can pick up the five tons of information immediately following this appointment. Mr. Taub will be recognized by the full Council for his service at a later date. Also, while we are on the Planning Commission there was some confusion. There is another Planning Commission seat open, it is Mrs. Mutch’s seat that was vacated when she was elected. That seat is accepting applicants and the interview will begin next Monday so anyone that wishes to apply for that seat please get your application into the City Clerk. It will be advertised in this weeks Novi News.

2. Approval of the Community Development Block Grant Resolution, Re: Programming and 1996 Funds

WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Committee has recommended

a program for the use of 1996 Community Development Block Grant Funds, and

WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Committee also recommends

the reprogramming of unexpended funds, and

WHEREAS, these recommendations were presented at a Public Hearing on November

6, 1995.

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

following budget for submittal to the Oakland County Community Development Division:

1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

1. PUBLIC SERVICE $34,000.00

A. Senior Citizen Center Manager ($13,000)

This item is a continuation of the 1995 CDBG Program.

Specifically these funds will be used for the salary expenses of our

senior citizen center manager. The position is employed through

the Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency (OLHSA).

The City of Novi supplements this position annual salary with the use of

these funds.

B. Senior Citizen Van Program ($13,000)

Again, this proposal is a continuation of funding from the previous

year. This funding will be used to supplement the funding provided

by the general fund in the delivery of our senior citizen van

program.

C. Novi Youth Assistance ($4,000.00)

This activity will provide funding for camp scholarships and

specialized counseling services for low income families.

D. Haven ($4,000.00)

This activity will provide funding to assist Haven in providing a

variety of specialized services to those who have experienced

sexual assault, domestic violence or child abuse/neglect.

2. SAFETY PATHS $ 78,000.00

These funds will be used to construct a safety path along East Lake Drive

from 14 Mile Road to 13 Mile Road.

3. ADMINISTRATION $ 859.00

Funding to cover administration of the Community Development Block

Grant Program.

TOTAL: $112,859.00

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

1. CONTINGENCY

1994 $3,419.00 re-program to........Safety Path

Year Amount

1992 $18,756.00 re-program to......Gasior Property Acquisition

1993 $ 9,744.00 re-program to......Housing Rehab

Mayor McLallen said this is the reprogramming and the 1996 Community Development Block Grant. Mr. Kriewall, Mr. Davis is absent, do you have any comments?

Mr. Kriewall said as the Mayor indicated there was a public hearing based on the recommendation of the HCD Committee. City Council has had the opportunity to review the recommendation and hear any additional citizen input and it essentially calls for a public service budget of $34,000 which provides for the funding of a Senior Citizen Center Manager, Senior Citizen Van Program, $13,000 in each instance, provides for Novi Youth Assistance $4,000 for camp scholarships and specialized counseling services for low income families. It provides for $4,000 for HAVEN, $78,000 for safety paths and provides for $859 in Administrative costs for our total HCD annual allotment of $112,859.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That HCD Block Grant and proposal for 1996 be approved.

Mr. Crawford said just to point out that the resolution also provides for some reprogramming of the prior years funds in addition to what Mr. Kriewall said.

Councilman Mitzel said I request that the City Manager provide Council with clarification on the questions Mrs. Gray had concerning whether the bike path would be built and how over the canal and also along the park frontage. Just to make sure that’s in there. I glanced at the engineering drawings. They seem to indicate some notations along that area but it would be nice if the Administration could clarify that would be constructed.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Kriewall will the City Administration please report back to the Council, a time frame and a more clearly detailed proposal.

Mr. Kriewall said yes.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said both Item #3 and #4 are from the same petitioner but we will start with Item #3. The project is located on the north side of Grand River west of Haggerty Road. It is a new project that was constructed and they have come to the City Council to appeal the cost.

Mr. Quinn said good evening. The only one I haven’t had a chance to congratulate yet is Mr. Clark congratulation on your appointment.

Councilman Clark said thank you.

Mr. Quinn said this matter was last in front of Council back in September. At that time we presented the entire full-blown appeal on the woodland permit replacement tree fund requirement of an amount to be paid by the Dahn Corporation of $54,675 to the City tree fund. At that time after the presentation Mr. Mitzel requested some information on the timeliness of the appeal and at that time Mr. Fried was to respond and then we were to respond. So we’re back tonight and therefore I guess the first thing to address is the issue of timeliness of this appeal. As I have placed in my previous letter to Council of November 14, 1995, it appears that Section 37.31 of the City Code has ambiguities present in it. At least from my point of view. The requirement would be that if there are ambiguities in the Statutory Law that it would be strictly construed against the City and not against the public or any applicant. The ambiguity becomes this. In that particular section words are interposed. Sometimes it talks about approval, sometimes it talks about grant of a permit. Now I would ask you to look to the attachment that I put in my letter of November 14 which is the actual Woodland Protection Permit that is issued to the Mini U Storage. That was dated August 1, 1995. The opening paragraph states as follows: "Under the provisions of Chapter 37, Woodlands Protection Code, Section 37.30 E3, 37.31," which we were talking about, "City of Novi approval is hereby granted to the Woodland Protection and plan filed with this office for the following:" Now a member of the public who is given this particular document would read that it has been granted on that day August the 1st. Therefore, when you look at the statute it says you have ten days to appeal from the time that the permit is granted. I would propose that this is where, if there is an ambiguity, this is where it arises from. Now I think this ambiguity is very properly questioned and if you’ll recall at that time Mr. Fried gave his prompt off the cuff answer that it was ten days from the time the permit was granted to the person at the time it was actually given to them which would be August 1st. Mr. Mitzel then recalled that there may have been a previous attorney opinion stating that Mr. Fried had said sometime before in writing that the ten days began from the time the Planning Commission heard and approved the permit at the hearing. But this is where the ambiguity comes into play. Now, Council has the choice to either, in my opinion, take it pursuant to the 37.31 of the woodlands code or as Mr. Fried has outlined in his letter to you to approve it under the general appellant powers of the City which is Code Section 1.12. If it’s taken under 1.12 the petitioner would have to meet three requirements which are fairly general in nature. 1) The applicant can establish that the requirement would result in exceptional practical difficulty. Well obviously not accepting the appeal is a practical difficulty. 2) That the relief would not substantially deviate from the performance that would otherwise be obtained under the ordinance. Of course that would have no impact here either. 3) Granting the relief would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor injurious to adjoining or neighboring property, nor contrary to the overall purpose of the regulation. Again there is no harm that has been brought forth from any source to the general health, safety or welfare of the community. So even under City Code Section 1.12 the appeal would be granted and decided on its merits. I think that’s where we are first, before I go into merits, I think there must be a commitment from Council to hear the appeal once again and it would be a short presentation because I know some of you heard it before, some of you were on the Planning Commission when this came previously and I’ll bet Ms. Cassis was watching television, the Council meeting, the last time I was here. So there’s no surprises in that appeal.

Mayor McLallen said the petitioner has asked the Council for a determination as to whether it will hear their request for the appeal. This is not granting the appeal this is just based on the information that was brought forward will the Council entertain the appeal?

Councilman Clark said as I’ve indicated many times when I was on the Planning Commission I’m always concerned when an argument is brought forth where either directly or by implication the issue of due process is raised. That being the case . . .

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Crawford

That Council grant the hearing on the appeal to the petitioner as requested.

Councilman Schmid said I would like, although I agree with due process, if there are rules there’s rules and there’s no need to due process. But I would like Mr. Fried to address this issue. I know what you said in your letter I thought you were merely indicating, if in fact, there was an issue at hand then they had to meet those three or four tests.

Mr. Fried said the first question is is the appeal timely irrespective of those tests. As I indicated at the last meeting it was my opinion that the appeal was timely. The permit was issued on August 1 and on August 9 the appeal was made. That was within the ten days. I think there was, there is, some ambiguity within the ordinance as to whether you deal with the time the permit was granted or approved by the Planning Commission or the time the actual permit was issued. In my opinion the common sense approach to it is it is the date the permit was actually issued because there are steps to be taken between the Planning Commission granting the permit and the actual issuing the permit. Those steps might not be accomplished by the applicant. So I think the rationale of taking it from the day of the issue, the appeal period commenced on the date the permit was issued would be the more logical approach to the problem. I do think this that we are going to have to straighten out the ordinance and we will do that and it will be back before you as to when the appeal period actually commences.

Councilman Schmid said I accept that as a perhaps we have to change the ordinance. So the ordinance clearly states today, and I don’t disagree that common sense should come into this thing but it clearly states that when it’s approved you got ten days. I believe the Planning Commission approves and the department merely proceeds to do what the Planning Commission suggested. So the approval is by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fried said the Planning Commission has to approve it.

Councilman Schmid said they have ten days after that according to the ordinance right or wrong?

Mr. Fried said you want me to get the ordinance and we’ll read the words exactly out of the ordinance.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Fried I just want to be sure that we’re treating everyone the same and when the next person comes forward that we got the same basis for what we’re doing. Now, doesn’t the ordinance say, and you could be right, it doesn’t say approved?

Mr. Fried said let me get the ordinance.

Councilman Schmid said I don’t want you to go through a lot of work.

Mr. Fried said no the ordinance is right here.

Mayor McLallen said while Mr. Fried is doing that Mr. Schmid shall we move on to any other comments?

Councilman Schmid said sure.

Mayor McLallen said are there any other comments by Members of Council? There is a motion to grant the ability to hear this appeal.

Mayor McLallen said the question at hand for the general audience is at what time do the clocks start ticking so that the petitioner could appeal this process. The petitioner has presented his case for the process beginning the day that the permit was actually granted and given over in hand which was August 1st. The other possible approval of the permit which is the discrepancy is when the Planning Commission granted that which was earlier in July. If the clock started ticking in July then the petitioner did not meet the window and that’s what we are trying to determine.

Mr. Fried said let me read the exact language out of the ordinance. "A request for appeal must be filed within 10 days, 10 calendar days, following the grant or denial." By that the grant or denial of the permit. If you read that literally then the grant or denial would flow from the grant or denial by the Planning Commission. That’s the literal interpretation of that.

Councilman Schmid said the starting date would be the date that they approve or deny. However, I can also understand the common sense issue of this. It makes a little more sense that it should go from the ten days in which it is granted from that legal document. But I think then very quickly the ordinance should be changed.

Mr. Fried said I agree.

Councilman Schmid said if they’re going to go with this approach. If not then, we should deny the request.

Councilman Mitzel said my comments were along the same lines as Mr. Schmid. When I was on the Planning Commission, it was my impression it was from the time the Planning Commission approved or denied and we’ve actually had some petitioners come in within that time frame. While Mr. Fried is going to be looking at clarifying the ordinance I’d also ask that he look at clarifying the length of time that approval is good until the permit is actually signed and issued by the City Forester. That could be another issue. The Planning Commission could say approve it and it could be out there two, three or four years before it gets to Mr. Pargoff’s office. That’s another concern.

Mayor McLallen said the motion before this Council is to grant the petitioner the right to hear his appeal at this time.

Councilman Schmid said I only want to reemphasize, I’m not trying to be difficult, is this with the intent to go back and look at the ordinance. Because as the ordinance reads, as Mr. Fried has pointed out, it is from the date that the Commission made their decision. So, if I vote yes on this, which I don’t mind doing if in fact it is the position of this Council that we revisit the ordinance.

Mayor McLallen said at this point the motion does not address that. The motion merely states to grant the petitioner the right to appeal this evening. The second issue can be addressed later. There’s also the letter of the 14th from Mr. Quinn there’s a quote of Mr. Fried’s letter of the 21st in which he states "the Council has the authority to grant relief from the time limit."

Councilman Schmid said absolutely.

Mr. Fried said the motion before the Council now is it doesn’t have to review that second leg of this problem if it doesn’t pass then the Council should review that second leg.

Mayor McLallen said again, the motion before us is to grant the petitioner the ability to appeal his position this evening.

Yes (6) No (1-Schmid) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said at this time we then move to Item #4.

Mr. Quinn said no actually you’re still on #3, now it’s the appeal which is the continuation of the previous presentation at the September meeting. You’ll recall that under the City Code the petitioner presented a plan showing 359 trees on site. The petitioner removed 276 trees and their replacement needed under the ordinance was 396 trees. Petitioner was able to put 90 trees on site and had to pay into the replacement fund, the tree fund, for 306 trees at $225.00 a tree totaling $54,675. Now, as in the correspondence and I know as good Council Members you’ve all read the previous minutes of the Council meeting and all of that so I’ll just highlight the most important points.

The petitioner has already paid on site or is ready to pay on site for the tree replacement and additional landscaping an amount of $38,000. The original figure was $34,425 as an estimate. The bids have come in in excess of $38,000 for the replacement trees and the landscaping. Now, if you took the requirement to the tree fund and the amount of trees on site and landscaping, the petitioner would have paid a total of $89,100 for trees and landscaping on this five-acre site. The petitioner can explain to you that throughout the United States they average paying $10,000 per five acre site and not $89,000 per five acre site. Also, the Council is aware that under the terms of the Planning Commission condition of this project that they were to retain a landscape easement, a preservation easement of approximately a quarter of an acre. Now, based upon the value that they’ve paid for this property of $650,000 a quarter of an acre is worth $31,200. Therefore, by the amount to be required to pay into the tree fund, the amount that they have placed on site both in trees and landscaping, and the value of the preservation easement they would have paid a total of $120,000 in favor of the public of the City of Novi to take down trees that they owned, $120,000. Now, we have presented to you in your packets this evening a letter from William Pickhardt who is a registered arborist, in fact he holds the number 002 in the State of Michigan for registered arborist. I’m going to read to you his summary after he’d looked into this matter.

"A required dedication should be closely related to the impact of the project. Dahn Corporation has already spent $34,425 on site tree replacement. It is unreasonable as having no relation to the value of the trees removed to require Dahn Corporation to contribute an additional $56,675, that’s a typo it should be $54,000, into the city’s tree replacement fund or to expend the same amount in tree plantings whether on site or off site. Particularly here, where the Dahn Corporation has also provided the city with an attractive landscape with significant tree plantings which more than offsets the loss to the city of an isolated remnant wood lot." Other places in this letter he states that the value of these trees is basically 7% of the land price which would be $45,000. Now, the question becomes why appeal? And we answered those before. 1) It’s allowed by ordinance. 2) An appeal gives the chance for the City Council to look at its ordinance and apply it to a particular site not looking in an ordinance before it applies to a particular site and it allows the City Council to correct any harsh ordinance as it applies to a particular site. Now here we have proposed all along that the payment of $54,675 into a tree fund that in fact when this matter was in front of the Planning Commission didn’t exist under the ordinance as Mr. Mitzel pointed out the last time we were here because of an oversight by the people that draft our ordinance. It’s totally improper. The requirement to put the money in the tree fund did not exist when this matter was in front of the Planning Commission and besides that the payment of the $54,000 is over burdensome, it does not bear the rough portionality test that’s required. The reason being is that this petitioner has already satisfied the terms of this ordinance. They have already put over $34,000 back into the site, they have withheld the preservation easement worth $31,000. Those alone total $65,000 by themselves. That ladies and gentlemen satisfies your requirement under the woodland tree preservation ordinance and therefore the petitioner is requesting an entire waiver of the amounts to be paid into the fund. There is a side note that I should mention. After we were here last time we were directed by you to meet with City Administration. Which we did, we met with Mr. Pargoff and Mr. Nowicki and we had about an hour and a half meeting and went over many things. We had some proposals by Mr. Pargoff and he’s included those in his response but we never got back to them. I don’t want the Council to think that your direction was not followed by Administration because in fact it was. We did have a meeting and it was obvious from my standpoint and Mr. Cole’s, who also represents Dahn Corporation, that further discussions with the Administration were not going to warrant anything. I just want to throw that back to you for your consideration. So, as far as this matter that’s the petitioner’s position.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Quinn I’m sure I have this. What you’re requesting here in this appeal is a waiver of the entire $54,000.

Mr. Quinn said that was correct because they had paid well in excess of that amount for the replacements on site and the requirement of the preservation easement.

Mayor McLallen said Members of Council. You have heard the petitioner’s request for relief, comments, motions?

Mr. Fried said before a motion is made I’d like to call attention to our letter of September 21. I think it’s in your packet in which we addressed the issues raised by Mr. Quinn and I think that before you make a determination on this matter you should have our thinking on the matter. We think that the ordinance as applied in this case is a valid application of the ordinance. We think there’s no constitutional valid challenge to the application of this ordinance to this particular set of facts based upon the information supplied to us by Mr. Pargoff. However, it’s up to you, this Council, to determine whether in this particular case it wants to modify its ordinance as it applies to this situation.

Councilman Clark said I have a number of comments with all due respect to Mr. Quinn I have a problem with several things and as he knows when this matter was before the Planning Commission and it was before the Planning Commission on more than one occasion the Commission as a whole, I think, had problems with this given the configuration of the site. I think a number of the Planning Commission members felt it was over development of the site and the massive amount of trees that were removed. Nonetheless, the grant of approval was finally given for this particular project. The developer of the project knew going in full well what the requirements of the Woodlands Ordinance in this community dictated once he made the election to develop this site to the extent that it was developed which necessitated removing a huge number of trees.

I have somewhat of a problem also tonight and I’m not going to make an argument against the consulting arborist who may have a 002 number but I think he’d have a hard time coming up with 306 trees of any size for reforestation at whatever location in the City for $45,000.

It was also interesting to note that the estimate of the $225.00 per tree was based on Michigan Department of Transportation figures that went back to 1989. Perhaps the $225.00 per tree figure that we are using is perhaps low in the extreme. Nonetheless, that was the figure that was used.

Also, the comment that was made with reference to across the border/nation the usual cost for tree replacement is about $10,000 for a five-acre parcel whoever can do it for that price I certainly would like that information myself knowing what it takes to landscape just a home site with a few trees in this day and age.

I would agree with Mr. Fried’s comment. I think constitutionally we’re on solid ground and as I pointed out earlier the developer knew full well when he made the commitment to remove the huge number of trees from this site what the consequences would be. It’s interesting when he talks in terms of what it’s actually cost him that he’s adding back in the 90 trees that he did replace. I have a problem with that. I think that we’ve been extremely fair with the developer of this project. He has had the application of the ordinances of this City applied to him the same as would be applied to any other proposed development that comes into this City when there’s tree removal. Although I voted in favor of granting Mr. Quinn the right to have his appeal heard, because I am concerned about due process, nonetheless I feel that the appeal in this particular case is without merit and would not support it.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That the appeal requested by Mini U Storage be denied.

Mr. Fried said I think the grounds stated for denial should be part of the motion.

Councilman Mitzel said OK.

Mr. Fried said you can do it by referring to Mr. Clark’s statements or your own statements.

Councilman Mitzel said I’ll try to help the Clerk out by putting it in the motion.

MOTION: That the appeal request by Mini U Storage be denied first on the grounds that Mr. Fried’s opinion letter of September 21, 1995, in part, stating that the Planning Commission did have the authority to make that a requirement. Second, the applicant did agree to that requirement at that Planning Commission meeting as outlined in the Planning Commission minutes of April 5, 1995.

Mayor McLallen said could you restate your second.

Councilman Mitzel said the first one was Mr. Fried’s letter and the second one was that the applicant, at the meeting, did agree to the condition of the tree fund.

Mayor McLallen said you had three.

Councilman Mitzel said one of them was contained within his letter. OK let me help the City Clerk here.

MOTION RESTATED:

I move to deny the appeal of Mini U Storage for the Woodlands Permit Replacement Tree Fund based on Mr. Fried’s September 21, 1995 letter which in part states that the Planning Commission had the authority to make it a requirement and also based on the Planning Commission minutes of April 5, 1995 that the applicant agreed to such a condition.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said the last time that this was before us I was concerned that the Planning Commission had imposed a requirement that was not in our ordinance at the time. Mr. Fried, at the table that night, tried to convince me that the Planning Commission had the authority to do that. He has concisely stated that in his opinion to us of September 21, 1995 so that eases my concern on that statement. The other question I had which was the appeal at the time, once again Mr. Fried had answered and that’s going to be clarified by the ordinance. I think what it comes down to now is the fact that, as Mr. Schmid pointed out at our last meeting where this was heard, that the applicant did agree at the time of the Planning Commission meeting to this condition and I don’t have the exact words that are contained in the minutes at hand. But I remember Mr. Schmid pointing that out and also that the appeal then was much later. They made an agreement in April and then they didn’t come forward until much later and that concerns me that basically the City granted the permit based on certain conditions that the petitioner had agreed to. I think that’s mainly reason why I support the motion of denying the appeal. Thank you.

Councilwoman Cassis said the reason I supported Mr. Mitzel’s motion tonight has to do with the fact that the Planning Commission really did debate this on at least two different occasions. There was another alternative proposed at the time to remove some of the buildings so that this site would not be so intensely maximized and petitioner came back instead and really indicated that they needed this project to go forward as their site plan showed and therefore would be willing not only to contribute $38,000, and I’m reading directly from the Planning Commission minutes of April, 1995, replace 135 trees at a cost of $38,000 but they were also willing to add $10,000 in landscaping and finally that they would contribute to the Novi Tree Fund under City ordinance of approximately $56,000. The attorney, Mr. Quin, indicated at that time that was something they were willing to do, and I’m quoting, "they were willing to do and were willing to follow exactly what the ordinance required them to do here." On that premise, and that alone some of the members of the Planning Commission who had concerns did go along and support the project with those provisos. So I think it was very clear and I just pointed out to support what Mr. Mitzel did allude to.

Councilman Crawford said I comment on what I believe the intent of the Woodlands Ordinance is and it’s to protect significant woodlands. I think if you look at this case it’s an isolated lot of trees and when I say lot I don’t mean "a lot" I mean lot of trees. There are no significant woodlands around them so I believe the intent of the ordinance, like I said, was had there been significant woodlands and this lot removed trees from that woodlands I could see the discussion we’re having. But to ask the petitioner to contribute over and above what they’ve already contributed I don’t believe is the intent of this ordinance. If I recall a site plan or diagram that we had a few meetings ago that I think bore out what I just spoke of and if you drive by and look at the particular parcel there are no woodlands of any significance abutting the parcel east, west or north. So I believe as I said the intent of the woodlands ordinance is not being upheld here. I think the petitioner has demonstrated a willingness to do landscaping, to provide other trees and to provide some monies. I think it is a bit much to ask for any more than they’ve asked for so I will not vote to deny the appeal; I will vote against the motion.

Mayor McLallen said I have a comment. I can concur with some of Mr. Crawford’s discussion which is the significance of this particular woodland but more than that the petitioner’s own comment through their attorney at the April meeting clearly states that they understood the magnitude of this cost because it’s quoted. "We understand we will contribute $56,000 and we agree to do it." That comment was made prior to and in the process of obtaining approval for the project. At that point my opinion is that that becomes relevant to what our woodland ordinance demands. The petitioner in an effort to gain approval of the Planning Commission agreed to spend the money. So after the horse is out of the barn I feel it’s unfortunate but far too late to request relief and so I will support the motion.

Councilwoman Cassis said Mayor your points are well taken and I also might wonder if in the future we will see further projects come into the City in which there will be a possibility of removing all trees from a particular regulated woodland site as this was. We now have certainly established that we will be following the ordinance fairly and equitably with every petitioner who does come in. So I think there was that piece that was very important in our decision making tonight.

Councilwoman Mutch said I was going back to find the exact part of the minutes from an earlier meeting which is March 1 which was only reinforced by the April 5 meeting but there was an exchange between myself and Mr. Bradley which makes it very difficult for me to do anything other than to support the motion. I specifically asked, we had a discussion about the ordinance itself and what the ordinance required and the quote from the minutes is that "Mr. Bradley said he understood and they were willing to comply with everything in the ordinance." I looked real carefully to see if there was anything here that would indicate that he was saying that with a parenthetical protest. You know, saying of course we’ll agree to it because when it gets approved but we’re going to be sure to appeal or something to that effect and unfortunately there is nothing there. What it unfortunately appears in retrospect is that a better site, a site that perhaps would fall more in line with the averages that the developer finds in the cost of development in other parts of the country would have been a less wooded site. I worked very hard to find what would support any other interpretation on that but I can’t find it.

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion on the table to deny the applicant’s request for relief from the cost of the replacement trees. The motion is based upon Mr. Fried’s letter of September 21st, the Planning Commission’s ability to impose regulations upon their decision and the applicant’s statement agreeing to the fifty, approximately in the applicants word, approximately $56,000 in costs. This motion was moved by Member Mitzel and seconded by Member Cassis.

Yes (6) No (1-Crawford) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said this was also by the same applicant for the same project. The fee that was determined by the landscape architect, Linda Lemke, was in the amount of $2,065.00. The applicant feels that their position should be $200.00 and this fee has been paid.

Mr. Quinn said that’s correct and let me correct the actual title of this appeal pursuant to Mr. Fried’s comment or letter. It actually is the woodlands inspection fee appeal which properly goes to City Council and not a landscape planning construction fee which would go to the ZBA. The quotation from Linda Lemke on the inspection fee of $2,065.50 is the woodland inspection fee and that is based upon the City’s ordinance which states that the fee is 6% of the woodland cost on site. The woodland costs on this site for the tree replacements are $34,425.00. Six per cent of that is the two thousand dollar figure. Now, any fee imposed by a City has to have rough proportionality to the actual work involved by the City to earn that fee. Now, we do not believe that this fee represents the actual cost and time it takes for the City representative to go out to this site for a two year period, the trees are warranted for two years, and the City has a right to inspect for two years. Now, talking with Mr. Pargoff at that Administrative meeting that you had us go to the question was posed how many times would a City representative have to go to this site over two years. He said approximately four times. Now, on site we have 153 trees to inspect. I understand that Linda Lemke has issued a letter stating that it would take a minimum of 40 hours and perhaps a maximum of 55 hours of time over these two years to inspect 153 trees, newly planted trees, which are basically two and a half inches in diameter and maybe six to eight tall. Now, to spend 40 hours, one solid work week, over a two-year period looking at a 153 trees seems to me to be a little out of the realm of what one would expect to be normal. Now we would propose that it would only take four visits perhaps a couple hours per visit and that would be more than sufficient; $200.00 total for the inspection fee. You know if someone’s earning $40.00 an hour they would be out there for 51 hours at this $2,000 figure. If they were out there at $60.00 an hour they would be out there for 34 hours in order to earn that $2,065.00 figure. There is just no rational way that the petitioner of the Dahn Corporation can see any rational relationship between the fee imposed by the City and the actual work that’s going to be done over this two-year period and they are posing that a $200.00 fee is more than adequate in this matter.

Mr. Fried said I have a couple of comments to make before the Council considers this matter. One is, again, the timeliness of this appeal. Using the same rational that I used previously the permit was issued on August the 9th, this appeal was not filed until September 21st.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That the Landscape Planting Construction Inspection Fee for Mini U Storage, in essence I think that Mr. Quinn is also requesting an appeal as to that item, and based on the comments and opinion of Mr. Fried be denied as being untimely.

Councilman Crawford said a question to the petitioner. Is there a reason that the appeal was delayed?

Mr. Quinn said as I set forth in the petition, and I don’t remember the dates, originally this matter was taken to City Administration and Mr. Pargoff and at that time we were directed that the appeal would go to the Woodlands Review Board and in fact the petition was filled out for the Woodlands Review Board. In fact there was a publication in the paper stating that there would be a hearing of the Woodlands Review Board on this appeal. After the publication in the paper was made Mr. Pargoff called and said Linda Lemke had told him that that was the wrong place for the appeal to go and that it would have to come to Council. Therefore, the matter came to Council. Now, I don’t have the dates in front of me as to when it first went to Mr. Pargoff through that procedure; I’m sorry I just don’t have that here because I didn’t think that was going to be a real problem this evening. That’s the reason why it’s here tonight because we went through that whole other process only to be told by the City that they had given us the wrong information to begin with.

Councilman Crawford said based on that information I won’t vote to deny the appeal. I think, as Mr. Clark says, due process should be heard and perhaps we ought to hear the appeal. It doesn’t mean we will act in the petitioners favor but I think to hear the appeal would be appropriate.

Councilman Schmid said I wonder if Mr. Quinn or the Administration or Mr. Fried could have any idea when the wrong appeal was made. Was that one timely?

Mr. Fried said we have not looked into that at all.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Pargoff do you have any idea? I mean if that was timely, although the ordinance is clear and Mr. Quinn is an attorney and obviously he can read the ordinance therefore, I think he is held to a high standard which I know he would agree to.

Mr. Pargoff said I really can’t give you a specific date. I would have to, again as Mr. Quin indicated, look into the publication to find out when that was proposed for the Woodlands Review Board to let you know when that particular appeal was approached to us.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Fried you have no idea?

Mr. Fried said I haven’t any idea. We didn’t look at that element at all. Although, I do want to call the Council’s attention and I’m sure that Mr. Quinn should make this argument or has made the argument that the Council has the right to waive that condition under Section 1.12 of the Code of Ordinances. He might want to make that argument.

Mayor McLallen said at the moment there is a motion which has been seconded to deny the request for appeal as untimely.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the motion be postponed to the next meeting so that City Administration can give us an answer on when the first appeal was filed.

Mayor McLallen said it’s been moved and seconded to postpone this issue until our next meeting so that the backup information can be brought forward.

Councilman Crawford said I’ll vote against the postponement also. I believe that we’re all here tonight and if we believe that there’s been some confusion by the City to the petitioner I think the petitioner deserves the right of appeal. We’re all here tonight, we don’t need to postpone it until we find a date whatever that date may be I would assume even if the date was past the appeal time there’s probably good argument that it was still rather confusing. We didn’t act on a couple of other items and all that enters into it. So, I think that we ought to hear the appeal tonight and do what we have to do on the appeal; so I’ll vote against the postponement.

Councilman Schmid said I think there’s an issue here as I alluded to before that Mr. Quinn, as an attorney, is responsible for reading the ordinances and directing his client as should be directed. Whether or not the City makes errors or does not make errors in telling him in which direction it should go. However, Mr. Crawford has a good point perhaps we should get to the bottom of this issue. The issue of whether or not he applied timely. I think he should have applied timely, I think he should have known. So I don’t think it’s germane really whether or not he was misled. Although certainly it could be a factor I suppose if one were to take this further. I think the real issue here is whether or not we have a proper ordinance in the inspection. So I wouldn’t mind going ahead with the issue and deciding the issue tonight.

Councilman Clark said I was going to ask the Chair to direct a question to Mr. Quinn if perhaps he had anything in his file that would indicate when the initial appeal was filed.

Mr. Quinn said that part I don’t have with me tonight Dick.

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion to postpone this pending the City’s ability to produce the time frame for the Woodlands Board of Appeal hearing. Is there any further discussion on that motion.

Councilman Schmid said I am not going to support it, although, I would like to see this thing properly handled. I’m taking now the clients position that Mr. Quinn does not come cheap and to bring him back yet another time is going to be rather expensive. That’s certainly up to the petitioner.

Yes (2-Clark, Mitzel) No (5) MOTION DEFEATED

Mayor McLallen said the main motion made by Member Clark and supported by Member Mitzel was to deny the appeal based on the fact that the process was untimely.

Mr. Mitzel said it seems that we are now in a position to try and vote on a motion that we don’t know the facts whether it was timely or not timely. We know the corrected appeals process was not timely but we don’t know whether the first one wasn’t. That’s why that information is germane.

Mayor McLallen said there is another option here that the Council can, under Section 1.12, hear the appeal anyway.

Councilman Mitzel said but I’m speaking to the motion that’s on the table right now.

Mr. Fried said if the criteria is met in that section of the ordinance, the ordinance sets up criteria in which Council can waive this ten-day requirement.

Mayor McLallen said let’s take care of the motion that’s on the table. The motion on the table was to deny the appeal because it was not filed in a timely fashion.

Councilman Schmid said I expect the maker of the motion is also being knowledgeable in this area and I assume Mr. Clark is still comfortable with the motion.

Councilman Clark said yes, but having that motion seconded as I understood our recent study session I do not have it within my purview to now withdraw it once it’s been seconded.

Councilman Schmid said I was just curious as to your comfort.

Councilman Clark said well depending on what happens on this motion I may have another motion to make.

Yes (1-Clark) No (6) MOTION DEFEATED

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To grant the request for an appeal in this matter.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Fried stated that there has to be three criteria met?

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Fried would you like to read those criteria now?

Mr. Fried said sure. The first criteria is a literal application of the substance requirements will result in exceptional practical difficulty to the applicant. That’s the first criteria. The second is the element proposed by the applicant will be adequate for the intended use and shall not substantially deviate from the performance that would be obtained by strict enforcements of those standards. Three, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor injurious to adjoining or neighboring property nor contrary to the overall purpose and goals of the Chapter or Article containing the regulation in question. So, what you’re faced with is does the waiver of the ten day’s meet that criteria.

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion before the Council to grant the ability to hear the appeal from the Woodland Construction Inspection Fees for Mini U Storage.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said at this time, Mr. Quinn, have you anything to add?

Mr. Quinn said I think that you’ve heard the merits of the appeal and we think the $200.00 is more than adequate for the work to be involved.

Mr. Fried said on the substance of the motion I want to comment before the Council makes a motion or discusses it. I think Mr. Quinn narrowly construes the law in regard to the requirement for fees. He’s correct fees cannot be charged for purposes of City acquiring money to be used in its General Fund or excessive fees but it doesn’t have to bear dollar to dollar relationship to the actual cost of the inspector going out there. There are other costs involved than just the inspector going out there in regard to charging fees. This is not an unusual problem for the City. The City has this problem on almost every fee it charges, doesn’t bear an hour to hour relationship and the courts have accepted that in regard to fees.

Councilman Crawford asked is it appropriate to ask for documentation of the expenses on this particular project? The fee is what ? Approximately $2,500 roughly?

Mr. Pargoff said right it’s $2,065 but it won’t be done until the project is finished and the trees are actually planted. The project is still in construction at this time.

Councilman Crawford asked is there a mechanism to follow up on that to see if, perhaps, it was $200.00, $500.00, a $1,000.00, $4,000.00?

Mr. Fried said it is proper to ask the Administration to come up with how they arrived at this fee.

Councilman Crawford said I realize that would be a rather long tracking process if it’s a couple of years but probably ought to get a pretty good handle on it in the next several months I would think.

Mr. Fried said well I think that I want to crystallize what I’m saying. I’m saying you don’t set fees on what the cost for that one particular inspection is. You set fees on the overall cost of that whole operation.

Councilman Crawford said I realize there are other costs, sure.

Mr. Fried said we do that with the Building Department all of the time. We set fees that way all the time and you can’t crystallize it on one particular operation.

Councilman Crawford said I understand there’s other cost involved except to direct on site inspection of a person but I’d like to see it followed through on and it might give us a better handle on if our fees are really in line or not. I would suspect they would be more than $200.00 that Mr. Quinn talks about but $2,500 or $2,000 sounds like it might be a bit on the high side too so I’d like to get a handle on what they really are. I don’t know what mechanism we would propose to do that.

Mr. Fried said you just ask the Administration to come up with that number.

Councilman Crawford said I’ll ask that if Council concurs on this particular project it might be somewhat easy to follow and give us an idea if we’re in the ball park on these fees.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the Mini U Storage appeal to the Woodlands Inspection Fee be denied based

upon the information contained in Mr. Fried’s November 16, 1995 letter, Ms. Lemke’s November 15, 1995 letter and the comments made by Mr. Fried at the table.

Councilman Mitzel said as pointed out in those letters there’s clearly more to a Woodlands Inspection than just visiting the site. There’s Ms. Lemke outline having to review fees, follow up calls, going out to inspect fencing, going out to inspect trees, many steps are involved over a course of a couple year period. As Mr. Fried’s letter concluded that if it did come out to 40 to 55 hours of work that that fee would be approximately $48 to $66 an hour which is a fairly reasonable rate for professional services these days. So I think our fees based on information that was provided by Mr. Fried and Ms. Lemke is appropriate and within the guidelines. Thank you.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Underage Persons of Alcoholic Liquor - I - Reading - AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 3-4 AND 3-5 OF THE NOVI CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO AMEND THOSE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE FURNISHING TO OR CONSUMPTION BY UNDERAGE PERSONS OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR.

Mayor McLallen said this is a first reading. My understanding is that this has been brought to us by the City Attorney to bring our ordinance into conformance with current State Law.

Councilman Crawford said I was just going to point out on Page 4, paragraph 3, and I could be wrong but I think that we need a text revision. I think what the intent was, and Mr. Fried can correct me if I’m wrong, it should read the court may order the person found . . . and the insertion of the word "in" violation and then "of" Subsection 1.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Clark is pointing out the possible insertion of the word in and of on the second paragraph on page 4 the first line of Section 3 for greater clarity since we’ve had a major discussion this evening on clarity and ambiguity.

Mr. Fried said it’s perfectly proper to insert that.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That the First and Second Reading of this ordinance be approved to bring us into compliance with State Law and I see no purpose to bring it back for a second reading.

Mayor McLallen said it was moved by Member Crawford, seconded by Member Cassis to approve the first and second reading of this with the insertion in Section 3 of the words in and of.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said on Page 6, paragraph 7. Most of this language that’s in this ordinance comes straight from State Law? Is that correct?

Mr. Fried said most came straight out of the Statute.

Councilman Mitzel said my question was the last sentence there on paragraph seven. It says "a person less then 21 years of age who refuses to submit to a preliminary chemical breath test analysis as required in this Subsection is responsible for a civil infraction." My question to you is does that mean they’re presumed guilty and they have to prove innocence?

Mr. Fried said a civil infraction has nothing to do with guilty or innocent. It’s their violation of an ordinance and is just a civil penalty. It’s not guilty of any crime.

Councilman Mitzel asked is there a similar law in the books that applies to persons older than 21 years of age?

Mr. Fried said not in this particular context. If a person over 21 years of age refused to take a breathalyser test that’s violation of the motor vehicle law.

Councilwoman Mutch said on that same Section 7 again, a question for Mr. Fried. A person less then 21 years of age who refuses is there no provision for those who are less than 21 who are not between let’s say 18 and 21 but even younger is it their decision or is it a parental decision. Does that enter into it at all?

Mr. Fried said that only raises a presumption of guilt a violation of this section. It doesn’t mean . . .

Councilwoman Mutch said no that’s not quite the point. The point I’m raising is the permission/agreement . .

Mr. Fried said it comes from the child regardless of age.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That an Executive Session be scheduled to immediately follow this Regular Meeting to Review City Attorney’s written opinion regarding the Ice Arena.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Mutch requested that he be able to defer his comments at this time to Item # 6 regarding the P.D.-1 Option and make those comments when that comes before the Council.

7. Amend Ordinance to Require Safety Paths on both Sides of Main Roads

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

To direct to the City Ordinance Review Committee a review of a proposed

Sidewalk Maintenance Ordinance and the language and comments at the table this

evening are to be part of that discussion.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said I am reflecting back on what Mr. Mitzel said about the other ordinance but I think we could bring it into this ordinance that he alluded to it’s interchangeable. Sidewalks could be either concrete or black top, eight foot or five foot or at least concrete or black top. I don’t think that’s accurate or if it is accurate I think the Ordinance Review Committee should address that issue. I hope the Ordinance Review Committee would certainly consider concrete over black top and remain at 5 foot. Eight foot could be almost trying to build a highway down the side of the street.

Councilwoman Cassis said just to add on that if the City Clerk, when it does come before the Ordinance Review Committee, if the discussion that Mr. Schmid has offered tonight would be available at that time it might be helpful.

Mayor McLallen said at this time the motion is to direct to the City Ordinance Review Committee a review of a proposed Sidewalk Maintenance Ordinance and the language and comments at the table this evening are to be part of that discussion.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said this was before the Council in early November where it received a dead lock vote. Mr. Mitzel has reminded me that in order for this Council to consider this issue we first have to waive our own rules which state that in order for this to come back it has to be brought by a member of the prevailing side.

Councilman Crawford said just a question on your comment that you almost made but you recognized me. I understand that would be true if we had the exact same members here but what if none of those members were here? Couldn’t new members bring that issue back and if they can we have three new members here tonight that could make this motion without waiving rules of prevailing sides? I guess I’m asking an opinion on that from the City Clerk/City Attorney.

Mr. Fried said technically no because they aren’t on the prevailing side you can’t substitute now.

Councilman Crawford said so you are telling me that if that motion was voted down, well it didn’t vote down it was a 3 to 3 dead lock, and none of those members existed any more we could never ever consider this Benefit E Resolution.

Mr. Fried said no I don’t agree with Roberts Rules of Order in regard to a continuing body such as this who has a continuing change of members. That’s the parliamentarian’s opinion as to regards the application of Roberts Rules of Order to this body. I don’t agree with that. I think this is a continuing body and therefore there are other rules that apply to us but the Council has adopted Roberts Rules of Order and that’s what you should qualify.

Mayor McLallen said under that opinion is there a motion to waive the Council rules so that this issue can be brought forward.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That City Council waive the Council rules so that this issue can be brought forward.

Mayor McLallen said the second issue, Mr. Mitzel you gave me three and I can only remember two of them.

Councilman Mitzel said I think at this point we take a vote on waiving the rules.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said at that point we can entertain a motion and discussion in the matter of approval of the MERS Benefit E.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That Council reconsider the vote from November on the MERS Benefit E.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said at this point we are considering the MERS Benefit. There was information in our packet from Mr. Klaver concerning this. This is a retirement benefit and the cost this year is about $6,000 and it covers 22 current retirees within the City. As I understand it this particular benefit must be loaded on each and every year as a single item. Some of the concerns from the previous Council were it seems to be done in isolation not in an overview of the entire benefit package. Unfortunately, it appears to be some sort of an anomaly that if we don’t deal with it this year and decide to deal with it next year it becomes retroactive which was a difficulty.

Mr. Klaver said two quick issues. First of all as many of the changes that occur throughout the year whether they be through contract negotiations or any other action the Council might take they are really all picked up in the subsequent year and that’s true for our entire pension system. So the question of whether or not you budget or don’t budget for a particular benefit change is somewhat irrelevant because the actuaries don’t pick it up until the following year so it really doesn’t come into our cost accounting process until a year later anyway.

Second is simply to make a comment that we provided the information that was requested two weeks ago on the pension benefit itself. I realize this is rather lengthy and highly technical however, it’s the best information we have on our pension so I would encourage you to take a look at it when you have an opportunity. However, I have to point out that technically pension funding for our present employees in the pension issue this evening before you on the retirees are really somewhat unrelated from a financing point of view. The cost of $6,390 a year is what the actuaries have estimated that it would cost on an annual basis for the next 30 years for action this evening. This will have no bearing on any of the other pensions for present employees and the converse is true as well.

Councilman Crawford said I would just like to know if what mechanism we might be able to do either tonight or in the near future to approve this on a one time basis without coming back every year. It appears that the question is either approving it on a year to year basis or disapproving it permanently. Is that correct? Let’s say next year we didn’t approve it and the year after we didn’t approve it and the year following that we approved it that goes back two or three years. If that went on for five or ten years it would go back I would assume for five or ten years. So the question is either the 2% every year or not doing the program at all. Is that an option too? I mean that could be a vote that we no longer offer the benefitees. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Klaver said that’s a possibility. The other possibility you mentioned there is a benefit that can be adopted by governing bodies that would make this automatic for the future until such time as you rescind it.

Councilman Crawford said that is what I am looking for.

Mr. Klaver said that is simply E-2 is the benefit level and Council could adopt that should they be so inclined and that would grant that in all future years as well.

Councilman Crawford asked could we adopt that tonight? It’s not here in front of us I assume so we probably would not be able . . .

Mr. Klaver said I would encourage you, just because of the timing, this is supposed to be in before December 1. I would encourage you if you are inclined to do that to direct us to bring that issue back next year when it comes up again. That would allow us to get some actuary studies and have information in front of you that I would presume you’d want before taking that action.

Mr. Klaver said our standing direction has always been to do it each year so I have not really looked into the timing but I would be glad to do so and bring it back.

Councilman Crawford said I think we should change the standing direction because this comes before us every year and we adopt it or we don’t adopt it. If we don’t then it goes back a few years.

Mr. Klaver said it’s been adopted every year since I’ve been here.

Councilman Crawford said that’s my point. It’s been adopted every year sometimes delayed and if for some reason we chose not to adopt it then the only alternative is either adopting it the next year or keep delaying it and if we ever do it goes all the way back. So I just think that in this case it would be much simpler to pass a resolution that allows this to happen every year.

Mr. Klaver said I might suggest if that’s your inclination to direct us to bring it back at the first possible opportunity and if the timing of that allows us to bring it back immediately we will do so. But in the meantime if you could act on this this evening it will take care of our dead line.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Council adopt the Resolution for Benefit E Retirement

Councilman Schmid said frankly Mr. Klaver I did not read your attachments in detail. Contrary and a little bit different approach than Mr. Crawford has I am a little bit amazed that we are tied to a contract, I support moving it up to 2%, but I’m amazed that we are tied to a contract that is automatic that we have to vote on every year or could be automatic with no consideration to the economy, the inflationary factors and so forth. It could be a case, it’s happened in my life time and I’m sure in most these peoples life although not all, we do have some youngsters here, that in fact the economy went down instead of up and you would be facing the City with 2% increase for retirements when in fact many of the City employees would be laid off or perhaps reduced in their salary at the worst scenario. You can bring forward as Mr. Crawford suggests maybe something that would automatic put this up but I would also like to see some alternatives. There’s got to be some alternatives to automatically for the rest of our lives raising the pension fund 2%. Now that maybe, and if everything goes nice in America and we always have some inflation and so on and the economy grows I suppose that’s all right. As a relatively young City we have very few retirees but someday we are going to have a lot of retirees at rather substantial wages. I think it’s something we should look at perhaps at budget time or sometime before we get into Mr. Crawfords suggestion at the same time at least to have some alternatives at least discussion as to whether or not this has to go on and on and on. I concur that we should pass this this evening and maybe not change it but I think we ought to look at it.

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion and support to move for the adoption for proposed MERS Benefit E for 1996.

Councilman Mitzel said I appreciate the information Administration gave us my only concern is it was dated August, 1995 and we didn’t get it until now and it was addressed to the City Council too. I don’t know what the situation was behind that. My other comment was going to be that the information we were provided maybe useful and what I was looking for at the last meeting which I stated that I felt that these issues come up and we don’t look at the big picture. It would be interesting to see going back may be in five year increments percentage of our budget that personnel and retirement are taking up. You will probably have to factor out some of those large Capitol Project because those vary but see which trend we’re going. We don’t seem to get that information whether these costs are growing in large percentages of our budget or not. We just go Oh it’s another $6,000 this year and that concern me. Over time look at the big picture, look at trends and see if we can afford to keep going with these types of benefit programs.

Councilwoman Cassis said I would just like to concur with Mr. Mitzel and Mr. Schmid on these points. I think they’re valuable and they should be followed up on.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said the Administration is directed by this conversation to bring back a report looking at alternative retirement plans and also a cost trends over a historical period of time and the Council would probably appreciate that prior to budget.

Councilman Crawford said also the possibility of instituting this on a permanent basis.

Mayor McLallen said there is a ballot in Council packets of five names for the 1995 pool for Board of Directors for the Michigan Municipal League. If you would just vote on those and pass them to Tonni I think that constitutes all we need to do to take care of that.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That Council approve all five of the Directors.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said there are a number of committees on this list. Some people are sitting on committees and have contacted me with the request to stay on those committees. There was also some discussion as to whether Council Members feel a need to sit on any but standing committees due to time constraints and the fact that Council Members actually ultimately make decisions on the reports of committees. Quickly I’ll run down those that have people in place and then I’ll let you know who we need:

Cable Commission: Mr. Crawford has asked to stay on that particularly because we are in the middle of renegotiation of our cable contract.

Capitol Improvements: Rob is sitting on that. We need two people so there is an opening

there. This is a requirement of Charter that we have a Capitol

Improvements program. It’s actually a State requirement.

City Manager Evaluation Actually rotates through Council and we will get the City Clerk

Committee to let us know where we stand on rotation and come back to that.

Mrs. Bartholomew said the last one was Rob Mitzel, Carol Mason and the Mayor. Those three would have to surrender their seats.

Mayor McLallen said so we have three openings.

Councilman Crawford said all three? I thought somebody rotated off and you kept a couple . . .

Mr. Kriewall said normally we just rotate one off.

Mayor McLallen said again because ultimately the entire Council votes on the work of those three people so we have three openings there.

Councilman Crawford said I think Mr. Kriewall has some sort of a magic formula that rotates people. That’s what we’ve done in the past. I mean if you’re on there for three years you kind of fall off the end and then Councilwoman Mason would have to be replaced also.

Councilman Mitzel said our current rules say that three members of the Council appointed on a rotation basis with one new member each year.

Mayor McLallen said so at this point there is the need for two new members. Who’s the staying member?

Councilman Mitzel and Mr. Kriewall said you just need one more.

Councilman Mitzel said you just need to replace Carol.

Mayor McLallen said you said one member drops off.

Mr. Kriewall said she was scheduled to drop off anyway.

Councilman Crawford said I guess my point would be if, for instance, Rob was scheduled to drop off I would think he should still drop off so that you’re not on there for four years.

Councilman Mitzel said last year was my first time.

Mayor McLallen said all right, at this point there is one opening on the City Manager Evaluation Committee. If someone would like that.

Councilman Crawford said no, somebody rotates on.

Mr. Kriewall said somebody rotates on.

Councilman Schmid said one of the new people I would suspect.

Mayor McLallen said we have a volunteer down at the end, Mr. Clark.

Councilman Clark said I’ll volunteer.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Clark is rotating right on.

Councilman Schmid said they meet at one o’clock.

Computer Advisory Committee

Mayor McLallen said this was one of the committees that there was a discussion as to whether any members of Council need sit on this committee. Mr. Toth was the Council Member so that’s the discretion of Council as to whether they wish to have, Mr. Mitzel you did serve on that committee?

Councilman Mitzel said yes, it’s the committee that meets every single Tuesday.

Councilman Crawford said would you like to be on that committee?

Councilman Mitzel said I couldn’t sustain every single Tuesday.

Mayor McLallen asked does Council feel that there is a need for Council representation? That committee is up and running and very aggressive. We vote on their monetary needs. Kathy are you volunteering?

Councilwoman Mutch said no I have a question. Mr. Toth has been involved in the process all along and I’m wondering if he’s interested in seeing that through as a citizen.

Mayor McLallen said I understand, yes, that he is so that we may need to readdress an appointment from the citizen aspect.

Councilman Schmid asked is there any Administration on that Committee?

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Miller is on it.

Councilman Mitzel said the Finance Director is on it also.

Mr. Klaver said yes Les is there.

Councilman Schmid said I would think if there’s no volunteers or there’s not a great need for Council Members to sit on that committee if we got two people from Administration.

Mayor McLallen said would the Council in the same spirit be willing to let Mr. Toth continue and change his designation from Council Member to the committee to be citizen at large member to the committee.

Councilman Mitzel said we should bring forward the resolution then to amend it.

Mayor McLallen asked could we bring that at the next meeting or do you have it right there?

Councilman Mitzel said I could find it in this book that Tonni put together.

Consultant Review Committee

There should be three members to Consultant Review. Mr. Mitzel has indicated an interest, Mrs. Cassis has indicated an interest so is there someone else who would like . . .

Councilman Crawford said I’d like that.

Mayor McLallen said we’re so agreeable.

Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee

Mayor McLallen said this is an open seat. This is the Community Development Block Grant Program that we just approved this evening.

Councilman Mitzel said I’m sorry Madam Mayor I was looking up your last request for Computer Needs Committee. What happened with Consultant Review?

Mayor McLallen said you, Mrs. Cassis and Mr. Crawford. Did you find the resolution?

Councilman Mitzel said I found the resolution that’s adopted in the book that Tonni put together.

Mayor McLallen asked is there a way you can make the motion to take Council off and let another member at large and then we can immediately appoint Mr. Toth to that position?

Councilman Mitzel asked do you wish to have that motion right now?

Mayor McLallen said consensus of Council?

Councilman Clark asked how many citizens?

Councilman Mitzel said there are six citizens at large right now so this would make it seven plus the two staff members.

Councilman Clark asked if we had a full six?

Councilman Mitzel said we have a full six right now.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the City of Novi Computer Needs Study Committee Resolution adopted on

August 8, 1994 be amended by striking "membership being one Council Member" and amending it to say seven citizens at large all for three year terms.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen asked is there a motion to appoint Mr. Toth as the seventh citizen per his request?

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilwoman Mutch

That Mr. Toth be appointed as the seventh citizen to the Computer Needs Study

Committee.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

HCD

Mayor McLallen said we have an opening on HCD. We’ll think about that; no one’s jumping up.

Lake Study Property Committee

Mayor McLallen said the committee had two members on it Mr. Crawford and Mr. Schmid and they both indicated a desire to stay. Seeing no other takers we’ll leave them right there.

Ordinance Review

Mayor McLallen said Ordinance Review is the Mayor plus two. Member Mitzel has indicated a desire and Mrs. Cassis. Mrs. Mutch would also. Mr. Mitzel would you like to stay or go?

Councilman Crawford said there’s an alternate position.

Mayor McLallen said I was going to say isn’t there an alternate for that one also?

Councilman Mitzel said there is an alternate position that’s correct.

Mayor McLallen asked, Mrs. Mutch would you like to be considered for the alternate? They do attend on a fairly frequent basis.

Councilwoman Mutch said it sounds like I’m getting the easiest road to follow, sure.

Councilman Crawford said how about the HCD while you’re so agreeable?

Councilman Mitzel said I’ll be willing to take HCD and then be alternate for Ordinance Review if Mrs. Mutch would like to be a full member.

Councilwoman Mutch said that would be fine.

Councilman Crawford said I would then like to be the alternate on the Ordinance Review.

Mayor McLallen said no Rob’s going to take that.

Councilman Mitzel said I was going to take alternate.

Councilman Crawford said Oh I thought you were going to take HCD and get out of there completely. Never mind that’s fine.

Rules Committee

Mayor McLallen said the Rules Committee is the Mayor plus two. We might want to think about that for a bit.

SEMCOG

Mayor McLallen said do we have anybody interested in SEMCOG?

Councilman Schmid said I nominate Nancy Cassis.

Councilwoman Cassis asked is there currently someone who is acting in that capacity?

Councilman Mitzel said I’m the alternate Tim was the representative.

Councilwoman Cassis said if Mr. Mitzel would like to take on that role I’d . . .

Councilman Mitzel said no, I’d rather stay as alternate. I’m just looking at the list of committees I’m getting into.

Councilwoman Cassis said the time constraints really, I’d rather take some time to think about that. I appreciate your volunteering me. I appreciate your trust in me.

Mayor McLallen said we have two alternates and they can alternate meetings.

Senior Housing Implementation Committee

Mayor McLallen said I believe that was Member Mason. So that is an opening.

Mr. Klaver said that is kind of a working committee that’s really working in support of the Building Authority that you appointed some time ago. I don’t know what your thoughts were as far as what the need was but it’s just kind of following up from the input from the original study committee.

Mayor McLallen said so you think, perhaps, we don’t need a Council Member there.

Mr. Klaver said I’m not sure you do.

Mayor McLallen said Safety Path is no longer a committee.

Storm Water Management

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Mitzel asked to retain to be on that committee.

Town Center Steering Committee

Mayor McLallen said I had requested that the enabling statement be amended to remove the Mayor from the Town Center Steering Committee. Mr. Schmid would like to stay and that leaves one other opening. Mrs. Mutch . . .

Mayor McLallen said did everybody feel they got enough? We can make some . . .

Councilman Crawford asked do we need to amend some resolutions here?

Mayor McLallen said we need to amend the Town Center Steering Committee.

Councilman Crawford said and the Senior Citizen Housing probably also.

Mayor McLallen said OK.

Councilman Mitzel said I was just going to point out back in March I believe it was we had discussed some of the resolutions of committees that were quite outdated and we had a consensus that as time permitted that these would come forward to refresh their charge to more reflect what they’re doing right now and to put in some terms for the members so there’s a rotation or at least a on going review process of the membership. Two of those committees were the Storm Water and the Town Center Steering Committee both which the original charge was back from the mid 80's and there was just discussion that it probably should be reviewed to bring their charge to what they’re currently doing and to discuss the membership terms. So, those two I think are still on our docket of work to do.

Mayor McLallen asked can we have those brought forward for our next meeting?

Councilman Mitzel said sure. I guess maybe we need some consensus on, I don’t know who would take the initiative to write, kind of refresh the charge of the committee. Maybe it should be a member who’s on the committee.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Mitzel you’re on Storm Water.

Councilman Mitzel said I’m on Storm Water and I’ll do the Storm Water. I’m just saying I don’t want to . . .

Councilman Schmid said I, number one, will not write it but I think Administration certainly missed the ball but somebody would have much more time than I do to write it.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Mitzel will take one.

Councilman Crawford said I think we need a motion on the Senior Citizen Committee.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That Council would remove the Council Member from the Senior Citizen Housing Implementation Committee.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said at this point we have a full complement of . . .

Councilman Crawford said excuse me what about the Town Center Committee and the Mayor’s status?

Mayor McLallen said I have resigned from that but what we need to do is . . .

Councilman Crawford asked are you looking for direction from Council as to whether the Mayor should or should not be part of that committee? We can make that amendment right now if that’s what we’re looking for.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the Mayor be removed from the Town Center Steering Committee and the

resolution would only state two members of Council.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilman Mitzel said according to our roster of the Senior Housing Implementation Committee there was no Council Member on it. I mean there was no position for a Council Member so we didn’t have to amend the resolution.

Mayor McLallen said so now there’s definitely not one.

Mayor McLallen said in order to move things along we will continue to review those two particular make ups of the directives of Storm Water and Town Center.

Councilwoman Cassis said I’d like at a later date to consider the Planning Concept Committee. Although it’s no longer active it may have some relevance and I’d like to have an opportunity to discuss that at a later date it could be brought back.

Mayor McLallen said excellent. Any further comments on the committee updating.

Councilman Crawford said just the Rules Committee. We’ve kind of left that up in the air.

Mayor McLallen said I did that on purpose because of what we’re going to talk about under this one.

Councilman Crawford said with the committee as a whole. So, I would assume that the present members would still stay on it which are the Mayor and I and then we’ll go from the committee as a whole and see where that takes us.

11. Future Lake Property

Mayor McLallen said this is again an item brought forward by Member Mitzel. Mr. Mitzel would you like to discuss what your intent is?

Councilman Mitzel said I just want to bring forward to Council consideration to explore the idea of making that into basically a really nice park, develop it soon and get some utilization of the site that we have. I think it would provide a great amenity for that area of town. There was some talk recently about building a shutes and ladder type play structure in the City somewhere. Several other communities have them. I’ll pass around a picture of one that was under construction up in Houghton. That seemed to be an ideal site for such an amenity and then also other park uses that could be up in that area that there isn’t much other places for children to use such as some asphalt areas for them to play roller hockey or roller skate or play basketball because there are a lot of dirt roads up in that part of town not many sidewalks or paved driveways or such. Children don’t have the same opportunities that they do elsewhere in the City with at least having paved roads. So the idea was if Council wished to explore this I would suggest we hold a public hearing and I believe I stated at the November 11 meeting to hold a public hearing to see if there’s any interest in pursuing this type of a park development and get the park developed and up and running by the end of next year so at least there’s some use of that property and we can have an amenity instead of just a vacant area with roads with graffiti sprayed on the roads and such. I brought this forward at this point because although I respect the fact that there’s many people working on the Lake Property Study Committee that Council has extended their report date all the way to December 31, 1996 so it seems like it’s going to be quite a ways off before any decision is made and I personally don’t think it’s acceptable to have such a large piece of land remaining vacant and unused when there’s such a need for recreational amenities in this town. I heard recently there’s maybe some information for the Lake Property Study Committee coming a little bit sooner than that but I still think we should get moving on doing something with the site. I think amenities for especially the youth of the community is appropriate for that site.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That Council schedule a public hearing at the December 11, 1995 meeting to

solicit input on the use of the site for a park with amenities such as a shutes and ladder

and other amenities for youth and also include some concepts that were in the Lake

Property Study Committee such as the board walk and formal gardens.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Cassis said I think Rob raises a good point that there is property that is just sitting for a long period of time that could be usable especially in terms of our youth so I could certainly see that some proposal come forward and the public be allowed to have input even while the Committee that is discussing this is going forward with their recommendations. I don’t think it would preclude anything that they may come forward with but might even augment their discussions. So, I could be supportive.

Councilman Schmid said I’m a little surprised of Mr. Mitzel bringing this forward. It was tabled. Number one we have a committee that is looking at this project. Number two we have a Parks and Recreation Commission which I think is a proper place for this to go and for them to determine if they have any interest in this. This is costing large sums of money if this mountain with shutes in it is what Mr. Mitzel is talking about. I would guess several thousands of dollars. We have a committee going. I see no reason to have a public hearing although if they want public hearings we can have it. I’m sure I can get ten people here to support whatever we want to support. We did have a survey, that Mr. Mitzel knows, of the use of this land some time ago. That survey was pretty definitive at that time. The committee is working in that direction and I think the committee is, which I happen to be on as Mr. Crawford is and others, is moving in the direction that we should be moving. Although I have some empathy for Mr. Mitzel’s concern that the land sits there I also have some empathy, we got a park within I would say two home runs in little league, that probably doesn’t get utilized as much as it could be just down the road from this piece of land from what I see of the attendance records there. Although it’s a busy park it’s certainly not overwhelmed with children and so forth. So, I think the committee is moving along nicely and I don’t think there’s any need for a public hearing at this time.

Councilman Crawford said I concur with Mr. Schmid. I’m also a member of that committee and I would say within the next, probably after the first of the year the holidays going to be a little tough, the committee will be back to Council with a report on our findings to date which entails some type of a facility on that piece of land in addition to board walks, play structures, parking and such. I have to say that the structure is not conference centers or hotels as people have envisioned. It would be a rather small structure that would allow for additional meeting space for community groups and then particularly the north end area. So I would think that we ought to first wait for that committee to come back which like I say I don’t know the exact date but should be by the first of the year so that we can do more of a total plan on that. A proper place if we have a public hearing, and we have had I believe, this project I agree has been going on quite long but there’s reasons for that. It was not that easy a piece of property to develop. There are some, I’m sure there would be some major reconstruction of that piece of property just to make it usable for a play structure and some parking. I would think we’d have to get into fencing, there’s cement inbutments that have to be removed and all of that I think would best be done in a total project. We have had, as Bob pointed out, surveys that indicated usage and support for certain ideas. We’ve had certainly public input if we’ve not had a formal public hearing. I can’t remember if we have or not. So I would think the best action would be to wait until the first of the year, get a report from the committee, see where that takes us and if that doesn’t take us where Council wants to go then maybe we could pursue something a little more definite on that such as a play structure. I think the action should wait until the first of the year to get that report.

Councilwoman Mutch said the one concern that I have is that when you have a public hearing to get community input on a particular idea someone usually has the responsibility for presenting the argument, let’s say, in favor of doing something. In other words proposing that the City move ahead to do this particular thing. I don’t know who it is that would have that responsibility. Would that be Parks and Recreation, the Commission, the Department? I think that it is difficult to see property sitting vacant when there is an identified need for this sort of thing but what I’d be worried about is in the short time between now and December 11 there would be some scrambling by people who maybe would not be looking to presenting the best proposal along these lines but how to stop that idea from side tracking other things that are already under consideration. So I don’t think the public hearing at that particular date would necessarily produce the result that I think Mr. Mitzel and Mrs. Cassis have articulated; one which I could support.

Mr. Kriewall said I just want to tag along with Councilwoman Mutch’s concerns. I think to have a public hearing at this time sends a confusing signal to the community. We’ve been working hand in hand with LARA, members of the Parks and Recreation Commission and a citizens committee to develop a studied format to determining what should be done at that site including newspaper surveys, surveys of the community and every thing else. All of a sudden to trot out a public hearing after we’re 90% completed with our task just doesn’t make any sense.

Councilman Mitzel said perhaps a public hearing mechanism isn’t the best mechanism. I’m not certain of that I was just trying to put something on the table. There’s several concerns that I have. One is the fact that the jurisdiction of this property really belongs with City Council at this point. It was made clear at our joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission that they did not have jurisdiction over it. It was not a parks site it was purchased with Road Bond money. I believe that’s why City Council appointed the Lake Property Study Committee not a Parks and Rec appointed committee. I think direction has to come from this body not the Parks and Rec Commission at this point. Possibly, if we proceed along a park method then we could turn it over to Parks and Rec.

Second issue was mentioned in the survey. According to the Lake Property Study Committee information presented July of 94, not quite a year and a half ago, some of the consensus of the survey were to keep it City property ownership park type use and pedestrian oriented path ways. All of which the proposal I put on the table supports.

Finally, I have a large concern over the fact that we, as a Council, we as a City, do not get deliverable products out to our residents. It’s taking us a long time to get our road projects done, it’s taking us a long time to get our parks to the point where the citizens can even utilize them. So, to say well we can just wait, keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting, all that’s nice but sometimes I wish the City had some competition that if we kept waiting we’d go out of business and they’d come in and take over and get the products out in a more timely fashion. I can point to several park areas that are, you know, three, six years in the works. There’s many reasons why it happens. I’m not trying to point fingers at anyone; I’m just saying let’s try to start utilization our resources. We have some land, we have a need, let’s utilize them, get something usable for the community, especially the young people in the community up at this end of town like a play structure for example. We’re currently building the sports park. That will be on line. Let’s keep these things moving, let’s get some deliverable products out. That was the intent of my bringing this forward at this point. I thought maybe a public hearing would be the proper mechanism. I’m not certain. I put that out on the floor. I just wanted to see us move along and not have this land sit vacant especially seeing the committee doesn’t have to report for over 13 months yet which means another year at least of looking at the site not being utilized. I don’t think that’s proper and I think we need to do something. So, if someone has a better suggestion of a different route or mechanism to accomplish this I’d be more than willing to listen.

Councilman Clark said I agree with Councilman Crawford and Councilman Schmid’s comments and also Mr. Kriewall’s comments because they had the opportunity to serve on that committee when I was still on the Planning Commission. The extension of their charge to December of 1996 does not indicate or mean that, of necessity, they’re going to take that long to make a recommendation. Councilman Crawford has said they’re about 90% through with their work and I would expect sometime early next year that we will see something in the form of a position and a recommendation to Council regarding that property. I also share the concerns of Councilman Mitzel with reference to some projects seemingly taking an inordinate amount of time but I think one thing that has distinguished this community is the fact that maybe we do take a lot of time on projects but I think the end results is the quality community that we have developed here and are continuing to develop. I would rather, if need be, take that time to continue that process than perhaps to act in haste, perhaps out of a sense of frustration which I can understand and appreciate at times, and rush to judgement because a particular piece of property may have been sitting vacant for a long period of time. We also know that when that survey was done there were a number of people who expressed an opinion that that, in fact, would be fine with them that, you know, it could sit vacant, you know, idenfinitum and they would be perfectly happy. So, I think waiting another month or two, at this point in time, would be beneficial to all concerned.

Councilwoman Mutch said well I do think that as Mr. Mitzel’s pointed out it is under the control of the Council and not the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department or Parks and Rec Commission that I feel maybe even more strongly that the public hearing isn’t the way to go. There isn’t anyone really to point to say it’s your responsibility to put this presentation together and provide the information. Other than sending a message via the Members of Council who are also members of the Lake Property Study Committee to take a message back to the committee that says as soon as you can possibly get something to us, particularly something that indicates a way in which we can begin doing something. You know, are there things that have been proposed within the committee that might be things that could be done sooner rather than later that would not interfere with other things that may or may not happen. I’m not sure if a play structure on this scale is something that you could just position on that property but maybe some of the input at the committee level would be that a play structure of that type could be put there or perhaps it would be better located at Lake Shore or somewhere else. Either way Mr. Mitzel’s concern which some of us have said we share is that there be something in that area that meets the needs of younger children in particular. Something that is pedestrian friendly in terms of location.

Councilwoman Cassis said listening to all points of view here I think we hear a couple of things. One, that to utilize the property in the interim period between now and when a final proposal is brought back from the committee. Even knowing that once a proposal is brought back it may take even additional time for that proposal to be acted on depending on what is brought forward. We might want to get input from that committee about using this as a playground of sorts for children and that in connection with the Administration might bring back a proposal in the short term for such a possibility to be forwarded. So, I don’t know if that could be then an amendment to the original motion that was made tonight; would that be possible?

Mayor McLallen asked could you clarify how you would like to amend this?

Councilwoman Cassis said I would amend it by requesting that this discussion tonight be forwarded to the committee that is working on their proposals for their input and to have them at their next meeting discuss this and get some sense of it and bring back their opinion to the Council while the Administration might look into a proposal to see how this property might be utilized in the short term in terms of a playground or some active use for children within the scope.

Mayor McLallen said the main motion though is to hold a public hearing.

Councilwoman Cassis said I’m doing away with that.

Mayor McLallen said shall we take a vote on the main motion which was to schedule a public hearing for December 11.

Yes (0) No (7) MOTION DEFEATED UNANIMOUSLY

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Cassis

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That this discussion be forwarded to the committee that is working on their proposals

for their input and to have them at their next meeting discuss this and get some sense of it and bring back their opinion to Council while the Administration looks into a proposal to see how this property might be utilized in the short term in terms of a playground or some active use for children within the scope.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by

That the motion be amended to have all the information come back to Council

at the first meeting of February.

Mayor McLallen said the discussion Items from this Council meeting this evening are to go back through the Council Members to the Lake Property Study Committee along with some input from the Administration and all of that is to be stirred and brought back to the Council by the first meeting in February. Is that the general summation?

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said that’s an excellent motion because that’s precisely what we’ve considered and what we’re doing and probably real close to the time frame that we’d have been back.

Councilman Schmid said I’m going to oppose the motion. I think it’s ill timed, I think the committee’s working on this project. I think we have the best interest of the City in mind and although Mr. Mitzel seems to disagree I think they are moving along and they are going to be coming back to the Council very shortly with the recommendations of one type or another which could be the hail with some holes in it I guess. At the present time that’s not on the agenda so I’m going to oppose the motion not disrespectful, I might add, but I’m a little concerned and a little upset that this motion even came forward in this form.

Councilman Crawford said basically the motion says committee report back to us at the first meeting in February and I don’t see any problem with that.

Councilman Schmid said then for a hole in a wall or a hole in a hill we have to have a cost estimate and all these things cost money. Mr. Mitzel’s talking about a hard surface for roller skating, field hockey and so forth and so on and that’s dollars and cents. You can’t put that on there and then decide ten months later to change your mind.

Yes (6) No (1-Schmid) MOTION CARRIED

Zoning Ordinance of the City of Novi - I - Reading - AN ORDINANCE TO DELETE

SUBSECTION 2406..5 FROM ORDINANCE NO. 84-18, AS AMENDED, THE CITY OF

NOVI ZONING ORDINANCE.

Mayor McLallen said this again was brought forward by Mr. Mitzel. The PD-1 Option is a unique development option concerning multiple zoning. At the moment it is only applied to two places in this City; one being the enclave near Twelve Oaks and the other upon a site on the west side of Novi Road South of Twelve and a Half and north of Twelve.

Councilman Mitzel said actually I wasn’t considering it my issue because Council passed a unanimous motion to direct it to the Planning Commission in June. So I wasn’t planning on making a presentation.

Mayor McLallen said at this time, the petitioner and Mr. Mutch have requested the ability or the, I shouldn’t say the petitioner there is no petitioner, the representatives of the Solomon Group and Mr. Mutch have requested time to speak to this issue.

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Ct., said there’s a couple of things I’d like to address tonight and I’ve attended the Planning Commission meeting and the Special Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting that was held on this issue and I think the things that I’ve tried to emphasize at both those meetings with regard to the PD-1 Option is that this ordinance is no longer satisfactory for what we expect for development in this community in this day and age. This is not a reflection on the proposals that you probably heard tonight, it’s not in regard to the site plans that you will probably be presented or those different issues. I simply believe that this ordinance is no longer, as I said at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, up to snuff. There’s issues and areas that we feel important in this community. Areas like density, environmental protection, traffic and this ordinance does not address those issues. If you read the specific language of this option it is very ambiguous.

There are no guarantees, there are no specifics and I think we’ve learned and sometimes the hard way in this community that if you don’t write it specifically in the ordinance, if you don’t get the guarantees you’re not going to get it.

One of the things that I brought out in the Planning Commission meeting was what they had in other communities and we like to compare ourselves to other communities and say we are top of the line, you know, we are the best out there. In this area we’re not. You look at the ordinances in other communities and the one I brought forward, at that time, was the City of Ann Arbor. They have a Planned Projects section of their ordinance, Article 5, Section 568 of their Zoning Ordinance which is very similar to what you’ll find in many other communities. They have specific findings that their Planning Commission must make with regards to their planned projects. Those are things like usable open space in excess to the minimum requirement, building or parking set backs in excess of the minimum requirement, preservation of natural features, preservation of historical or architectural features, solar orientation or energy conserving design, arrangement of buildings which provides a public benefit such as transit access, pedestrian orientation or reduced need for infrastructure or affordable housing for lower income households. Some of these things may not be applicable to our community but I think those things that we deem important like woodlands preservation, wetland protection are not addressed in this PD-1 Option. Now, Mr. Galvin will come up here and make an eloquent case why he needs that PD-1 Option. I disagree I think he has other options like the RM-2 Zoning Ordinance which provides a high level of density, although, I don’t know if it’s appropriate for this area. We get better guarantees as far as set backs and our cap on the density but again there are other options. I think what we need to do at this time is delete the PD-1 Option as it currently exists, start from ground zero, look at all the alternatives for this area which may be better, which may better address our needs. If we need to redraft the PD-1, fine we can but we don’t have to be in a situation where both sides are racing, him to get his site plan in and us to redraft the ordinance and it’s who gets there first. Let’s start over, address those concerns. If we feel we need the PD-1 Option or some variation of it fine, let’s get the guarantees, let’s get the woodlands protection, let’s get the wetlands protection, let’s address the density, let’s have them address traffic issues. I think all those things need to be addressed in your discussions tonight.

Mr. Galvin, representative of the Solomon Group, said first thank you for the courtesy of moving the item on the agenda and second I apologize to each of the rest of you who has had to sit here based on my schedule. I sincerely mean both the thanks and the apology.

There are three independent issues here tonight. I wish the Council to consider the first one and save the other two for a later day. The first issue is that I believe that we are here prematurely. Prematurely in a number of senses. There are seven property owners who are affected by the action which is proposed tonight. Each of those seven property owners opposes the proposal. The proposal is cast as a text amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance. I do not believe it to be such. I believe that what you have in front of you is a parcel specific rezoning for the properties which will be affected should this City Council determine to do away with the PD-1 Option. I would suggest to you that it is inappropriate for this City Council to consider a parcel specific rezoning of these persons properties under the guise of a text amendment to the City Zoning Ordinance. For that reason and because of the fact and in truth the reason that my schedule was in the condition that it was tonight was that we never received notice of this. It went out, Tonni told me it went out today but the Solomon Group or myself never received a notice from the City that this hearing was going to be held. Why, there’s no necessity for the notice. It’s a text amendment but that’s the fiction and what I would ask this Council to do is to refer this item back where it belongs which is with the Planning Commission and it’s Master Plan Committee.

We were here on September 8, Mr. Mutch was here, all of the other folks were here except one property owner who is here tonight who hasn’t participated in anything up until tonight. Why, because he didn’t know it was going on. This is not how the City ought to conduct it’s business. We were here on September 8, we were here for a meeting of the Master Planning Committee of the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoadley was here that night, Mr. Capello was here that night, we talked with them. Mr. Mutch was here, a number of homeowners were here from the Lakes District who interestingly supported the position that the PD-1 Option ought not be changed and that Mr. Solomon’s project should go forward. Each of us had input and Mr. Hoadley and Mr. Capello asked us to do a couple of things to produce for them alternative plans, to produce for them provisions which speak to some of the issues which Mr. Mutch raises, issues which were never considered. Issues specifically relating to something other than all or nothing at all which was what the Planning Commission found itself presented with on the initial remand of this by the City Council. I appeared at the Planning Commission meeting on this proposal. I was again there because we were lucky. We found out about it at a meeting with the staff on a specific plan for our property. It was delivered to us on the basis of "Oh by the way Mr. Galvin, Mr. Sasson, you might like to know that next week the PD-1 Option is before the Planning Commission to be deleted from the Ordinance." That’s how we found out about it. This is not how the City’s business should be conducted.

The first issue that I want you to deal with is whether or not we are here tonight prematurely. If you determine that we are here prematurely I think it would be entirely appropriate for this to be remanded back to the Planning Commission and specifically to it’s sub-committee on the Master Plan to study what to do about these properties, what to do about the PD-1 Option. Whether there are amendments to the Ordinance, as Mr. Mutch suggests, that it might make it better but I think that fairness demands, fairness demands, that this be presented back there. We don’t write on a clean slate. This City has created a Special Assessment District which affects each one of these property owners. Each one of them has paid money to the City based on the densities which are found currently in the PD-1 Option. Most respectfully, I don’t think it is appropriate for the City to just throw that all away and start all over. To the contrary, I think that it ought to look to what the City has done, and I have Phil McKenna of McKenna and Associates here tonight should you wish to hear, should you wish to go forward with this, with evidence to show you that you should not change this ordinance. But I think that Mr. McKenna’s points are better made within the structure of the Planning Commission and it’s sub-committee structure. I have here tonight other persons who are able to show based on the physical layout of this land and on the improvements proposed to this land why the ordinance should not be changed whether or not I lose my contact lens. He did, he just lost his contact lens. He can make it to the end. The end of what I have to say to you is this. I think it is appropriate and proper for this City Council to take this issue and to move it back to the Planning Commission for it to be studied in conjunction with Mr. Sasson’s plan. Should you wish to hear further information with respect to the current proposal I respectfully request that Mr. McKenna and the others be permitted to speak to you. We are prepared to address the issue of a text amendment. Our proofs go directly to that question. You have seen some of the information in the September 8 minutes of the sub-committee. We are trying, I don’t want to use a vulgar expression, this thing is here ass backwards, we’re trying to put it in to the proper procedural format so it can go forward, our project can go forward and these persons, who had in reliance upon what the City has done, paid special assessment charges based upon a sewer system; who have purchased land in some cases based upon what the City had said to them as to what the City wanted developed here. That these persons are able to present this information to the Planning Commission in an orderly fashion and that the best project and the best ordinance come out of that process. For those reasons we ask first that this issue be remanded to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fried asked what representations were made by what Member of the City Council or the City Administration that you conclude that you have some vested interest in this PD Option. You referred to sewer taps, you referred to Special Assessment Districts can you be more specific?

Mr. Galvin said yes I can. Initially Mr. Sasson purchased the piece of property which is known as the Centrum piece. That piece of property is zoned RM-1 Multiple under the City’s Zoning Ordinance. It has the PD-1 Option attached to it and a site plan was approved for that particular property by the City but Centrum chose not to go forward with the development of that parcel. Mr. Sasson acquired that property. After he acquired that property he made inquiry of the City and of persons on City staff and Members of the then City Council talking about what he proposed to do on the Centrum piece. They suggested to him, that based upon the fact that he was then developing a project that the City liked down the street off of Novi Road that some of you may have seen, that it would be a good idea for the City and for him to acquire additional pieces and to assemble those pieces into a large development which he, in fact, did. He presented that larger development to the City in an earlier iteration. It went before the Planning Commission, it had a proposal for rezoning . . .

Mr. Fried said just one second. My question to you was who in the City Administration made those representations to Mr. Sasson or his representatives that he acquire parcels of property and then come in under this PD-1 Plan or whatever plan and have the City then consider it? Who in the Administration did that?

Mr. Galvin said Mr. Sasson? Why don’t we have him tell you. Mr. Galvin said a District was set up, was sized at the densities which are allowed by the current PD-1 Option. Mr. Sasson has been paying the installments on those sewer pipes as have a number of other people. I think that the best testimony concerning the Special Assessment District and the sewer pipes and their sizing can be given by Ms. Bundoff who will describe for you specifically and graphically how she has to live now with a system that is sized for capacity but does not carry it. Mr. Sasson who talked with you?

Mr. Sasson said I just spoke with Brandon Rogers when I discussed with him the 180 units that were approved for the Centrum he advised me about the rest of the property.

Mr. Fried said Mr. Rogers told you to do that?

Mr. Sasson said Brandon Rogers. Ed Kriewall discussed it. I discussed it with Ed Kriewall. I discussed it with Jim Wahl from the Planning Department and I probably have some other notes from some prior meetings that I had. I don’t have them with me but I can look into it.

Mr. Galvin said the issue is a, and I understand why Mr. Fried wants it to be specific and it was appropriate. The issue is an issue of fundamental fairness. People come into the community, they speak with the persons who are the City and they are told that they ought to do certain things, they do those things in reliance upon what the City tells them to do and then at a future time someone says we want to change the whole thing. We want to take it all away. I think that this City, and to get to the planning issue, this City has gone through a planning process for this property, we have Mr. McKenna here who has each of your Master Plans over the years which show the development of this property. There’s no planning support to change it. None. There’s no evidence that was presented because the Planning Commission, and I don’t mean to put Member Mutch on the spot but she was in the room that night, the Planning Commission was operating under the pressure of an edict from the City Council to produce a result in a 45 day period and they hadn’t done it. So, they were going to act that night come hell or high water and make a recommendation to this Council. If you looked at their minutes they made two and the first one was a tie vote to recommend against a change because they hadn’t looked at it. The most enthusiastic proponents of changing it were uncomfortable because they hadn’t had time to deal with it. That’s what we’re asking to do. We’re asking to look at it.

Mayor McLallen said at this point the petitioner or the proponents have made quite an elegant case. Does the Council wish to do anything at this time?

Councilwoman Cassis said yes, I think that there is a process here that might well be served at this point because right now I can see that the Master Plan, the City of Novi and the Zoning Ordinance map is out of compliance. They are in conflict with one another and that’s part of the problem here. There’s been a long history of this being PD-1 Option and I think we, in terms of fairness, need to go back through the process. I think a recommendation has been made and I was going to do this independently anyway and that would be to re-look the Master Plan and therefore it would need to go back to the Planning Commission to go through the proper process and start with the Master Plan Sub-Committee to look at this in further detail.

Mayor McLallen asked is that a motion?

Councilwoman Cassis said that’s a motion.

Mrs. Bartholomew said would you mind restating that?

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Cassis

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the matter go back to the Planning Commission and it’s Master Plan Sub-

Committee for further study and recommendation.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch said I believe that is exactly where it is right now. So, I’m not sure, that was the decision of the Planning Commission was to send a recommendation to Council but at the same time. as contradictrary as it sounds, to also send it to Master Plan Zoning Committee which is where it is because Mr. Galvin just said that he and Mr. Mutch both addressed a meeting recently and that was after it had been sent to them. So, I support doing that but I’m not sure . . .

Mayor McLallen said let me see if I can offer a compromise in that. Mrs. Cassis would you perhaps amend your motion that the Council not take any action on the PD-1 Option until a report has been forthcoming?

Councilwoman Cassis said that’s implied in the motion, so yes.

Councilman Crawford said also, according to the documents we have here, that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee are researching alternate zoning districts. Now, I don’t know. That was not specifically implied in that motion and I don’t think it should be. I think they ought to just address it as an open issue and not be that specific. So, I guess we’re perhaps changing the direction of that committee slightly if that’s their only charge to look at alternate zoning districts or asking them to look at it with a broader brush I guess.

Councilman Mitzel said trying to split hairs here. There’s really the ordinance issue which we followed the correct procedure. In other words, the Planning Commission publishes notice, Planning Commission holds a public hearing. That’s where the notice requirement that Mr. Galvin stated comes in. That’s standard practice and the Planning Commission holds the hearing when it comes to Council there’s not another hearing notice published. That’s for text and also zoning map amendments I believe. So in one issue we’re dealing with the zoning ordinance text which is the PD-1 Option text. Just like there was adoption for the adjusted lot size and just like there was the option for any other part of our zoning ordinance. The other issue is a Master Plan issues which is the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission as Ms. Mutch stated is already independently looking at the Master Plan issue on that site. Unfortunately, what’s happened or may be not unfortunately, but what the situation is with the PD-1 Option is there’s three areas on the Master Plan that show it. One which is developed, one which has a site plan approved which is the Crescent Oaks Continuing Care Facility and the other one is this facility, I mean, this area which is undeveloped. There’s nothing that states that there won’t be future areas because all it takes is the Planning Commission to change the Master Plan which was just done in the last year with the Continuing Care Facility at Crescent Oaks. Now that one, of course, didn’t come in with the five story options within the ordinance. What’s happened here is we’ve gone down to a site specific debate over an option that can be applied anywhere in the City if the Master Plan is amended to allow it and that’s one of my concerns. I would support having some sort of, for lack of better term, like Preservation Option for Multiple Family. We have the option for Single Family Residential that states if you preserve upland woods you can adjust some of your densities or if you preserve certain environmental features. We don’t have any of the flexibility for Multiple Family. Most of the Master Plan Multiple Family areas within the City have been built. Maybe the need is not that critical but there are some areas and in the future if for some reason the Master Plan were to be amended, ten or 20 years down the road, there may be a need for having certain preservation mechanisms and alternatives, like Mr. Mutch stated, within the zoning ordinance. Now, whether that should be a PD-1 Option or if it should just be a general option that’s allowed in both RM-1 and RM-2 I would think maybe the latter would be better. As the PD-1 Option currently stands I don’t feel that it has a place in the City any more because if you read the intent the intent says "the intent of this option is to permit the applicant mid rise, higher density multiple dwelling structures in a district otherwise restricted to low rise, lower density residential use. That’s the intent of the option. That’s where I feel that this option is out of place now and that’s why I’m concerned that it’s on the books. Now if we can amend the option to reflect more of what our current values are in the community concerning the environmental preservation and allowing some adjustments like we do with the Preservation Option or Open Space Option and single family housing that may be appropriate. I don’t know if it would need to be a PD-1 Option at that point maybe it could just be a general option.

Mr. Fried said I want to clarify so the Council will understand the subtle argument that Mr. Galvin made to this Council. He’s arguing because there’s a limited number of properties that are under this PD-1 Option that, in fact, constitutionally they should have notice of this affected change. This is not, his argument is, and I don’t say I agree with the argument but I just want you to understand his argument. His argument is since there are only a limited numbers of properties that will be affected by this change in language or the elimination of this option that constitutionally they are entitled to notice of that change because they have some vested interest in this language or because if you’re going to change zoning of property you must give the property owner notice of that change. Now that’s his argument and I think you should consider that argument as your taking a move on this thing going either way you want to go. Just understand that argument and if you have any questions about the argument I’d be very happy to discuss it with you. That’s his argument.

Councilman Mitzel said my concern with the motion is that it’s tying a text amendment that technically could be applied anywhere in the City that the Master Plan so states. We’re tying the text amendment in the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission possibly amending the Master Plan. That’s where my concern is in the process there. I do understand, you know, studying the site, having the Master Plan Study Committee look at it for possible changes in the Master Plan if that’s what they’re doing right now that’s a Planning Commission function that they’re working on. My concern is to say well we don’t want to look at the text of this Zoning Ordinance which is under the jurisdiction of the City Council until the Planning Commission possibly amends the Master Plan. I don’t know if that’s the proper route. A more appropriate route may be to refer it back to the Planning Commission so they can do some bench mark studies of other communities of how they handle environmental flexibility for multiple family and come back with a text amendment that would take care of those concerns and provide that type of quality to the City Ordinance that’s lacking right now and still let the Planning Commission Master Plan Committee proceed on their own with the Master Plan issue. I’m hesitant to tie the text amendment to a site specific Master Plan amendment or study.

Councilman Clark said just a few comments and I’ll support the motion made by Member Cassis but to respond to a couple of the items that were raised by Mr. Galvin and I’m mindful of the comments Mr. Fried made as well. I would take exceptions by some of the comments made by Mr. Galvin. Certainly, whatever action we take tonight is within the purview of the Council and I don’t think our action one way or the other would be premature. This item has been discussed on numerous occasions by the Planning Commission, by Council, back to the Planning Commission, back to Council. It’s now apparently going to go back to the Planning Commission again. So, I don’t think our action, whatever it might be, would be precipitous or premature. Also, I don’t think that what’s proposed here and what ultimately may result, whatever it may be, is certainly site specific. If that was the case then the same argument in the converse could be made that when the PD-1 Option was put into place, and it’s the only place in the City, then it was site specific then as well. I don’t think that’s the case either. As far as the notice on meetings since this has been a hotly discussed item, if you will, in the City and at this table and the Planning Commission, certainly there was ample notice and I would also point out that many organizations within the City subscribe to the minutes of the Council and the various boards and commissions, certainly, which anyone is free to do. Also the comment that was made about the Special Assessment District payments, I would certainly point out that owning a piece of property does not automatically give one a vested interest to the extent that the zoning will never change and it’s like any other investment that you engage in. You certainly hope that ultimately you’re going to be able to do something with a piece of property that will be beneficial in terms of making a profit but there is no guarantee. Just as there’s no guarantee that Zoning, once you buy a piece of property, is frozen in time forever. That’s something that you know going in and any good investor knows that as well but I will support the motion that’s on the table.

Councilman Schmid asked could I hear the motion again?

Mrs. Bartholomew said the motion was not to take any action until the report comes back from the Planning Commission and Master Plan Zoning Committee.

Councilwoman Cassis said no, no that wasn’t what I thought I had said. I thought I had moved that this matter go back to the Master Plan Sub-Committee of the Planning Commission for study and recommendation to the Council and in light of the discussion that was at the table.

Councilman Crawford said those two sound the same to me, essentially.

Councilman Schmid said we have a recommendation from the Planning Commission as a full body to delete the PD-1 Option. That’s the recommendation on the Council table this evening to delete it based on thorough discussion, hundreds of minutes, hundreds of words. In fact, I read until I was blue in the face. Some of the minutes that came out of that meeting I thought they thought this out rather thoroughly. I don’t think they were under any undo pressure, although they might have been under a time pressure. I know this Planning Commission well enough to know that they kind of do what they want to do. I’ve never known them to get under a great deal of pressure from this Council.

Number one, I think the issue and as I read the minutes I think the Planning Commission made the right decision to eliminate the PD-1 Option. When I look at the density of this option three to one to M-1 which is presently zoned on the 12 acre piece or whatever acre that is in the woods and in fact, I think Mr. Rogers and you can just shake your head at this stage, the remainder of this land is RA or some other zoning. Is it not? RA which is one acre lots which could also be developed. To suggest that we should now go back and try and work out a deal with the developers as to whether or not we should remain with the R-1 Option I probably don’t agree with. Three to one on an RM you can have seven, just a little over seven, occupants per acre. Seven units not occupants. Is that accurate?

Mr. Rogers said that’s 7.2.

Councilman Schmid said under RM-1 you can have 20 plus. You know this whole end of town anything, it seems to me this Council has a great capacity to anything north of Twelve Mile Road to increase the density. We’ve got the Vistas of Novi which is, and I know this Council passed it almost unanimously, was and I won’t say the word that I was about to say, was a major mistake in this community due to this density. The traffic problem it’s going to generate on Novi Road, Meadowbrook Road. Maples was another high density development due to our illustrious ordinances we had at that time which was eliminated some four years ago, PUD Option. Now we’re looking at another project that’s going to intensify this area. I don’t care let them build on that 12 acres, the RM-1, and even if they get the PD-Option being it’s opposed to the town, I don’t even care if they get that. But to suggest that we’re going to commit to the rest of that land which is RA even though it might be some indication on the Master Plan that some Commission at that time thought it was a good idea, commit that land to that kind of density I think is almost ludicrous for this City to try to even think about when you’re talking about the cost of density and so forth. So, I’m somewhat reluctant to send this back. I think we’re sending it back to a deep hole it’ll come out, there would be nothing come out of any significance.

I’m almost upset that I heard this evening that Mr. Kriewall and others told the developers to go out and buy additional land and come back with a PD-1 Option because that’s what we’re looking for. You know, you could take that impression I suppose from the Master Plan. Although, I don’t know if the Commission was right in that decision way back when.

Mr. Fried said that was an allegation made. No one has asked Mr. Kriewall or Mr. Rogers . . .

Councilman Schmid said that’s why I said I’m almost upset.

Mr. Fried said OK I’m glad you clarified that.

Councilman Schmid said so I would rather, I’m not sure that’s why I asked for the motion to be reread. I can’t understand what the maker of the motion and the second and the support that I’m hearing around the table hopes to accomplish. Other than if this is going back for a complete look for rezoning, could be 5 acre lots, could be 1 acre lots or it could be RA’s or R-1's, 2's or 3's. I see this site as being very amieable to the similar type development that is at Nine Mile and Novi Road on the south west corner of Nine Mile and Novi Road which is condo’s, extremely nicely done. At least for the property that’s zoned RA. RM-1 has been zoned a long time and I can concur with the developers that they have been probably been at least indicated that that was going to remain that way. That piece of land was bought for $10,000 many, many years ago and I’m sure it sold for much more than that after that. Not by the developers incidently by an individual. So, Madam Mayor, I have a great deal of problem with the PD-1, the density of that and if in fact we’re going back to look at the total rezoning that’s another issue. Is that your intent?

Councilwoman Cassis said in sending this back to the Planning Commission and it’s Master Plan Sub-Committee I don’t have a particular intent in mind. I give them the opportunity with their Planner, Planning Consultants, Traffic Consultants and so on and legal advice to look at this Master Plan. In fact, I had a question that I wanted to ask Mr. Rogers if I could. Mr. Rogers do you know how long the PD-1 Option Multiple in that area has existed on the Master Plan?

Mr. Rogers said I believe it came into play in the summer of 1984 before my time. In the ordinance, the July, 1984 we now operate under as amended. You recall there’s a PD-1 Residential, a PD-2 for Office and a PD-3 for Commercial. More recently we have adopted a PD-4 for High Tech in the OS-2 District. So it’s in my recollection it would be possibly the summer or fall of 84 so that would have been 11 years.

Councilman Schmid said . . .

Mayor McLallen said Councilwoman Cassis has the floor.

Councilman Schmid said I would like to talk to Mr. Rogers about his dates and what came forth at that time. Did you say the ordinance or the Master Plan?

Councilwoman Cassis said I defer, go ahead.

Councilman Schmid said the ordinance came forth in 84 for a specific reason as you may recall for the development of Twelve Oaks which was then known as Glenn Oaks which came to us for development of the major apartment building there. 22 thousand square feet I might add per apartment, density far under what’s been talked about today, 700 square feet of living space and so forth. So that’s when the ordinance came about. Five stories and so on is that right?

Councilman Schmid said you weren’t even here.

Mr. Rogers said I wasn’t. I really don’t recall that.

Councilman Schmid said that’s when it did come about I was here. Now when it went on the Master Plan I’m not sure.

Mr. Rogers said the Master Plan of 1980 done by Villican Leiman Associates recommended certain, maybe subsequent to that, but recommended in this area PD-3, PD-2 and PD-1 land uses. In 1987 the existing Master Plan which had these three PD’s north of Twelve and west of Novi Road was reconfigured in what is called the Brandon Rogers Plan in the Novi News. That was the one that was adopted by the Planning Commission in 87 and then it was rolled into the 1988 Master Plan and carried forward again in the 1993 Master Plan.

Councilman Schmid said I don’t doubt that.

Councilwoman Cassis said just a few remarks. The reason I asked how far it goes back is because there is definitely a conflict that exists between the Master Plan and the Zoning Maps and in fairness to the petitioner who is here tonight and other individuals who own land that is zoned PD-1 there was a planning process that we went through in this City. This has been on the map and as we all know business people as well as residents look to the Master Plan as a form of security when they purchase property because it does determine a certain value and a certain intent where the City is going. So, I really feel that in looking at this although there has been a great deal of development that has occurred in the last 11 years, Vista and Maples has been mentioned and their high intensity uses, we also know that we’re seeing improvements to Twelve Mile Road, Novi Road and Decker Road and these may have some impact. The fact that there hasn’t been any documentation or study yet on this I think leaves a gap and therefore the appropriate place is to go back to the Planning Commission and the Master Plan Sub-Committee in terms of the overall process because it is something on the Master Plan. If we were to, tonight, delete it from the Zoning Ordinance we are in effect causing a rezoning and I have concerns about that without much more information and the process being followed. So, those are my comments and I look forward to hearing the rest of the comments from Council.

Mayor McLallen said all parties have spoken to this issue at least once and some members twice are there any comments that have no been made whatsoever to the issue that are new?

Councilman Mitzel said I have two comments. One is procedural, I believe the motion refers it to a specific sub-committee of the Planning Commission whereas what we’re dealing with is a text amendment which I believe goes to the Implementation Committee of the Planning Commission not the Master Plan Zoning Committee. I think it would be more appropriate if we’re going to refer it back refer it to the Planning Commission and let them decide which committee structure best suits it because there’s kind of some cross over between Master Plan and also zoning text.

Second point is I may be able to support the motion if there was some sort of time frame that we’re talking about coming back to Council on. I share Mr. Schmid’s concern that if we just send it back and say study it that we may not hear back for quite some time. I want to be reasonable and give them time to do a thorough job and look at other communities but yet I think we need to give them a date certain.

Mayor McLallen said your recommendation Mr. Mitzel?

Councilman Mitzel said how about our first meeting of March? That would be 3 months.

Mayor McLallen said on or before?

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the main motion be amended to insert that the Planning Commission

should send back a recommendation to the City Council for their first meeting of

March, 1996.

Mr. Fried said clarify that. I’m certain that Mr. Mitzel said referred back to the Planning Commission and not to a committee of the commission.

Councilman Mitzel said no I didn’t make that a part of the motion right now. At this point it was just the time frame.

Mayor McLallen said the motion is to the main motion. The amendment is dealing with the time frame only and it’s to request that the information be brought back to the Council by the first meeting in March.

Councilwoman Mutch said I will say that having just come from the Planning Commission and the Implementation Committee in particular that they’re under an awful lot of pressure but I think that March 1st is probably the earliest. The last two meetings we haven’t had a parade of people but prior to that when I was out in the audience there was a parade of people asking why Planning Commission Implementation Committee had not already addressed other issues. Those are still being researched and handled and if you want to provide some direction in terms of a sense of priority on this particular one. If you think this is more important or less important than some other things they’ve already been directed to so I’m sure they’d appreciate having some sense of that.

Mayor McLallen said at this time the motion states that the Council would like a report back by March 1.

Yes (6) No (1-Schmid) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said the amendment passed 6-1.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That the main motion be amended by striking Master Plan Sub-Committee and

inserting Planning Commission and add that City Administration shall fully cooperate in

gathering appropriate information from other cities in the area.

Mayor McLallen said there is now an amendment to the main motion that says that the PD-1 subject be sent back to the Planning Commission as a whole with the Administration being directed to gather information from other communities enabling them to formulate a better ordinance.

Councilman Mitzel said my intent was just to let it go of the Planning Commission and that way they can determine how to best work and also to direct Administration to give them full support so they can meet our expectations.

Councilman Crawford said I don’t suppose it matters much but they’ve already recommended it to their committees so they already know what direction they want to take. So, I suppose it doesn’t matter that we’re going to put it to the Planning Commission in general but as I say they’ve already funneled it towards their Master Plan Zoning Committee a month ago. So they may already be doing some work on it at this moment that we’re not aware of.

Councilwoman Mutch said while I agree with that and in fact commented on that earlier that they indeed are holding meetings addressing that what Mr. Mitzel has brought up is that the Planning and Zoning Sub-Committee might be dealing with changes in the Master Plan that the deletion or change in this sort of an option might present at the same time Implementation can deal more directly with the changes that he itemized earlier. Concerns about environmental sensitivity, density, traffic etc.; that could be put into proposed for an ordinance because Master Plan changes may take some time. You could actually have the Planning Commission deciding to approach it from both committees.

Councilwoman Cassis said I see how it’s going around and around. I just wondered if our Planning Department has any sense of where the matter is right now before the Planning Commission what sub-committee it might be involved in.

Mr. Wahl said I think Councilwoman Mutch gave a pretty good explanation of how we might be dealing with it. I mean I think we’ll have to take another look at it and see how we might address it. We might want to break it up not only because of the appropriateness of which committee would handle it but because of the work load of the Implementation Committee and how we can get the most thorough report.

Councilwoman Cassis said I wanted to be more clear to the Planning Commission where I thought this should be headed. I really do think, as the maker of the motion, that it needed to go to a Master Plan discussion as to the appropriateness of the PD-1 Option with all kinds of information being gathered. So, I just didn’t want to leave it up in the air and then see what giving them only 3 months and then have it come back here maybe with nothing more clear cut. So that was my concern.

Mayor McLallen said at the moment there is a supported amendment to the main motion which is to direct it in a general way to the Planning Commission for their discretion to send it to the most appropriate committees. Any further discussion on that amendment?

Councilman Schmid said I don’t know if it’s an amendment or not. You know, this continues to be confusion. The Planning Commission clearly rejected the PD-1 Option. Now, Mrs. Cassis suggests that now we’re going to send it back for them to determine whether they want the PD-1 Option or not. They clearly rejected it in the Master Plan. The minutes are clear that they voted to eliminate the PD-1 Option. That’s what we had before us this evening. That’s what this whole tablet is. The minutes reflect after much discussion and two or three votes that the Planning Commission agreed to delete the PD-1 Option under this Zoning.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Schmid the motion on the floor that we need to address is . . .

Councilman Schmid said I know what the motion on the floor is but the motion that was made was to send this back to the Planning Commission to determine whether they want the PD-1 Option. It’s already been back to the Planning Commission and they’ve already made a recommendation to delete the PD-1 Option.

Mayor McLallen said but that’s the motion we’re voting on right now.

Councilman Schmid said I thought the motion was to go back to the Planning Commission and determine about the zoning because the PD-1 Option is deleted does not change the zoning of this area. The zoning is RA. This Council’s got to change the zoning and M-1. So, really the zonings there they can build tomorrow single family homes and they can build apartments on the 12 acres. The Commission has already determined that they wanted to delete that now if you’re going to send it back and say look at it again and change your vote maybe that’s what the Council wants to do but they have already made a determination. Now, if you want to restudy it and have them come back again and say well let’s have PD-1 maybe we don’t like their vote.

Mayor McLallen said Mrs. Bartholomew would you please read the correct main motion and then the amendment as best you can?

Mrs. Bartholomew said the main motion was item to go back to Master Plan Zoning Committee for study and recommendation to this body. The first amendment was the time frame. The second amendment is to strike the Master Plan Sub-Committee and insert Planning Commission with City Administration to cooperate gathering information from other cities in the area.

Mayor McLallen said but it does not address, specifically, what is being sent back.

Mrs. Bartholomew said item.

Mayor McLallen said would the Council like to do anything to clarify.

Councilwoman Mutch said I will say the Planning Commission even in making that decision itself sent that whole thing for review to one of its own committees.

Councilman Schmid said it sent it to review for determination of other zoning for that area.

Mayor McLallen said Members of Council we do not debate one another at the table. Mr. Schmid I’m sorry you do not have the floor.

Councilman Schmid said alright I will properly raise my hand Madam Mayor when time permits.

Councilwoman Mutch said that was the end.

Councilman Schmid said let me again say, I was out of order before, the Planning Commission sent it back to the committee to determine what other zoning may be proper as opposed to the PD-1 Option. It’s already zoned RA what other options may be appropriate? It’s already zoned RA and M-1. They have already made a determination that they don’t want PD-1. Now if we’re going to send it back they may change their mind if they feel that the majority of Council wants them to change their mind. If the majority of Council wants it to come back as PD-1 twenty dwellings per acre as opposed to 7 which now it’s zoned 1 or 7 depending on where you’re at. Then that’s another issue but if you want that then let’s just vote on it tonight and say you want the PD-1 Option. The Planning Commission’s already said they don’t want it.

Mayor McLallen said at the moment we are still on the secondary motion, the amendment to the main motion which was to send it to the Planning Commission striking the words Master Plan Sub Committee. Is that correct Mrs. Bartholomew?

Mrs. Bartholomew said with the City Administration to cooperate.

Mayor McLallen said that is the motion before the Council at this time is there any further discussion on that motion?

Yes (5) No (2-Cassis, Schmid) MOTION CARRIED

Mayor McLallen said at this point the amended motion states to send the item back to the Planning Commission to decide ultimately how best to readdress it and bring it back to this Council by the first meeting in March.

ROLL CALL: Yes (4- Crawford, Cassis, MOTION CARRIED

Mutch, McLallen

No (3-Clark, Mitzel, Schmid

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That an Executive Session be scheduled to immediately follow the December

4, 1995 Regular Meeting to discuss employee negotiations.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That Claims and Accounts Warrant No. 451 be approved.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That a Special Meeting be scheduled on Monday, November 27 at 7:30 pm for

the purpose of interviewing candidates for boards and commissions.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Andrew Mutch said back again. I must say I am extremely disappointed by the Council’s decision tonight not to act on this PD-1 Option. I think Mr. Schmid essentially got to the gest of the point. The point is that you sent this to Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Council. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended to get rid of the PD-1. It also recommended to its Master Plan and Zoning Committee to study alternative districts which is what they are doing. They are not looking at the PD-1. They are not examining the PD-1. As far as they are concerned the PD-1 is gone. It is not of their concern. They are looking at things like clustering, things like preservation, things like Mr. Mitzel mentioned, how can we get preservation option in the multiple districts. They are not looking at PD-1. Now you’re sending it back to them and saying ah well, we’re not really sure now maybe we do want PD-1. I think you’re sending a conflicting message. Eliminating the PD-1 is not a rezoning of these properties as Mr. Schmid again pointed out. There’s some RM zoning, there’s some RA zoning. PD-1 is an option not a zoning. They can request a rezoning, they can request to utilize the PD-1 Option just like the preservation option, just like the cluster option. It is an option that is granted by the City Council and the Planning Commission that they may or may not utilize if the City agrees that it fits the City’s needs. That is not a guarantee to them. You know, I heard a lot of things tonight about fairness, I heard a lot of things about our Master Plan and I’m a believer in a strong Master Plan and sticking to our Master Plan. Sometimes, the Master Plan doesn’t fit every situation and this is one of those situations. Mr. Quinn could have gotten up tonight and explained Mr. Bosco’s situation when the City told him for twenty years that we wanted high density residential on his property at Eleven Mile and Beck Road. Then in 1988 we came back and said no we want large lot one acre zoning. Now he had that zoning and he had it zoned a lot longer than Mr. Sasson’s property which only as Mr. Schmid pointed out is the 12 acres, and clearly he believed that he was going to come in and do a PD-1 Option on this property. I have a feeling that he is going to get a site plan in here before March 1, before the Planning Commission gets dealt with this and that they’ll be a done deal and that that whole area will probably go to some high density multiple and we’ll destroy the woodlands, denigrate the wetlands, pour a lot of traffic and high density in that area and frankly I’m extremely disappointed.

Allan Green, 1577 North Woodward Avenue, Bloomfield Hills, MI, said I’m really going to talk just a couple minutes about the PD-1 Option. I represent Highland Development Company which is one of the other property owners that was alluded to by Mr. Galvin earlier. I just want to take one minute of your time to let you know that since we’ve been sitting here all this time, we’ve never appeared at any other public hearing on this. We never received any notice of these proceedings. This was the first time that we actually knew that there was a meeting on this issue and we’ve come to find out that it’s before City Council for approval deleting an ordinance that is of a significant impact to our property. We have 21 acres of property off of Twelve Mile. We don’t have woodlands on it there are some wetlands. We’ve been working for two to three years right now with your Planning staff on a proposed development on this property of some luxury apartments at about half the density of the PD-1 ordinance allows right now. We’ve been doing that in good faith and have spent a lot of time and effort and money in trying to develop this proposal. We’ve had lots of discussions, we’ve done traffic studies and our main concern about this, we’re not even clear yet how this all impacts us but I did have an opportunity today to look at the minutes of the meetings that took place. Two things struck me. Number one everything seemed geared towards this other project that Mr. Galvin was here speaking about. It looked to me that it was a clear reaction to a project that was dense in an area that the community wanted to preserve in a better fashion then maybe the present zoning ordinance allowed. No one spoke about the other properties and the other property owners affected by this and we weren’t given any notice. This is a zoning ordinance change it’s not a project specific issue. There is a major project that is affected by it. The other thing that I noticed was in reading the comments by the members of the Planning Commission it was clear that they weren’t ready. It was clear that they felt pressured. It was clear, I remember comments by Member Bonaventura who said I’m really not in favor of PD-1 but I’d really like to study this more. The one thing I noticed we’re talking about a zoning ordinance amendment, a Master Plan that has been in effect for some time that this community took great care, I believe, and expense in preparing and the only thing I didn’t see that there’s been no planning or discussion about what should take its place. So, our point is we have no idea which direction the community is going to go. The comments that were made today about concerns about the environmental condition of the property, protecting woodlands and wetlands, those are things that we certainly don’t have any objection to but to simply strike an ordinance, the whole thing, which is fairly detailed on the grounds that there may be some areas that we need to change it or amend it or replace it with something, without that replacement there, without an ordinance, without a review and a plan that says this makes more sense for our community then simply taking this away so we can stop that project over there. That’s my concern. I appreciate what you did today only because it at least gives us an opportunity so that we can review what you’re doing and work with it within our project and come back and appear before the Planning Commission and give some appropriate comments. Today was the first time we’ve ever spoken on this and appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Debbie Bundoff said I guess I’m speaking because I was told at the meeting that we had on the 8th that I should speak. At that meeting there were several people who were told that they should speak to City Council. They were not only property owners in the area of the PD Option overlay. They were people from the Lakes Area Association who were asked to come to that meeting. We did receive a very nice invitation to attend that meeting. It was great. We would have liked, hopefully, a chance to have known about tonights meeting because it does affect us. Maybe if City

Council had been so bugged about this zoning that maybe they should have been at that meeting also. Because they would have heard word for word what was said. This wasn’t just a fast meeting. This was something that came from the Planning Commission to that Sub-Committee and yes, there has been a lot of talk from the planners, planning department, water and sewer department and Mr. Kriewall himself in telling residents of that area that you can’t develop here because we’d like you to put your package together with somebody else to build a better development. It pretty much tells you you can’t develop unless you put it together with your neighbor. So yes, there have been things that you people are not aware of that goes on behind the scenes in this building that tells the people that own that land that they need to do something and hopefully the people telling them are telling them what they should. It’s unfortunate that maybe they don’t tell them the proper things but that’s what’s conveyed to the property owners, to the future developers, to the prospective developers and that’s what we’re told. We’ve been given densities. There’s some projects that have been through what used to be Planning Concepts that have been turned down at Planning Concepts because it didn’t meet the high quality standards of that particular area. Something was mentioned about my sewer problem. It’s a contract sewer SAD. This City came to us back in the early 80's for the City to build us a sewer. That got turned down by the property owners but it got pushed through by a contract SAD. A contract SAD that was engineered for the future use. Somebody should take a look at what that future use capacity is. A sewer that doesn’t work without what it was planned for. Yes, there are people who have paid and paid dearly and as I heard that doesn’t give you the right to think that that’s what you’re going to use, this City when it designed that, when the City designed a road that tells the people that they have to give up their land because this City turned around and gave triple densities to other projects that were never supposed to get triple densities. A PUD was to use the underlying zoning. Prior to those projects being put in the underlying zoning was changed.

Mayor McLallen reminded Ms. Bundoff of the 3 minutes.

Ms. Bundoff said OK. This is an important project. This is a unique area of this City and it does only affect personally a couple people. Yet everybody sooner or later goes by there but it’s a shame that not everybody’s a perspective developer that comes in there. There are still property owners in there who have been there for many years and have put up with what this City has done to them. You should take a look and you should have all been at the presentations on the 8th. It gave a complete history of this neighborhood and what this City has done to it. You should all have a video tape of that night it was quite interesting. The Planning Commission was under stress to give you back an answer that they thought you wanted not necessarily what they wanted.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Mitzel said in November the Storm Water Committee met and they’re following up on some of the contacts we had made with the DNR concerning the future of the storm water planning in the City. We just basically discussed our next steps and our next meetings in March.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Mayor McLallen said this was a proposal to have a Committee of the Whole meeting for those who were not at the parliamentary procedure meeting last week. The Committee of the Whole allows the Council to have a working session and it was suggested that we have one to address our rules and procedures. Proposed dates for this were December 9, 16 or Monday the 18 to last no more than three hours. It was a chance to actually get down and do some work and see if we can deal with these items. Are any of these dates acceptable and does the Council at this time wish to pursue this?

Councilman Mitzel asked what time were you talking about on the Saturdays? The 9 and 16 are Saturdays. Were you talking mid morning, early morning?

Mayor McLallen said hopefully early morning but I was going to leave it up to Council.

Councilman Schmid said what dates Madam Mayor?

Mayor McLallen said proposed December 9 and 16, those are Saturdays. Hopefully early in the morning, come in work hard and go home before lunch or Monday, December the 18. Three hours was the maximum.

Councilman Schmid said this is to complete the rules that were started in 1991?

Mayor McLallen said yes. See if we could tackle that and deal with some suggestions and some new ideas that came up in last weeks meeting for agendas. Just kind of general procedures and rules of the Council.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That a Committee of the Whole Meeting be scheduled for December 9th.

Councilman Schmid said I prefer the 18, Saturdays and Sundays often times cause problems but I’ve learned from this Council you go with the majority.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MANAGER’S REPORTS - None

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

Councilman Mitzel said I sent a couple memos last month concerning some administrative charter issues. Whenever you have a chance to forward me some answers I’d appreciate it.

Mr. Fried said we’re working on it.

Mayor McLallen adjourned the meeting at 12:25 am

MAYOR CITY CLERK

Date approved