COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 TEN MILE ROAD

CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:00 PM with Mayor McLallen

presiding.

Present: Council Members Crawford (present), Cassis (present), Clark (present), Mitzel (present), Mutch (present), Schmid (present) and Mayor McLallen (present)

Absent: None.

SWEARING IN OF POLICE OFFICER - Aaron Poyer

Mayor McLallen said the first order of business is a very pleasant one. It is the introduction and swearing in of Novi’s newest member of our police force. I’d like to have Chief Doug Shaeffer introduce him.

Chief Shaeffer said good evening Madam Mayor and Council persons. I’d like to introduce to you tonight and to the community one of our new officers, Officer Aaron Poyer. Aaron comes to us with a bachelor degree in Criminal Justice that he obtained in 1990 from Wayne State University and also from the U.S. Customs Office where he has spent the last five years since 1990 as a customs officer as a customs agent. He was hired on August first of 95 but I did not have an opportunity to introduce him to you because we immediately sent him off to the Police Academy at Oakland University where he has been ever since. He graduated there on the first of December and, by the way he did graduate with honors and was elected Class President there and did, in fact, give the commencement speech for the class. So, we are very, very proud of him for having completed all that time and graduating with such honors and to come to us with such a high degree of professionalism, experience and I think that he will be able to contribute it very, very effectively, of course, and serve to your pleasure and to the community for many, many years into the future. So, with that I would like to introduce you to Aaron Poyer and respectfully request Mayor that you would instruct the Clerk to swear him in please.

Mayor McLallen said thank you very much Chief it would be a pleasure. Mrs. Bartholomew.

Mrs. Bartholomew said please raise your right hand. I do solomely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Michigan and the rules and regulations of the Novi Police Department and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the position of Police Officer of the City of Novi to the best of my ability.

Officer Poyer said I do.

Chief Shaeffer said congratulations.

Officer Poyer said thank you.

PRESENTATIONS - None

Mayor McLallen said at this time we will move down. There are no presentations this evening. We will move down to the approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or corrections? We do have one change. Mr. Carlin who is representing Item #2 unfortunately has double scheduled himself this evening. He is currently appearing before the Southfield City Council and has asked that item be moved to our last item this evening which would be after Item #12.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the agenda be approved as amended.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said the agenda stands as amended and approved.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

1. Approval of Minutes of Special Workshop of November 15, 1995, Regular Meeting of

November 20, 1995, and Special Meeting of November 27, 1995. (pulled by Councilman Mitzel)

2. Adoption of Resolution Approving New Precinct Locations.

WHEREAS, The City of NOVI has 14 voting precincts and 14 polling locations, as

established in 1992. Since that time, increases in demographic factors and the requirement jurisdictions to conform with the new precinct boundary requirements

established under PA 401 of 1994, have created a need to expand the number of

precincts and polling locations to 17;

WHEREAS, All planned precinct boundary changes must be granted by the

local Election Commission and approved by the City Council;

WHEREAS, The rearrangement of precinct boundaries are governed under

Michigan Election Law, MCCALL-661, and must be submitted to the Michigan

Department of State by January 9, 1996; and

WHEREAS, These proposed changes will reduce the length of lines and hopefully

encourage voter participation.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, after review of all precincts and

potential polling locations, the City of NOVI Election Commission recommends that

City Council approve the voting precinct changes as attached to the original minutes.

3. Approval of Change Order 1 & 2, Community Sports Park - Jack B. Anglin, Co., for

a total amount of $28,635.00.

4. Approval of Budget Amendment 96-10, in the amount of $19,275.00, for the purchase

of voting equipment.

5. Approval of payment to Ludwig & Assoc. For Architectural services at Community

Sports Park in the amount of $24, 552.98. (pulled by Councilwoman Cassis)

Councilwoman Cassis said I’d like to pull Item #5.

Councilman Mitzel said I’d like to pull the minutes of November 20, Item #1.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the Minutes of November 15th and November 27th and Items 2, 3 and 4 be approved.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

1. Request for Final Plat Approval - Broadmoor Park Subdivision - SP 95-21L

Mayor McLallen said this subdivision will consist of 56 lots. It has received positive letters from the Engineering Department with several conditions, from the Traffic and City Forester Departments with conditions.

Councilman Mitzel said there is a motion that was postponed from last meeting to approve this subject to the consultants letters. So I believe that motion is on the floor at this point.

Mayor McLallen said thank you Mr. Mitzel, would you like to bring it? We need a motion to reconsider or to bring it off the table.

Councilman Mitzel said no, it’s just postponed. I think it’s active right now.

Mr. Watson said no, I think the motion is now back before you and that motion is up for discussion.

Mayor McLallen said but the motion was for approval subject to the clarification of the requirements.

Councilman Mitzel said I believe the motion was Final Plat approval, Broadmoor Park No. 1 subject to the consultants letters. The City Attorney, during that discussion, had mentioned some of their concerns and I believe that’s probably where the discussion should start to see if those have been resolved.

Mayor McLallen asked, do you remember who was maker of the motion?

Councilman Mitzel said I believe I was.

Mayor McLallen said you have the floor.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Watson have your concerns over the plat been resolved?

Mr. Watson said yes, I received information in our office that provides the covenants and the title work on Friday. We’ve reviewed it and we’re all set.

Mayor McLallen asked is there any further discussion on the Final Plat of Broadmoor Park? Who was the seconder of the motion?

Councilman Schmid said I was.

Mayor McLallen said seeing no further discussion all those in favor of the motion to grant final approval to the Final Plat for Broadmoor Park please signify by saying Aye. Opposed?

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

2. Transfer of Resort Liquor License - Mr. B’s moved to Item #12.

3. Revised Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan Approval - Circuit City Store,

SP95-01 B & C

Mayor McLallen said this is before us again with unanimous recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission, the consultant letters and Fire Department all recommending approval and a note that says the Zoning Board of Appeals granted the variance needed for sufficient rear yard set back on December the 5th.

John Fredrickson, representing Circuit City Stores, said I am here tonight from Richmond, Virginia where our headquarters are. I’d like to briefly review the history of the process. Back in February, February 1st of this year we were granted a Preliminary Site Plan approval from the Planning Commission. This elevation drawing represents the elevation that was submitted and it was approved at that time at Preliminary Site Plan approval. Subsequent to that or I should say as a condition to that approval we had to flip the lay out of the building because the Fire Marshall would not allow our customer pick-up parking right off the front drive. This is at West Oaks 1, OK we’re taking the Kroger lease there just to familiarize you with that. Circuit City is coming in with five stores in the Detroit area and they will be opening this spring. We are held by many as being the nations premiere consumer electronics store and we’re very happy to be coming into the Detroit market and we’re very happy to be here in Novi. This will be an excellent location for us and a very good site for us. But, back in February when we were working on our Preliminary Site Plan approval, this is our original elevation as I said, since that time there was an intermediate proposal. I say intermediate because this is not the final elevation or the current elevation that we have for you I just wanted to give you a little bit of the back ground here. This elevation shows, again, more of our prototypical store which is predominantly block. As you recall, this existing Kroger lease is a split faced block building. We are showing different forms of block here at this stage. However, what we did was we took a look in the planning or with staff with Brandon Rogers we looked at the percentage of the materials and we noticed that it was predominately block and we were made aware that it was predominately block. An analysis was done on the percentage of the materials and it was noticed during this analysis that although we had different types of block materials it was still predominately block. Working with staff we came up with a new elevation that I’d like to show you. This is a colored rendering which we came up with. I’ll pass this around. Basically, what we’re doing is totally renovating the exterior of this building and we are bringing it, we believe with staff’s guidance and with Brandon Rogers input, up to the standards that we think we believe the City of Novi would like to see here. Namely, we’re proposing that it would be red brick with our special detailing. This is the view that most people will see and, of course, this end wall is the endcap on the center. This is quite a departure from what our prototype is so we’re upgrading our building here for the City of Novi but we feel that it’s certainly compatible with much of the development that’s occurred in the recent years up and down Novi Road. One thing that I mentioned, we did have to flip this building and that gets to the variance or the set back request. Because we couldn’t have the customer pick-up off the main road, we opted for having it right on the corner here. This is our customer pick-up area. Our store is laid out such that there’s a warehouse on the corner. We are a fully finished out retail store. We have ceilings, a not finished out store is a box warehouse. So we do have a separate warehouse component. Customers look and purchase items in the store and it’s more traditional in that you don’t take product off of racks in the store area but you purchase a television, VCR or what have you and it’s a large items warehouse and you go to the pick up area. So anyway it has warehouse components but there is a truck dock. Now, the variance which we just received through the Zoning Board of Appeals for that new location of the truck dock, actually this is a better layout because we tend to screen the truck dock from Novi Road. So we tend to screen the nastiness of the truck dock from general view. I think it works well for the overall design. I’d like to pass this around for you to look at.

Mr. Frederickson said I think that’s basically my presentation.

Mayor McLallen asked are there any questions from the members of Council for the petitioner?

Councilman Mitzel said I would like to make a motion if you want.

Mayor McLallen said alright.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

That Preliminary Site Plan 95-01 be approved.

Mayor McLallen said Rob their asking for . . .

Councilman Mitzel said I know I was going to make two separate. Unless the City Attorney says otherwise I thought it may be better for the records if there was a Preliminary Site Plan and then a Final Site Plan motion.

Mr. Watson said you can make it in a single motion if you want to.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan SP 95-01, Circuit City Store be granted.

Councilman Schmid said I would only say that I am extremely pleased with what you’ve done with the exterior. I know Mr. Ward would be, this whole area I think is going to set the pace for this shopping center once it turns over like it’s starting to do now. So, I am extremely pleased with your company and with the way you addressed this, Mr. Rogers, and I think you’ve done an outstanding job of putting the developer through some of the stages and it’s just an outstanding project and you should be commended.

Councilwoman Cassis said I won’t repeat Bob’s comments. I echo them and support what he had to say. Very nice work.

Councilman Mitzel said I just had a quick question. Were you originally proposing this site elsewhere in the West Oaks area or is that a Computer Comp USA store? I forget which one of the computer stores was on that vacant lot.

Council members said it was Fretter property.

Mr. Fredrickson said no, I wasn’t familiar with any proposal for Circuit City on that other piece of property.

Mayor McLallen asked is there any further discussion on the motion?

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen said members of Council I have one comment on that before we leave it. Because of the RC requirement this comes to us, and while it was a terrific presentation and it’s really nice for the Council to see everything, these are one of those issues that I feel very strongly should not come to Council. It came forward to us meeting everything that the City requires and yet this poses a burden to the petitioner at this stage of the game. This gentleman actually said he’s flown in from Richmond tonight and what we’ve done is basically congratulating him on a job well done and yet it seems a bit redundant. So, I’d like the Council to just consider this as we tighten up our procedures. Is this one of those issues that perhaps we want to talk about removing from the Council purview?

Councilman Schmid said Madam Mayor I can think very quickly this evening. This has been discussed many times. Although this petitioner came through with an excellent plan I think this Council serves a purpose with this very varied types of items and I would be very, very reluctant to change what has been practiced by this Council for a number of years. Probably because we got some of the quality in this city today is because we do insist on quality and we do perhaps make them go through a few more loops. I’m sure the petitioner won’t mind and then the big picture five years down the road I’m sure they’ll even forget they came. So I don’t see this as a major problem with the developer.

4. Final Site Plan Approval - McDonalds Playspace & Cash Booth, SP 95-29B

Mayor McLallen said this is located, again, in the Regional Center District and is before us with recommendations from the Planning Commission, positive letters from the consultant, they’ve also received a ZBA variance for the expansion of a nonconforming use.

Frank Martin, from Dorche and Martin Associates, Architects, representing McDonalds, said I was here before you for our Preliminary Site Plan approval and received your approval at that time. It was at that time we addressed and were made aware of a zoning and nonconforming use issue which we had to address at a ZBA hearing which was mentioned which we received approval on. Tonight I’m here to request a Final Site Plan approval and as a little bit of background this particular playland addition on the existing McDonalds restaurant. We have worked with Brandon and your staff relative to it’s design, the Taubman Company relative to its design and we believe that the design exterior and interior wise will be a tremendous asset to the restaurant and to the community in general. If there are any questions at all I would be glad to answer them and I’m very happy to be here regarding the Site Plan.

Mayor McLallen asked members of Council at this time any questions or requests of the petitioner.

Councilman Schmid said Madam Mayor I have one and I picked this up from reading the minutes from the Planning Commission and it related to the interior of the, what do you call these playhouses?

Mr. Martin said Play Place.

Councilman Schmid said the interior of the Play Place as to the colors and so forth. The indication was they would be earth tone type as opposed to blues, reds, pinks and so on. I don’t know if that’s important other than actually what you see in this building is those things inside because 99% of it is glass. So, I’m wondering where you’re coming from. Is that accurate?

Mr. Martin said that question was asked at the Planning Commission meeting last week and Ed Kulagowski who is the Supervisor of Operations for the operator of this facility responded and the question was asked whether or not this would have the pinks, blues and yellows. Mr. Kulagowski had passed on the theme of the interior when the interiors changed and what is actually going to occur at the intersection, the wall that separates the Play Place from the existing restaurant where the logo window now is, there will be an aquarium there. There is going to be kind of an ecological theme to the store and consequently the Play Place, the tubes and the play equipment are going to be toned down in colors as opposed to what you might see typically and what you have seen in the past in some other stores.

Councilman Schmid said so it was an accurate statement?

Mr. Martin said yes.

Councilman Clark said in addition to the fact that what’s proposed here is really an addition to an existing structure are there any plans to do any upgrading within the public area of the restaurant itself?

Mr. Martin said yes, part of the program in our office is not involved. An interior designer from Chicago, who has been involved with many of the stores that this operator has, has put together plans and I think a permit is now being requested with your Building Department for some interior upgrades, decor. That is all a part of this program, the addition and updating the facilities inside. I can’t tell you whether the permit has been issued because we didn’t do the drawings but Ed Kulagowski had mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting that it was right now in for permits.

Councilman Clark said thank you.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That Final Site Plan SP95-29B, McDonalds Playscape and Cash Booth addition

be approved.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

5. Approval of RFP to Farrand and Assoc. - North Novi Park Master Plan in the amount of

$15,400.00.

Mayor McLallen said this is before us at the request of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Councilman Mitzel said Madam Mayor can I ask a procedural question?

Mayor McLallen said I was going to ask Dennis to comment. Dennis, this was before the previous Council and was basically met with a 3-3 vote. The Parks and Recreation Commission feels that in order for them to perform their function they need further direction. I believe Mr. Mitzel’s request of you is to explain what’s the procedure to re-hear this question?

Mr. Watson said well it’s actually here as an item of new business. So, it’s really not here as a reconsideration or recision or renewal. Mr. Davis raised a similar question last week as to whether it would be appropriate or not and before we looked at it Mrs. Bartholomew had an opportunity to discuss it with one of the parliamentarians that you previously met with. It was suggested that it be put before the Council as new business and they referred us to a provision in Roberts that deals with renewal of motions. It indicates an exception for something that would otherwise need either renewal, reconsideration or recision. Basically what it says is that when there is a change in circumstances an item can be brought as new business before a body. What the parliamentarian suggested was the fact that since there was a new Council, and since that 3-3 vote, there was a change in circumstances that would permit this to come back as new business. I would never have considered that possibility before but we looked at that provision in the rules and it would seem to indicate that. In addition, there’s another provision in Roberts dealing with what a session is and what meetings are and indicates that essentially one of the principles of Roberts is that one session of a body can’t tie the hands of a majority of a later session. That’s a concept that’s consistent with Michigan Law dealing with municipal corporations that one Council can’t bind a future Council. To give an example, where you have a City Charter that says that a staff member or a member of the administration serves at the pleasure of Council. A particular Council can’t enter into a long term contract with that staff member in effect taking that discretion away from a future Council. So, we think that the parliamentarians assessment of that is correct and that it can come back before here as new business with a change in Council.

Mayor McLallen asked, Mr. Davis would you like to present?

Mr. Davis said back before you is that same recommendation that we had before the previous Council on September 25th and that was to approve an RFP in the amount of $15,400.00 to Farrand and Associates. The result of the study that Farrand and Associates will provide to the City will be two fold. It will be two distinct Master Plans of the north Novi OVI property which right now has over 400 acres of park land associated with. What the Parks Commission is looking to attempt to do is to look at all the land potential uses of the site and mix those in with the demands of recreational services that are being dictated to us by the citizens of Novi. One of the options would be an 18 hole golf course. What we’d like to do for that one alternative is to look at the land use study for the needs of an 18 hole golf course along with other park amenities on that one plan. The second plan would be strictly recreational uses excluding the 18 hole golf course option. So, in essence we’d have two distinct options to consider one with the golf course one without but both will have other recreational uses for us to look at based upon the needs of the community.

Mr. Davis said the firm that we’re going to recommend to you, Farrand and Associates, based out of Ann Arbor works very well with site master planning. They have done extensive work in the metropolitan Detroit area, they’ve teamed up with a golf course professional to work on that segment of it. Again, through the process there will be numerous opportunities for the citizens of Novi to respond to the work that’s being performed by a series of public hearings that will be held. The recommendation that’s brought forward finally will be in such a way that not only the Parks Commission, the City Council, but the citizens of Novi will all have the opportunity to express their wishes for what will occur as far as development on this site. With that, again, we stand by our recommendation and recommend to Council to approve the award as written.

Councilwoman Mutch said if this is approved and you are looking at golf course design, I understand what you are saying is let’s look at it with and without, with the information that you get do you anticipate that that will be beyond site specific information so that the money that is being spent to look at the golf course alternative in terms of is it feasible at all, is it something the city should be doing, all that sort of thing? Is that information do you think can be used even if another site were eventually developed?

Mr. Davis said in some general terms it will be. General information, size of acreage needed for a golf course, cost of building a golf course, is very typical and generic across the board. But, obviously when you are dealing with land use on a specific site you are going to be looking at topography woodlands and wetland components of that specific site. That’s going to impact directly on the cost and the feasibility of building those type of amenities within that site. So, in general terms yes, but more so site specific regarding that site of the north Novi area.

Councilwoman Mutch said well and also general in the sense that if you’re dealing with an environmentally sensitive area the information that comes back to you will point out the kind of things that you need to be aware of. I mean if you get something back that says well yes you can do a golf course on this particular site but you would have to do certain types of things, wouldn’t some of that carry over?

Mr. Davis said that’s going to be applicable whether you do a golf course or not. It’s going to be, again, site specific for what other type of facility development that you do on the site. Absolutely.

Councilwoman Mutch said well and also if another site is chosen that has similar problems, environmental sensitivity.

Mr. Davis said yes if it has some sensitive land areas that you can do a specific remedial action to correct that problem absolutely you can make that applicable to another site if the circumstances are identical.

Councilman Clark asked do you know approximately, I realize this is one of the reasons for the study but one of the proposals will have as part of it the possibility of an 18 hole municipal golf course. Of the 400 acres do you have an approximation, we’re talking an 18 hole golf course, how much of that acreage would be consumed by a golf course?

Mr. Davis said yes, typically an 18 hole golf course, with the club house and parking amenities that would be associated with it can range from anywhere from a 150 to just under 200 acres. Obviously, depending upon your constraints of woodlands and wetlands. Typically that’s the standard out there in the area of golf course design.

Councilman Mitzel asked has the administration, the department or the commission taken into consideration the other studies that have already been done that have identified this area as a core wild life habitat area as sensitive wetland areas as the head waters of the Rouge, as prime woodlands areas into consideration before wanting to spend more money to design a golf course in this area?

Mr. Davis said again, the Parks Commission and the Administration, we’re not saying that we’re looking to specifically design a golf course as the only option. What we want to look at is to see taking in all those things you just described, those habitat studies and the watercourse base maps and all that information that’s so important, take that into the equation and balance that in with our decision making process. We don’t want to jump the gun. We want to take that information, provide it to Farrand and Associates and have them evaluate it. Then obviously we’ll present that back here and jointly as a recommendation from the Administration and the Parks Commission then the Council will make that final decision if it makes sense.

Councilman Mitzel said I guess I’m a little baffled on why we want to spend more money to do that? We already have studies that say don’t do high impact things in this area. We’ve already spent $9,000 for Phase II of the Habitat Study, $2,500 for Phase I and $60,000 for three wetlands phase studies that all point to this is not a good use for this area. But, yet you are coming forward, not you personally, but Commission and the whole Administration is coming forward and saying we want to spend more money to see if a golf course will fit in there but yet we’ve already spent money that says we shouldn’t be looking at stuff like that for that area.

Mr. Davis said I’m not sure which study your referring to.

Councilman Mitzel said that’s why I was asking if . . .

Mr. Davis said if one of those studies, like the Habitat Study, says specifically don’t build a golf course then that is obviously something that we will bring to the table with Farrand and Associates. If it’s saying that there’s some sensitive issues with wild life, wetland and woodland issues that we should be sensitive to then what we would then be required to do is to make sure that we blend the uses against the environmental impact and make sure that that blend is something that’s going to reap a benefit to the entire citizens of Novi. If you can do that that’s what we’re aiming to do. If you can’t then we’re going to be the first ones to say it doesn’t make sense to do it and that we’re better off doing some other types of things of typical recreation facility development.

Councilman Mitzel said I guess I have a grave concern that we are spending more money to study something that’s already been studied and it’s just going to delay the process of opening that park up. In the proposal I don’t, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall seeing a deliverable schedule. In other words, after if this were to be approved by such and such a date we’re going to have a deliverable product for a plan that can be either built or not built and then get this park open. It’s been three years already that we’ve owned this park land. We have studies that indicate what type of uses are appropriate for that park land but yet we’re going to go out and spend more money again and I just see this as slowing down the process of getting that park open, spending more money that we already spent that says this area is not appropriate for such a use. Granted, the studies that I’m talking about do not specifically say a golf course but if you read into the uses that they mention clearing an area for an 18 hole golf course I don’t think would fit into one of the core wild life reserve areas that are in the City, one of two which happens to be City owned. So, that’s my concern and maybe you could address the deliverable on when the project would be finished if Council so approves.

Mr. Davis said I can give you some time frames of what we’re kind of looking at in our discussion. The first thing is this process here. What we’re looking to do is get a recreation master plan for the site. The things that we have currently now, yes they’re studies, they’re habitat studies, they’re environmental studies but they’re not recreation site master plans of the sites specifically. It doesn’t say where we can put road ways, it doesn’t say where we can have picnic areas or trails or hiking trails and so forth. That’s what this study will enable us to get. From there it’s going to take approximately six months to complete this phase of it. At that point, we’re going to have a document that’s going to give us some options to consider. Options that the citizens can consider for what they want out there. We still have a long way to go as far as putting out something that’s deliverable in a product fashion of use to the public. There’s so many things that may have to take place. We don’t have parking up there, we don’t have roadway infrastructure, we don’t have any buildings up there. All those obviously are going to have cost associated with it. We have a financial burden that we’re going to have to address here of how we’re going to pay for all that and that’s something that’s, obviously, once we get a plan in place then we’ll go to the next step and say now how are we going to pay for this, all these type of improvements. That will be the second part of it and then put a time frame to that.

Councilman Mitzel said so the citizens of Novi will not be able to use this park anywhere in the near foreseeable future.

Mr. Davis said the citizens of Novi can use the park immediately. We currently provide opportunities for cross country skiing, hiking trails that are accessible through the back of Lake Shore Park into the site. We’re currently using the facility for Christmas tree cutting programs and we currently use it for Halloween Festival activities for the last two years. So we have had limited use on the site but, again, without the infrastructure there we can’t put out 500-600 people at a time to do that. We do have people that enjoy the beauty of it in its natural setting right now and those other fashions as I described. We have a long way to go to develop the balance of the property there and this is the first step in doing that.

Councilwoman Cassis said I talked to you earlier today and so many of my questions have been answered but one of them is in the going out for a design services looking at two options one of which would be a municipal golf course and how it would fit on the site as well as another master plan that would look at more passive uses. There are certainly a number of community wide needs that have been expressed over time including an ice rink facility and we don’t know exactly where that would be proposed but is there a way to get citizen input regarding the second schematic master plan before this particular company goes out and starts designing. I mean I think they could probably look at a municipal golf course but what about some of the other needs and whether or not it would fit on this site along with the passive nature of the land configuration. Is it possible that that could be built in?

Mr. Davis said yes, and it has started already as a matter of fact. The Parks Commission had been working up through this recommendation back in September on that same process. They spent approximately 6 to 8 months going through an evaluation of needs. What are we building already at 8 Mile and Napier, here at Power Park, all those types of things, what needs are we meeting already? The ice arena, we’re moving forward with that project with a recommendation for the public/private sector involvement in a location that’s near the tree farm. So, all those were balanced and then what we’ve come down to that we’re going to share with Farrand and Associates is that information through the initial part of their work is going to be to conduct some public meetings. To invite, and that could be done in conjunction with the Parks Commission, but invite additional public comment. Again, we envision this where they’ll do a blue line drawing of here’s the first rendering tell us what you think. What did we miss, what did we leave out, what do you want in the whole nine yards. Then, again, all through the process public input along the way. So there’s going to be ample opportunity for that.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

That approval be granted for the RFP to Farrand and Associates for the North Park Master Plan in the amount of $15,400.00.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said I made this motion because I’ve heard the concerns of Mr. Mitzel and others about the environmental impact of this particular piece of land. This is 400 plus acres that presently sits there with very little use and frankly, would not have a great deal of use unless we do some planning in that area whether it be bike paths, walking trails or whatever. There are a good many technical people that would argue that golf courses, in fact, enhance a environmental sensitive area in that it provides short grass and so forth for animals and so on. There’s no way that I want to see that land be harmed in any way for golfers but I think there are many, many ways in today’s technology to build golf courses in these types of lands. There’s acres and acres of high lands in this particular parcel, and I don’t know if a golf course will ever be there. I do know that a golf course is paramount and critical to a quality community. A community that’s going to be an area of 60,000 to 70,000 people. I think that has been demonstrated over and over again. So whether or not a golf course is here or not I think it’s important we study this site, we have the land, it’s 400 plus acres, you need about 150 acres for a golf course may be a little bit more as Dan has indicated. So, I think it’s a very fine project. At least study it to determine if this is a viable area.

Councilwoman Mutch asked would you say that Farrand and Associates would have the benefit of all the studies that have been done? The wild life habitat study? They’ll have all that before they do any design work?

Mr. Davis said absolutely. Anything that the City has we are going to make available to them relative to that site.

Councilwoman Mutch said so it is possible that if within their field of expertise they were to decide that given the information that’s available to them from studies that have already been done that it would be irresponsible to develop it as a golf course they will say so?

Mr. Davis said I believe so and at the Administration and at the Parks Commission level we’ve said that numerous times. If it doesn’t make sense to do it we’re not going to recommend to do it. If it’s going to eat up too much valuable land then we’re not going to recommend it. We want a balance out there if we can get the balance.

Councilwoman Mutch said so while there are a few calls for bids that are based on two proposals, one with and one without the golf course, you would be willing to come back to us if necessary and say at some particular it would appear that it would not be in the best interests of the City to pursue that because of the preliminary information, if that were the case?

Mr. Davis said the way the proposal is structured it’s one base price of $15,400.00 for all aspects of the design. That includes both phases or both alternatives of design and that way you will be able to see both amenities on there. You’ll be able to see a golf course along with other park improvements like nature areas for walking and how the two can possibly work together in harmony and then one separate proposal. So, there wouldn’t be a way to, if you will, have a stepping approach of get to a point and say no you can’t do a golf course so we’re only going to buy $10,000 worth of services. No, that would not be the case. It would be we’re going to get both options designed and then we’ll be able to make a decision.

Councilwoman Mutch said I understand. So, if we get both options will we also have the benefit of outside professional advice as to whether or not that’s a responsible thing to do? In other words, as they look at that information and they say OK the most reasonable way we can deal with this particular site is if we design a golf course in a particular way but even at that we don’t think this is an advisable thing to do. You would bring that back to Council.

Mr. Davis said absolutely. I’d bring that back and there’s no incentive, if you will, for Farrand and Associates. They are not committed any farther beyond this schematic design phase. There’s no construction phase that they’re tied to or anything like that. So, there’s no incentive for them to come in and disregard and do an irresponsible job and recommend something that we’re not going to want or need. There’s no incentive for that and I’ve checked their credentials and references and they’re an upstanding company and they’ve done quality work. So I don’t have the least bit of concern that we’re going to get a fair and impartial interpretation on their professional recommendation for this site.

Councilwoman Mutch said my only concern is that when it makes its way back to us that if somewhere along the line you’ve had input that it would be better not to build based on the concerns that Rob says are substantiated in the studies that have already been done that that position will also come forward too. If assignment is to design a golf course on this property and they’re being paid to do it obviously, from what you’ve said, they’re going to do it. But, I just want to know the recommendations on whether they think that’s a good thing to do or not.

Mr. Davis said the direction that’s outlined in the RFP is not for them to design a golf course irresponsible, or regardless of all the other impacts that it might have. We’re telling them to design, this is not them off in Ann Arbor doing it themselves without any input from City Administration. I mean we’re doing this with the Parks Commission in harmony and it’s going to be under our direction. Obviously, I’m going to take your concerns back to them to make sure that they’re going to do a quality job and take your concerns and make sure that they adhere to them. I’m not at all concerned that we’re not going to get what we paid for.

Councilwoman Mutch said that wasn’t my concern either. Just to be clear, if what we’re agreeing to if we were to support this motion is to get two plans, one with a golf course and one without, all I’m concerned about is if the golf course plan is predicated on a study, if both plans are predicated on a study of existing materials that resulted from previous studies then if in someone’s professional judgement somewhere along the way in the design of that second golf course plan it is suggested this is not the best use of the property, that it’s not a good direction to go that we will also get that information.

Mr. Davis said I will make sure that you get that information. Again, just to make it clear just from what you had just said the study and the design that we’re going to get that has the golf course component will also have many, many other recreational amenities along with it. There will be trails, other buildings and other uses out there. It will not be just a golf course onto itself. There will be other components on that design phase also. The other one will not have the golf course consideration it will just have all those other recreational things.

Councilwoman Mutch said and presumely all of those will be looking at the best place to put a trail, best place to put a building, whatever based on all of these things that have been referenced.

Mr. Davis said absolutely.

Councilman Mitzel said obviously I do not support the motion. I’m not against the golf course. Mr. Schmid has made many wonderful arguments concerning the golf course during the life of this debate over the last couple of months. I just don’t believe it’s the proper site for it based on the studies and I wish that if a golf course had been intended to be developed when Novi did a Parks and Recreation Bond that we would have looked at acquiring land that would have been less environmentally sensitive to accommodate such a use instead of trying to put it into this area. So, once again, I don’t think it’s the proper site, I think we’re just spending more money and taking up more time, when we have answers that we’re already looking for and we could get on with developing the alternative plan which would be one that considers a site plan without a golf course.

Councilwoman Cassis said in looking at this proposal I’m looking for options as Mr. Davis pointed out. Options to move this City forward on a major site for recreational activities. We don’t know exactly the feasibility of various uses. One is a golf course and I think a lot more study and a lot more public input would definitely be required at least for me as one Council Member to support a golf course. So this going out for design services in no way as I see it is committing this Council to any particular use or uses but it is an attempt to get information back from a professional source and I know they will do their job with speed and with consideration and guidance from our able park director and the Parks and Recreation Commission. I look forward to seeing this come back to us in six months so that we can move and start discussing where we go from that point.

Councilman Clark said I join in the concerns that Councilman Mitzel has but at the same time I also join in the comments that Councilman Schmid and Councilwoman Cassis have made regarding the fact that we have a very large tract of land here. We want to maximize the land, I think, for the benefit of the greatest number of residents of this community that we can while taking into account the environmentally sensitive nature of that area. I think that will be done and I would also agree with the comments that I understand that we are going to be looking ultimately at two proposals and I’m certainly like Councilman Schmid not opposed to a golf course. I just want it understood that this is not to presuppose any commitment certainly on my part as a member of Council committing myself to say that yes in any respect that I will support a golf course if the study comes back and we find that there’s too much of an intrusion into an environmentally sensitive area. I’m looking at this with an open mind. I think it is something that’s needed and is something that will ultimately benefit the members of this community so I can support it.

Mayor McLallen said that it appears that for roughly less then $40.00 an acre the City will finally have the ability to look at a concrete plan. At this point, its been a lot of everyone’s wishes, dreams, somebody’s two cents, somebody’s favorite project. All that we’re doing tonight is agreeing to support the wishes of our Parks and Recreation Commission who have put in a lot of effort, share many of the same concerns that have been voiced at this table tonight to please move to the next level, to please get a plan that we can finally see that has some validity. So, I very much support the efforts. I know there are several Parks and Rec Commissioners in the audience and I’m sure there are several others that are watching at home. They’re hearing what’s being said by this body. The important thing is to move forward. We’re also, I think, sending you out Mr. Davis with a firm commitment to hear back from you in June with documents that can be clearly looked at by this body. I am very much in support of a motion this evening.

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

Mayor McLallen said at this time the Council is scheduled for another Audience Participation and a break. I will move to the Audience Participation but I’d also like to ask the Council’s indulgence. We have moved Item #2 to our final item this evening which would be after Item #12. The petitioner has arrived so I would ask the Council if they would like to deal with this matter before the break since all the items after the break do not involve petitioners.

Council Members concurred.

Councilman Crawford asked are you going to save Audience Participation until after that?

Mayor McLallen said right. I won’t leave anybody out.

John Carlin said not only do I appreciate you holding this for me but there was a huge accident on 96 and it has everything backed up.

John Carlin, representing the applicant corporation, Mr. B’s on Walled Lake which is attempting to acquire the Frigates Restaurant and to purchase the business and the land and continue the operation as is. I’ve indicated, I’ve supplied you with a volume of information relative to the application, the background of all the people, the financial background, the Liquor Commission forms, all of your forms, menu’s, everything else that you need I submitted to you in booklet form. I hope you got a copy of it.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Carlin that copy was not made available to us.

Mr. Cohen said that copy was provided with an additional letter. We took it out of the booklet because we added stuff to it. You got the information anyway.

Mayor McLallen said thank you. In that case, judging the book by the cover we don’t have your cover but we’ve got your book.

Mr. Carlin said Mr. Cohen and your staff asked us to bring a site plan mounted on a board. We have done that, although, I do caution you and indicate to you that we are not contemplating any change to the establishment. We are coming in, Mr. Toggweiler is here and some of the owners are here. We will clean it up, fix it up but we are not going to change the building, add to the size, change the concept. You should be familiar with the Mr. B’s group. They are already operating Mr. B’s Farm. They have a total of about 11 or 12 other restaurants operating here in the metropolitan Detroit area most of which are under Mr. B’s name but some of them are under just former existing restaurants that they’re operating. We’re here to answer any questions that you might have. I think we supplied everything to you relative to the criteria in your ordinance. I don’t know how much further you want me to go on this.

Mayor McLallen said just one question. Would you clarify the specific type of license transfer being requested.

Mr. Carlin said this is a request for the transfer of ownership of the existing Class C and SDL. Your report did indicate a Resort Class C but I do not believe that that is a Resort Class C License. I think it’s a quota Class C License. I’ll check that just momentarily. He then said it is a regular Class C License.

Mayor McLallen said Steve, that was just a confirmation of what you have on the table this evening.

Mr. Cohen said yes, on the agenda it had stated Resort License and it was just a typo. It should have been local. We confirmed that with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission.

Mayor McLallen said so what we are looking for is the transfer of ownership of a 1995 Class C Local SDM Liquor License.

Mr. Carlin said and there’s an SDM with it and a permit for Sunday sales.

Mayor McLallen said in the packets which we received there are reports from the City Attorney, the Police, the Fire and the Building Department, certain violations in the Building Code and the Fire Code have been successfully addressed. We do have letters saying that the buildings are now in conformance and that none of those entities have an objection to the approval of this transfer.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Cassis

Seconded by Councilman Clark

That the transfer of a local Class C License and the SDM to Mr. B’s be

approved.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said the SDM is a beer and wine take out?

Mr. Carlin said yes, for consumption off premises. Many restaurants have that.

Councilman Schmid said is that typical of the Class C normally? How many Class C Licenses in the City of Novi would you guess, Mr. Carlin, have that capacity to sell liquor to go?

Mr. Carlin said it’s been, Mr. Schmid, very typical of independent restaurants. The chain restaurants don’t normally do that but your independent restaurants do. I really don’t have any idea.

Councilman Schmid said that is a significant extra license and the Council should recognize that. That they can go in like any take out store, any party store, and buy beer and wine.

Mr. Carlin said they can do that but normally the price at a restaurant is a little higher so it doesn’t occur that often.

Councilman Schmid said it usually doesn’t happen that often.

Mr. Carlin said right.

Councilman Schmid said I have a couple comments. I’m absolutely amazed and astounded that none of the northern half of NOVI is here this evening with this, what could be a very controversial restaurant as compared to what we’ve been through in the last several weeks on another restaurant in a similar area. I think the Council, if you don’t know should know, and I’m sure you read it in the packet. This item came up several years ago when this facility was purchased by the Kernens. At that time, I think there was a law suit which has been indicated because there’s no parking. Mr. Carlin said they were not going to do any renovation to the building outside at least, they’re going to clean it up and that’s because Mr. Carlin you cannot.

Is that true?

Mr. Carlin said that’s true.

Councilman Schmid said under the grandfather clause the building itself cannot be changed in any way, you can maybe paint it and so forth but you cannot change it because of the grandfather clause. There’s a great history of this building. If one would look at the building and drive near this area I doubt if there’s room for 15 or 20 cars around the building, although they park more cars than that but if you would meet the standards today of parking and so forth. So what is required and also what the packet suggested that they have a lease on property across the street of the take out store, I don’t know how many parking spaces, a five year lease with an option to buy. The problem is that option does not have to be honored. They can sell that take out to me tomorrow and I could not renew the lease in five years for the parking that this facility will require. I guess I have a question. If that would happen where would people park? What in fact happens every Saturday night, most Saturday nights in the summer time at least, this area is highly congested, the streets in or on the driving surfaces park near the curb and so forth. I talked to Mr. Watson and if there was a way for me to reject this I would do so and not because there’s anything wrong with Mr. B’s. I enjoy their beer and their wine and their stores and I do so quite often at the various ones, moderately I might add.

Mr. Carlin said of course.

Councilman Schmid said but if we had a way, this is not a good location for this store, there’s no parking and it’s just a traffic problem almost from word go. Mr. Watson assures me and I told him this evening that I even question the opinion, but he assures me that the opinion is correct that we can do nothing about a grandfathered facility such as this understanding they cannot change the building in any way. So from that standpoint, Madam Mayor, although I don’t support, not that I have anything against Mr. B’s, I don’t support compounding a problem which we’re going to compound for the next several years. But I don’t think we can do anything to it, however, I wanted to emphasize the fact that it cannot be changed and cannot be upgraded other than cleaned up. If so then the license would be pulled I believe. Is that true Mr. Watson?

Mr. Watson said if they were to do any site changes to the place they’d have to go through the site planning process. If they went through the site planning process they’d have to comply with all the requirements that site plans are required to comply with including parking, set backs and everything.

Mayor McLallen said any other members of Council have any other comments on the motion? The motion is to grant approval of the transfer of ownership of the 1995 Class C SDM Liquor License to Mr. B’s of Walled Lake, Inc.

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

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

That an Executive Session be scheduled for 7:00 PM on January 8, 1996

to discuss union negotiations.

Mayor McLallen said Tonni, refresh my memory. Do we have to do these on a roll call?

Mrs. Bartholomew said on a special yes.

Roll call vote: Yes 6 Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid, McLallen

No 0

Absent (1- Crawford) MOTION CARRIED

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That a Special City Council Meeting be scheduled for Thursday, January 11,

1996 at 7:30 PM for Board and Commission interviews.

Councilman Mitzel said I will not support this because I think before we continue scheduling more and more interview sessions that we need to set down a yearly interview schedule and policy. I think this is a golden opportunity to do that. We can do it in early January. We can set down that we’re going to have certain interview dates throughout next year for certain boards, get that set schedule and then have the first meeting that will follow that schedule. We’re getting into the same pattern that we’ve been doing for the last year and a half or two of Oh, there’s some more people that applied, let’s have another interview session. I want to encourage the most participation as possible yet on the other hand I don’t want to keep . . . I think part of the problem why we don’t get applications, or we don’t get applications on time is because we never have our own schedule taken care of. We keep adding a meeting or deleting a meeting and moving these things around so I think it’s most important first to decide how we’re going to handle this over a yearly schedule and I won’t support scheduling this.

Councilman Crawford said I concur that we need to set a schedule and that was on our tentative agenda at our Rules meeting. We just didn’t get to it and I assume we’ll get to it the next time we have a Rules meeting. But, in the mean time we need to take care of pending business and pending business is we need to do some more interviews as soon as possible for some boards and commissions. So I think it would be appropriate to support this meeting and we will take care of scheduling on maybe perhaps a more permanent basis at our next Rules meeting.

Mayor McLallen said the motion is to schedule a Special Meeting of the City Council for Thursday, January 11th at 7:30 PM for the purpose of board and commission interviews.

Councilman Mitzel said most of these appointments that are up for interviewing their terms do not start until the end of January or February. Is that correct?

Mrs. Bartholomew said that’s correct.

Councilman Mitzel said OK, so if we didn’t schedule this one at this point we’d have time in early January to still set our yearly schedule, then have the first meeting and still have time to make the appointments in a timely manner. That was my point.

Councilwoman Mutch said I’d like to remind Mr. Mitzel we still have a Planning Commission vacancy though and I believe there’s at least one other commission with a current vacancy that needs to be filled.

Mayor McLallen said perhaps we can address both concerns in that if Mr. Mitzel’s goal is to set up quarterly, established interview patterns we can consider the January one to be the first quarter of the year. We will have to vote on that but as has been pointed out there are immediate needs that need to be attended to.

Roll call vote: Yes (6) Cassis, Clark, Mutch, Schmid, McLallen, Crawford

No (1) Mitzel

MOTION CARRIED

Councilman Mitzel said Madam Mayor may I follow up on your suggestion? Was that to advertise that this meeting would be to interview those boards and commission members that would be appointed during January, February and March? Is that what your suggestion was?

Mayor McLallen said well, I think, what the Council first needs to do is to decide are these quarterly interview sessions going to be to create a pool for that quarter only or a pool that will last throughout the year where interviews will only happen four times a year. Applicants will only be taken those four times but if vacancies come up then names will come out of the existing pool. I don’t think we have established those perimeters.

Councilman Mitzel said your point that you just made was that you thought that we could combine that at this point. If we are to do that at this point it has to be done tonight because our first meeting is three days before this next year and if we’re going to do this at that time then we need to advertise properly. That’s what I’m trying to find if a motions in order and I’ll give it a try.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

That boards and commissions to be interviewed at the scheduled Special Session

of January 11th be those boards and commissions due during January, February and March plus those that have current vacancies.

Died for lack of second.

Councilman Mitzel said OK, now I know where I stand. Thanks.

Councilman Crawford said I apologize for not being here for Item #6 but did you take into consideration that we start at 7:30 PM when you scheduled the Executive Session for 7PM?

The first of the year we do start at 7:30 PM. I don’t know if whoever put that on there only needs a half an hour that’s fine but if they anticipate an hour that’s not going to work.

Mrs. Bartholomew said that time was given to me by the Assistant City Manager. I don’t know if he took it into consideration.

Mayor McLallen said he’s the person in charge.

Councilman Crawford said we do start at 7:30 PM so that will be less than an half an hour Executive Session. OK.

8. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 453

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

That Claims and Accounts-Warrant No. 453 in the amount of $1,249,394.92 be approved.

Yes (7) No (0) MOTION CARRIED

WHEREAS: The Town Center Planning Program has been developing as a comprehensive effort intended to upgrade, rejuvenate, replan and redevelop the Town

Center District as an identified target area within the City of NOVI, and;

WHEREAS: The Town Center Steering Committee has been working to coordinate,

Assist, and encourage implementation of various plans and projects since originally

assigned by City Council Resolution in February 1985 and;

WHEREAS: Efforts by the Steering Committee to implement the Town Center

Planning Study (1990) are continuing and;

WHEREAS: Specific projects and planning issues such as the Town Center

"Ring Road," zoning ordinance reviews and amendments, new development site

plans and projects, redevelopment, and coordination of private initiatives require

continuing attention.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the NOVI City Council hereby

establishes a Town Center Steering Committee comprised of:

3 Members of City Council

3 Members of the Planning Commission

1 Member of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC)

1 Representative of the Chamber of Commerce

2 Representatives of existing business in the Town Center Area

Planning and Community Development Director and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town Center Steering Committee is

hereby charged with:

1. Assisting discussions with developers and property owners in the Town

Center Area.

2. Assisting discussions and consideration of development plans and projects,

as well as potential Zoning District and Ordinance Amendments, and making

recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council

3. Recommending financial and implementation direction and policy to the

Planning Board and City Council.

Councilman Clark said I’d like to propose an amendment to the resolution to add that the Town Center Steering Committee would have three members representing Council. I know that there are other members of Council who have expressed an interest and a willingness to serve.

Mayor McLallen said the resolution proposed before us does indicate three members of Council.

Mr. Clark said OK, I misread that.

Councilman Mitzel said the 85 one says three the next page says 2.

Mayor McLallen said OK, I apologize then, I’m sorry.

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Clark is offering an amendment to put three members of Council.

Councilman Mitzel asked do we need a main motion to approve it first?

Mr. Watson said or you could make a motion to approve it with the amendment.

Mayor McLallen said OK, is there a motion concerning it at all? He was just suggesting that there be three instead of two.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Clark

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

That the Resolution be approved relative to the Town Center Steering Committee

and that the Town Center Steering Committee have three members from City Council.

Mayor McLallen said it has been moved and seconded to adopt the amended resolution. The amendment being three members of Council to serve on the Town Center Steering Committee.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said earlier this year when we discussed about amending our resolutions there was some key items that all the resolutions were suppose to contain. One was terms for the members, the other one was who appoints the members and neither of those are addressed in this resolution. Nowhere does it state that the City Council will be the body appointing members of the Chamber of Commerce or business representatives to this committee. Nowhere does it say though that I have to go through the interview process like we do for our other boards and commissions, nowhere does it say how long these members will serve on this committee. Those are issues that I think need to be addressed in it. Second, the roles and responsibilities of this committee are written in such a way that, I realize it allows them flexibility, but yet, I’m confused at times when a developer wants to come through and they come to the Planning Commission first do they have to go to this committee? What if at the Planning Commission meeting they’re told that well you have to go to this committee. Our ordinances don’t say that. Do they need to acquire approval of this committee? What weight does this committee carry with that and also can this committee take projects that the Council has approved and recommend changes to them or direct staff to work on changes to approved contracts that the Council has approved or direct other bodies such as the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on Zoning Ordinance Amendments? These type of things I think need to be clarified and the function of this committee. It’s done an excellent job on many issues in the past but yet the whole idea in refreshing this resolution was to address the terms, address who appoints and address the specific functions and process that this committee follows or authority that the committee has. I’ve seen many times that in our Planning Commission there’ll be all the Town Center Committee voted to recommend approval of this site. Well, what if they voted not to recommend approval does that mean the Planning Commission has to follow or doesn’t have to follow? Where is it in our ordinances that state that what authority this committee has in the planning an site plan approval process. So I have some concerns on those issues. I have some specific language I could try to make amendments for a couple of them but other ones I don’t have specific language right now and I prefer having the Administration come back or the committee itself come back and clarify those issues. So I’ll try to put in some of the language and then we’ll go from there.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

To amend the resolution to indicate that the City Council shall appoint the members other than the Planning Commission and the EDC Member.

Mayor McLallen said its been moved and seconded to amend the main motion to include who the appointing body shall be and the amendment says that the appointing body shall be the Council with the exception of those members from the Planning Commission and the EDC.

Mr. Kriewall said I just wanted to comment that one of the intents of this committee was to open the intensified planning process of the Town Center area to businesses in the area, Chamber of Commerce, get our EDC involved and the Planning Commission and quite frankly I think it makes it a little to cumbersome to have to have these people come in here and get interviewed to be on this particular committee. It’s an advisory committee and I think the Chamber, the EDC, whoever is sending someone to serve on this commission in a volunteer capacity really ought to be able to send whoever they think is best fit for that position. Rather than have to have people come in here and compete to sit on an advisory committee that’s trying to invite the downtown area to this planning process. So, I think it would be inappropriate to have City Council appoint members from some of these other agencies.

Councilman Clark said I would have the same concerns that were just expressed by Mr. Kriewall. I don’t think it’s our function to tell groups such as the Chamber of Commerce who they can or cannot send as they’re representative to the Town Center Steering Committee or that they should have to come here and compete. They are all extremely busy in the community as it is. They are serving in a volunteer capacity and certainly their own organization should be able to select their own representative to come to the meetings of the Town Center Steering Committee. As Councilman Mitzel has said it has functioned very well in the past, it functions as a recommending body. It certainly doesn’t usurp any power from Council and also often acts kind of as an oversight committee to make sure that the Town Center Ordinances are complied with. When a developer comes in it also gives him or her a pretty good idea if they have a proposed project to present since the committee represents such a broad spectrum of the community and City government, how that project may or may not be perceived or accepted by the community but anything that’s done there, again, it’s not binding on anyone who’s thinking of putting something in to the Town Center area. They certainly have the option of coming forward with a plan to the Planning Commission or the appropriate case coming before Council with a proposal even though they might find the first impression of the Town Center Steering is to recommend against something. So it’s not binding on either Planning Commission or Council. It is just that it’s a recommending body but it serves a very useful function given the broad base that comprises the Town Center Steering Committee. I’d hate to see us make it too cumbersome, to burdensome and turn it into almost another job for some people.

Councilman Mitzel said I made the motion because this is an official City committee. As such the City Council’s responsible for that committee. I realize that its an advisory committee or is stated to be an advisory committee but so was the Taft Road Extension Committee which in the resolution stated that one of the members shall be from LARA. But yet, we had to appoint that member. We didn’t let LARA appoint someone and then say Oh this is who it’s going to be. So likewise, as an official City committee we should say that one of the members should be from the Chamber of Commerce but we should be the ones appointing that member. The same with representatives from the businesses in that Town Center area because it is an official City committee charged by the Council, therefore, the appointment should come from this Council. I realize that some may argue that it just has advisory type of function but yet it has a budget or recommends budgetary items sometimes, it seems to have grown into having quite a bit of power. Therefore, I think it’s important that the responsibility of this Council for appointments be clearly stated and that’s why I made that motion to amend.

Mayor McLallen said at the moment there is a motion to amend the motion to update the Town Center Steering Committee and this discussion needs to focus on the amendment which was that the Council should do the appointing.

Councilman Crawford said I don’t have any problem with Council not appointing members of the Planning Commission, EDC, Chamber of Commerce. I think it’s best done by those groups. However, I do wonder how two representatives of the existing business community get on that. If we don’t appoint do they just show up at meetings? There needs to be some guidelines for that particular group unless, and I don’t know how many members of the existing businesses in the Town Center area are members of the Chamber of Commerce. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to delete two representatives of the existing business community in the Town Center and make it three members of the Chamber of Commerce.

Mayor McLallen said at this point the discussion needs to focus on the amendment which is the appointing by Council.

Councilman Schmid said I will try to restrict my comments to that although it will be difficult. I’m probably a Charter Member of this committee started back in the 80's. I’ve been on and off the committee and it’s probably one of the most, in my opinion of course I would be partial, one of the most effective committees we’ve had in the City for some time. It has no power. Mr. Mitzel questioned, he didn’t say it did. It has no power over the Planning Commission or the City Council. It takes no official action. It makes recommendations but I think even the Planning Commission can take recommendations at times. So it has no power. Mr. Crawford brings up a good point. I can remember now how the businessmen, I wouldn’t want to see all Chamber people. There are business people in this community who are not Chamber people and who would just as soon not be Chamber people I suspect. So I don’t know about that. The bigger issue here Madam Mayor is this thing that Mr. Mitzel in good faith brought this up but this is on another committee. It’s on the committee we discussed Saturday. We just didn’t get to it. I’m sure we’ll get to it eventually and to bring it up again now I think we’re infringing on that committees work and it will be throughly discussed at that time as to the merits of changing the format or whatever. I frankly don’t have enough information as to how we should interview for consultants, for boards or for commissions and so on. I don’t have enough information to vote on this tonight. All we’re doing tonight is passing a resolution that would add three Council Members to the committee which is what we got to do and we can discuss the merits or not the merits.

Councilwoman Mutch said the resolution with the December, 95 date on it says to members of City Council and I don’t really understand why we’re changing it to three when it was already three and it says two here.

Mayor McLallen said because it used to have the Mayor and the Mayor has . . .

Councilwoman Mutch said I heard that but none of the copies I have that. Even the copy that’s attached doesn’t say that. It just says three members of City Council.

Councilman Clark said I think the last page which I think is the proposed resolution on my copy says two members of City Council. The very last page in that packet.

Councilwoman Mutch said yes, and I’m wondering why we aren’t just leaving it the way it was which was three.

Councilwoman Mutch says so it’s the proposal that’s changed not the actual existing resolution?

Councilman Clark said right.

Councilwoman Mutch said OK, then also a comment. It seems to me that if the Planning Commission, EDC and the Chamber of Commerce and the City Council in their own way find someone two or three people, whatever, to represent them, that to meet the requirement that Mr. Mitzel indicates we should be meeting which is City Council appointment, why can’t we just be a position of confirming those. In other words, the Chamber of Commerce proposes a representative and we in fact confirm that. You know, you don’t necessarily interview people but you in effect are confirming it and do it on some sort of regular basis because the other issue he brought up was terms. What sometimes happens is that you have people that, I would think, particularly in the business area could be there in perpetuity whereas, those of us who are appointed or elected will change just because there will be changes in those positions. I think we should address that.

Mayor McLallen said at the moment the amendment to the main motion is merely that the Council shall appoint the members of this committee with the exception of the Council Members the Planning Commission members and the EDC and Chamber of Commerce. Which means they shall appoint . . .

Councilman Mitzel said no, I included Chamber of Commerce.

Mayor McLallen said your motion then says that the . . .

Councilman Mitzel said that we will appoint the Chamber of Commerce member and the business representatives.

Mayor McLallen so that the Council will have the responsibility for appointing three members to the committee.

Councilman Mitzel said correct.

Mayor McLallen asked any further discussion on the amendment?

Councilwoman Cassis said I assume that a point was well taken with Mrs. Mutch mention that could be just to appoint an individual who was the choice of a Chamber. Isn’t that possible in that respect then I can support the amendment.

Mayor McLallen said Mrs. Cassis has brought up an issue with your motion, Mr. Mitzel.

Councilman Mitzel said well, I suppose it would function if the Chamber of Commerce selected one person to come forward to us and then we’d have one choice and we could confirm it. I mean, if the Chamber didn’t want to make a choice and there were several of the Chamber that wanted it then, you know, likewise wouldn’t function that way. The Planning Commission and EDC are already Council appointees to other boards so they have gone through an interview process with the Council and an appointment process with the Council. That’s why I made the motion that way. So, I think it will function.

Councilman Schmid said Madam Mayor repeat the motion.

Mayor McLallen said the amendment to the main motion is that the Council shall have the power to appoint three parties to the Town Center Steering Committee and those will be the member from the Chamber of Commerce, and the two representatives of the existing businesses in the Town Center area. Is that the heart of the matter?

Councilman Schmid said I won’t support the motion because I think the Chamber has that right and should have that right. This is an advisory committee it’s not a Council appointed committee and so I think it’s taking the wrong step at the wrong time

Councilman Clark said just a procedural point. Since we have members from the Chamber and representatives of business in Town Center area and since the Town Center Resolution as presently adopted does not have any limitations. What do we then say to the persons from the Chamber and the Town Center business community that have already been appointed and are willing to serve and are serving if we go to this system where we’re going to appoint? Are we going to tell them that even though you’ve given of your time and are willing to serve that we’re going to pick somebody else now?

Councilwoman Mutch said in direct response to that it seems to me if we review and in effect confirm the recommendation, in other words our appointment isn’t the result of a separate interview process it’s just a confirmation by appointment to the committee. In other words, the Chamber of Commerce says business owner John Doe wants to serve on this committee, we recommend his appointment, Council says John Doe you’re appointed to represent the Chamber of Commerce. If after a year, two years, three years, whatever the term of appointment is Chamber of Commerce as an organization which is being represented is notified that it is time for them to submit a name for reappointment. They may chose to reappoint the same person. I don’t have any problem with that person continuing for 20 years if that’s how long the committee exists. If as long as the Chamber is satisfied with the representation they’re getting from that person who are we to suggest that it be someone else. In the same way I also want to agree with Mr. Schmid in his comment that business people should not have to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce in order to have the opportunity to serve on here as a representative business in the Town Center. So I think it’s good to maintain that separation.

Mayor McLallen said at this point all members have been able to speak to the amendment to the main motion. I have not spoken to the motion yet. I would like to say at this point that I am not going to support it because of many of the concerns that were brought up and I think the larger issue is the main motion. So I’d rather deal with that.

Mayor McLallen said at this time the issue before the Council is the amendment to the main motion which is the Council shall appoint representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and two existing businesses in the Town Center area to the Town Center Steering Committee.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT

Yes (3-Cassis, Mitzel, Mutch) No (4) MOTION DEFEATED

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

To amend the motion to include terms of three years for the members of the

committee.

Mayor McLallen said this is the main motion?

Councilman Mitzel said yes.

Mayor McLallen said all members will serve for three years?

Councilman Mitzel said yes.

Councilman Mitzel said I am making this motion because to the best of my knowledge there are only two City Committees that do not have terms and are not appointed by Council. They are the Town Center Committee and the Storm Water Committee. The Storm Water Committee resolution will be coming forward for amendment also. Both of these were directed back in March by the Council to come forward for amendment. Both of them were written from the mid 1980's, both have people who have been serving diligently and excellent service for a long time but yet all the other boards and commissions that we have we have rotating terms, we have interview processes and we don’t say just because they’ve been doing an excellent job they can just stay on and their term never expires. I don’t see why the Town Center Committee or the Storm Water Committee or any other committee for that matter should be different. I’m trying to have all these be consistent. I think it’s important and that’s why I think it’s important that we have terms and therefore, maybe someone wants to get off, or maybe someone else wants to be on it. It allows an opportunity to evaluate where we’re at and allow new people on or continue with the people that are existing. I don’t want to get into personalities of who’s on and who’s not on but it’s just a process that we have for all other boards and commissions and it allows participation and it allows changing Councils as the City matures to evaluate the membership of these boards and commissions. That’s the intent of this.

Mayor McLallen said its been moved and seconded to amend the main motion to limit the terms of these parties to three years.

Councilman Crawford said I think three years is too long. Every year we look at ourselves for committee appointments in November of each year. I think that every year we can ask the Chamber to reconfirm their appointee or recommend another one the same with us. If you ask a member of the EDC or even the Chamber of Commerce to make a three year commitment I think that may be a bit much. I think on a yearly basis and it could be the same person, as Kathy said, for 20 years. It doesn’t matter but I think it ought to be recommended on a yearly basis. I think three years is to long.

Councilman Schmid said I’m absolutely astounded, again astounded, at the attention this committee’s getting. When I review the Ordinance Review Committee who often times go beyond their power and so forth and yet we are talking about a committee that’s probably served the community better than most. I do question the year appointment. This committee has a long history of if you are on that one year you would lose all continuity as to what was happening. You’d hardly get a project through in one year many times. For example, the Main Street right now there is a great deal of discussion on Main Street. It would be a shame if all the members in one year changed in mid stream after one year because they would lose all continuity and I think it would be disruptive to the committee. I will admit there are members on there who have been on 10 or 15 years, I guess. One year I think is way to short, three years may have some merit. Although again, I’m troubled by Mr. Mitzel’s continual bringing of these issues up when we have committees that are handling this. We have a committee that is looking at this very committee. It would have been resolved today if it stayed like Mr. Crawford wanted it to Saturday. It just wasn’t resolved so now we’re going to, without any input or discussion, going to make these moves without giving it a whole lot of thought. I think this could stand some discussion as to how we’re going to appoint the business community and so on and the number of the terms with perhaps some input from administration. So I’m reluctant to vote on it this evening as a whim right off the shoot.

Councilwoman Mutch said I would remind us all that to say that you have a one year term doesn’t mean you get only one year and then you are out. If you review it annually really the people who are most effected by that would be the representatives of the existing businesses because the Chamber itself, I’m sure, would want continuity but the rest of us as Mr. Crawford pointed out do this pretty much on an annual basis anyway. Because of the staggered terms on the Council and the Planning Commission and the EDC for that matter the three year term might be very difficult. If your not appointed at the beginning of your term as a Planning Commissioner or as a EDC person you’re not going to be able to serve a full three years anyway unless you are reappointed to the original body. So I think an annual reappointment or a review of appointments is not limiting you to one year only.

Councilman Crawford said my concern wasn’t to get rid of people in one year. It was just that I was afraid that people wouldn’t be able to make the three year commitment. As Bob said I would hope that people would stick around. I also wanted to mention, just as Kathy did, that when we have appointments to the Planning Commission, EDC and or the Chamber representative that three year commitment may not work. The people come and go and they may not be around and we might continually be reappointing or reaffirming people anyway. So I would hope that people would stay. You’re absolutely right you need some continuity but I think a three year commitment might be too much to ask of people. If it’s done yearly I would hope that the same person would be reconfirmed, if you will, on a yearly basis. I think that ought to be the term instead of three.

Councilman Schmid said this Council has enough to do without every year interviewing people for that committee. You’re saying they may want to stay but if they want to stay they are going to have to come forward and address the Council and say I’d like to stay another year. Or if someone else comes forward to you who you going to pick?

Councilman Crawford said we’re not going to interview.

Councilman Schmid said how are you going to appoint?

Councilman Crawford said we’re not.

Councilman Schmid said just out of the blue?

Councilman Crawford said we’re not going to appoint. We voted that down just a minute ago.

Mayor McLallen said the amendment that’s before the Council, at this time, is to limit the terms of the members to the Steering Committee to three years.

Mr. Kriewall said I just wanted to comment. As with most of our committees, boards, commissions there’s enough churn in the membership of those boards be it the Council the Planning Commission, EDC, the Chamber of Commerce, business people. I bet if you went back and looked at the membership to this committee there’s a pretty good churn of membership since it was conceived. So, I think you’re going to get a logical turn over of people anyway without messing with this situation.

Councilman Crawford said I have a clarification when you said limit to three years that almost sounds like they can’t serve any more then that.

Mayor McLallen said I stand corrected. The appointment would be for a term of three years whether it’s a renewable term is not addressed.

Yes (3-Cassis, Clark, Mitzel) No (4) MOTION DEFEATED

Mayor McLallen said at this time there is a motion on the table that was made by Mr. Clark and seconded by Mr. Schmid to adopt the proposed language for the Town Center Steering Committee with the membership being three Council members as presented by staff.

Councilman Mitzel said I bring this discussion forward based on the fact that on March 6, 1995 we voted that this should be placed on our agenda when time permits to discuss the revision of these resolutions. As such I’m curious as to why there’s a need for Council Members on the committee, especially three of them. Is the purpose for the Council members to report back to this committee this Council? Or is it to somehow say they represent the City Council in which case I don’t know if that implies like the Planning Concepts Committee where we used to have or we’d have a couple Council members and a couple Planning Commission members on this committee and depending on which two or three Council or Planning Commission members they got the developer or someone forward with an idea would get a different reaction than the whole Council or two other members. I guess I’m kind of curious as to why three, why Council members. Are they supposed to be reporting back to us cause we’ve been going on a trend of not having Council members on committees and I’m just asking the question maybe the current members can justify and explain why and help me understand. It’s just a question it is not a motion right now.

Mayor McLallen said but there is a motion on the floor and Councilman Mitzel said it was a question on the main motion. Mayor McLallen then asked for further discussion on the main motion, which is to accept the Resolution with the inclusion of three members as presented by Staff.

Councilman Crawford felt they do need to address and discuss how the two business representatives of the Town Center will get on this Committee, but not now.

Councilwoman Cassis asked previously was the Town Center Steering Committee composed of two members of Council plus the Mayor or one member of Council and the Mayor. Mr. Kriewall indicated they never had a quorum of Council present, so it was three altogether and he thought it was three members of Council and one just happened to be the Mayor.

Mayor McLallen said as presented that night, she was not happy with the Town Center Steering Committee Resolution and the Resolution dates to ten years ago when there wasn’t anything there, and when this Resolution was written, there were four corners and the old high school was still standing and no one had really believed that Main Street would ever come up, and there were a lot of hopes and dreams. She said now they have a functioning shopping center known as Town Center, which has come in and actually undergone two, if not three, renovations, and the Expo Center, which no one considered ten years ago, exists and Main Street is going to be functioning, so she didn’t think this Resolution addresses what really is happening and it addresses what everyone had hoped would happen ten years ago, but she concurred with some of the conversations that night.

Mayor McLallen said perhaps it is time to free this and give it to a local committee with more representation from the Chamber, the EDC, and the local business community. She said the Council and the Planning Commission have worked very hard to put in place, as recently as this year, updated versions of the policy that governs this area and that policy being the Zoning Ordinance for Town Center. She said she wasn’t sure that this group any longer needs such an intense supervision or participation on a regular basis by members of the Council and anything that is going to change policy or zoning-wise, is going to come from those two bodies, but the day-to-day energy and the seeking of new initiatives in that area is actually going to come now from the development community and from the people who are owning land and doing business there.

Mayor McLallen indicated she wasn’t going to support the Resolution that night because she felt it was probably time that they looked at an entirely new Resolution for the whole area, because when you read it, the Resolution that they were being asked to vote on says, the Town Center project has been developing as a comprehensive effort intended to upgrade, rejuvenate, re-plan and re-develop and she thought that has happened.

Mayor McLallen said that is not what the future will hold for this area so she felt they very seriously at another time need to readdress this entire issue and so she would not be voting in support of the motion.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (2) Nays-McLallen & Mitzel

MOTION CARRIED

Councilman Clark said before they leave this item, since they have not passed a Resolution to have three members of Council, they might want to consider dealing with the last representative from Council now and take care of that as far as an appointment because he knows some other members had expressed an interest.

Councilman Mitzel commented in their meeting of November, it was Councilman Schmid and Councilwoman Mutch that were appointed and was that correct and Mayor McLallen said there seems to have been some discussion but their Minutes don’t verify who was actually appointed and currently Councilman Clark and Councilman Schmid have attended a meeting and Councilwoman Mutch thought she had been appointed, so if Councilwoman Mutch wishes and there is no contest, she could serve on that Committee and the consensus was that Councilwoman Mutch would serve on that Committee.

Councilwoman Mutch commented she would point out when they get to the Minutes why she had come to that conclusion.

11. Conceptual Approval of Feurst Property/City Parkland Exchange Agreement with Novi Community Schools.

Mr. Watson said he would like to discuss the two items combined. He said there was a purchase agreement that was entered into to purchase this Levy Property some time ago and one of the contingencies on it was that the seller was going to have to provide some documentation to make it clearer that the ongoing oil and gas activities wouldn’t be modified in a way to interfere with the City’s use of this property as parkland. He said the seller was never able to provide the documentation to do that and had some glitches in that regard and because of that, the time period for the agreement fell through.

Mr. Watson indicated the seller is now prepared to do that and provide that documentation, however, in doing so, they have asked for a couple of additional conditions to the agreement mainly which relate to their desire to see that portion of the property that is going to be used for a school will actually be used for a school within a particular period of time, and also their desire to see that there is some use of some portion of the property for park purposes in a given period of time.

Mr. Watson said so the main changes here or the conditions are: one, that a portion of this property would be conveyed to the School District, and they are requesting an option to repurchase the school property if a school is not under construction by January 1, 1999.

Mr. Watson said the second condition they are asking for relates to that portion of the property that was going to be used for park purposes and they are asking for an option to repurchase that land if some part, and it could just be a small part, was not used for park purposes by January 1, 1999 and that is essentially what they are looking for.

Mr. Watson also wanted to point out that as did the prior agreement, the sellers are reserving the Gas and Oil Rights for the property. He said that was what the prior Agreement was and that is what they were still proposing in this Agreement.

Mr. Watson said the second Agreement is the offer to have the school portion of the property purchased from the City by the school and the way that is computed is that they would look to the average per acre price the City has paid for this property and paid for the Archdiocese property, which a portion would also be purchased by the school. He said the school would pay the City that average per acre price minus five acres worth, which would be deducted from that cost and instead they would exchange the Feurst property as a part of that.

Mr. Watson said this has been discussed between their office and Mr. Kriewall and representatives of the seller, and it is here just for conceptual approval and the agreements would still undergo some further changes. He would also point out on that portion of the Archdiocese property that the City would sell to the School and the City in turn would retain the Gas and Oil Rights on that property.

Mr. Kriewall commented regarding the buy-back provision, he has reviewed that with Mr. Koester from Novi Community Schools and they do not have any problems with that provision and their schedule is to be under construction within the next 18-24 months and they were satisfied with that provision.

Councilwoman Mutch said to Mr. Watson, it sounds as if the City would not have the opportunity if the School was not built, to re-acquire the land from the School District and it would, as proposed, be available to the seller first, and Mr. Watson said yes that was correct and it was the seller’s option to repurchase and they wouldn’t have the right of first refusal or the right to step in there.

Councilman Schmid asked conceptually, what are they going to pay for this property here and Mr. Watson said it was about $1,670,000.

Councilman Mitzel asked what was meant by conceptual approval. Mr. Kriewall explained they put conceptual on there because the School District has not had an opportunity to review the exact language and all the agreements were flying back and forth the last couple of weeks and even the attorney for the Levy Company has not seen the most recent draft that Council has, so he really didn’t want Council to approve something that might get changed slightly before they see it again and they want to give the schools an opportunity to look at it and also Mr. Weiner who is the attorney for the Levy Company.

Councilman Mitzel asked then for any changes they might have, it would come back to us for Final and Mr. Watson said yes. Councilman Mitzel said sometimes in the past he has asked that Council approve it and then allow him to do minor modifications.

Councilman Mitzel referred to the lease agreement with the School District for the Fuerst Property and he believed it indicates expiration at the end of this month and if he recalled correctly, will those conceptual approvals of those purchase agreements and exchange agreements satisfy the requirement of that lease agreement and it was stated yes.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Clark

(Voice vote) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Cassis

To grant Conceptual Approval of the Fuerst Property City Parkland Exchange Agreement with Novi Community Schools.

Councilman Schmid said he noticed a letter in the packet this evening from Novi Community Schools/Novi Community Education Advisory Council, suggesting that the School is making a bad decision selling this land, and he asked Mr. Kriewall if this has affected the Board at all.

Mr. Kriewall replied apparently not and they have been in continual discussion with Mr. Koester regarding the development of the agreements and they have not been given any indication that there is any change in mind or attitude, but he saw from the letter that it was addressed to the School Board President simultaneously, so possibly they just received a copy of this also and the City just received it today.

Councilman Schmid said so that could certainly have an impact in the School’s decision, although it was just an advisory item and he realized that and he would assume that was up to them.

Councilman Schmid said a more important question was if the City knows exactly how much land is being exchanged conceptually, and Mr. Kriewall replied about 5 acres and Councilman Schmid asked if that was the total parcel and Mr. Kriewall said the total parcel was about 8 acres and Councilman Schmid said within the 3 acres, was that where one of the major barns was and Mr. Kriewall replied yes.

Councilman Schmid said he assumed then they would get the 5 acres and the School will retain the barn and the 3 acres and Mr. Kriewall replied that was correct. Councilman Schmid asked if the City had wanted the barn and Mr. Kriewall said they didn’t want to give it to us.

Councilman Schmid said his only other issue was that once this program was done and once they retain that Fuerst Property, which is a concept he agreed with, the City has a major liability with absolutely no funds to do anything about it, and that is the re-habbing of the house and the barns, and he frankly did not know where the City was going to get one dime to do any of those things. He said now it was their liability and if someone goes into that house or in one of those barns the day after they buy the land, and they don’t have the opportunity and money to rehab it, the City would be liable.

Councilman Schmid said he understood the committees and so forth would like to get some money together, but he felt they were taking on a major project with no funding. He felt they may have to go to the community and may have to do a lot of things, but in the meantime, they have a tremendous exposure out there, so just that this Council knows and the community knows exactly what they were getting into. He said he didn’t know where they were going to get the money to do anything and they were talking about $300,000-$400,000-$500,000 or more and that is a major commitment for an old house and a couple old barns.

Councilman Crawford said in response to the additional 3 acres and the buildings on those 3 acres, he sensed an attitude of cooperation at their Joint Meeting with the School Board and us here a few months ago, and although they want to retain the rights to the 3 acres, they sounded a little more willing to work with us on joint usage or perhaps some sort of arrangement in the future on those 3 acres and facilities, so those 3 acres and facilities are not necessarily lost to the total project.

Councilwoman Mutch said with regard to the letter that Councilman Schmid has mentioned from the Community Education Advisory Council, she would just remind all of them that the School Board appointed a Committee of its own about three years ago and a member of this Council, who is no longer there, was on that Committee, and she was on that Committee, and virtually every City organization was represented in some way, as well as Clara Porter, who was the Director of Community Education. She said they would see her name at the bottom of the letter and she is the liaison to this Advisory Council that has sent this letter to the School Board.

Councilwoman Mutch said Mrs. Porter did bring up this concern about pre-school programs and the need for high school alternative education, etc., and those were very much considered in a course of the six months that the School Board appointed Committee met and Mrs. Porter, along with the rest of the Committee, unanimously recommended to the School Board at that time, that the School District retain the property for the purpose of a community facility that could be used by the whole community and not just the School District.

Councilwoman Mutch said in the process of determining what sorts of things might find a home there, the pre-school program was not eliminated as a possibility, but the exclusive use of that site for the pre-school was pretty much eliminated, so for anyone who has not seen this letter, that is one of the needs addressed in the letter.

Councilwoman Mutch felt that the concerns raised here were ones that have already been dealt with on a community-wide basis in terms of a committee representing the community. She felt the School Board was well aware of that and she didn’t think this letter would have an adverse effect on their situation with the School Board.

Mayor McLallen said the motion was to grant conceptual approval to the Fuerst Property, City Parkland exchange agreement with the Novi Schools.

Councilwoman Cassis said they have been working towards this end for a long time and it became very important to have a firm commitment on behalf of the City to trade this property and to acquire it in order to go forward and look at other options and as she recalled, it was difficult to seek out grants and also to look into and entertain the possibility of public/private funding to restore those buildings until the property was in hand.

Councilwoman Cassis felt that night they have moved forward in a positive fashion that can only be a win-win situation for both the City and the School District and she felt they were seeing the possibility for opportunities to abound to this gaining momentum for City/School relationship and working together, both on the Eleven Mile/Wixom properties and the Fuerst Property at Ten Mile and Novi Road.

Councilwoman Cassis said Councilman Schmid brings up the issue of exposure and liability, and he felt they would look to their City Attorney as they always have in the past to guide them with that, but she felt they need that night to move forward in order to see some of this become a reality and to move from here, so she was really heartened that they were doing it in the spirit of Christmas at this time and working together.

Councilman Mitzel said he wished to thank the City Administration and the City Attorney’s Office for meeting their time goals so they could accomplish what they were all working towards.

Mayor McLallen then stated the main motion was before them to grant conceptual approval to this property purchase agreement and transfer.

(Voice vote) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

12. Schedule Joint Study Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission, Re: Ice Rink Proposal for Thursday, December 14, 1995 at 8:00 P.M.

Mayor McLallen said she would like to offer two other alternatives, 9:00 P.M. or Monday, December 18th and the reason being that the annual review of the Fire Department is taking place at 7:00 that evening and then the Monday is an open meeting that they were not using.

Mr. Kriewall said he would recommend the Monday date and he did not realize that the fire tour was on this week, so Monday seems to work better for everyone at 8:00 P.M.

Councilman Mitzel asked what were they looking to accomplish at this meeting and he was all for keeping the Ice Arena project moving along, and they have been working with the City Attorney’s office to iron out the legal language, but he just didn’t want to meet for the sake of just talking about it and he wondered what concrete objective were they going to try and accomplish at this meeting to make it worthwhile to have all of them come in for a meeting.

Mayor McLallen said her understanding was based on some of the comments that have been generated by the Attorney’s letter and the Attorney’s concerns, there was a need to talk with both bodies as to whether this will be as proposed, a public-private partnership or will it then verge over to being an entirely public issue, which is the way Farmington Hills went.

Mayor McLallen said based on some of the concerns Mr. Fried has brought up, there appeared to be some change in direction, and she felt that was the request.

Mr. Kriewall said there were also several new members of Council also so they really need to talk about it again.

Councilman Mitzel said his point was they have been discussing this in the Executive Session over the legal contract, but it seemed like there was progress being made and they were on a certain track and he just didn’t want to spend another Monday night chatting about things they have already talked about unless there was going to be a concrete outcome and were they going to be approving this and he just didn’t want to rehash issues they have already rehashed and that was what he was trying to get at.

Mr. Watson said after the last time this was discussed in Executive Session, they gave them direction as to certain changes that they wanted made and they have outlined those changes in a letter to the Center Ice people, which they have received and they have done a new draft incorporating those changes and he assumed those would be before them at this meeting for consideration.

Councilman Mitzel said so they were talking about an action item and Mr. Kriewall stated yes and Councilman Mitzel said if that was the case, he could support having a meeting.

Councilman Schmid said his recollection of the Executive Sessions was several-fold and he thought Mr. Kriewall was to bring them back certain information at the next time they met concerning this and the Attorney was supposed to do some things, which apparently they have done, so he had anticipated that this meeting would be a little more than an action item and it would be further discussion as to the merits of the private/public arrangement as to the possibility of looking at private earnings and/or public arrangements with some additional information, so he had anticipated considerable more information the next time they talked about it. He said he also concurred that Thursday night was a filled-up night with more than one or two items going, so he couldn’t make it Thursday night.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mutch

To schedule a Special Joint City Council and Parks & Recreation meeting for the purposes of discussion and/or action on the Ice Arena proposal for Monday, December 18, 1995 at 7:30 P.M.

Councilman Crawford asked if that was the night of the awards for the community lighting decorations and Mayor McLallen said yes and that would take place here in the Chamber at 8:00 P.M., but it was not a Council meeting. Councilman Crawford said that might be something that a few Council members might like to attend, and could they either have this meeting after that and Mr. Kriewall said according to packets, it was set for 7:30 PM and there is a notice in their packet setting that meeting for 7:30 PM, so he figured if they met at 8:00 PM for the most part it might be over. He added they were going to meet in the Activities Room.

Mayor McLallen then asked Councilman Mitzel based on that information, did he wish to change the time frame.

Councilman Mitzel said he didn’t want it to get too late in the evening, so 7:30 PM would be okay.

Mayor McLallen said the motion was to schedule a Joint Study meeting with Parks & Rec Commission concerning the Ice Arena proposal for Monday, December 18, 1995 at 7:30 in the Activities Room.

Councilman Crawford said they seem to discuss simple items a long time and 8:00 P.M. seems more appropriate to him based on the fact that possibly some of them may like to stop in and see what is going on at that 7:30 Awards presentation so why make a conflict if they don’t have to.

Councilman Mitzel said 8:00 PM would be fine.

(Voice vote) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mayor McLallen added that there will be a meeting in this Chamber next Monday night at 7:30 P.M. where the Homeowners Association and the City will recognize the outstanding Christmas Displays.

There was no Audience Participation.

Councilman Mitzel indicated the Consultant Review met today to discuss working on their evaluations and also updates and documentation of their retainers and contracts.

Councilman Crawford said this was not a Committee Report, but he would just like to comment that he felt the Council has set an all time record for lack of Audience Participation at a Regular Meeting and they had three of them and not one participant.

Councilwoman Cassis said she wanted to commend their City Clerk for the format summary of the projects that were coming through and they were very helpful and very easy to read. Also she would like to say it was very positive to receive the communication from the School Board sending their Agenda and were they doing the same likewise to the School District and Mrs. Bartholomew said she believed so, but would check.

Councilwoman Cassis felt those were all positive steps in the continuing building of communication.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Mr. Kriewall pointed out that the reports were condensed for the first time and everyone should let him know if they were getting enough information or not enough information.

Councilman Mitzel had a question on when was the time frame for the Decker Road and Novi Road opening, and he noticed they put up the signs for the new signals today. He asked if it was going to be opened for Christmas.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Kapelczak if he knew what the time frame was for the opening of Decker road as per the court order. Mr. Kapelczak said as far as he knows, everything should be open for the Christmas Holidays and Mr. Jerome was putting up the signs. He added the target date was before Christmas.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS

Mr. Watson indicated he didn’t have any reports and he asked for any questions and there were no questions.

Councilman Mitzel indicated he pulled these Minutes because it seems after their discussion in September on the Minutes being verbatim, these Minutes are even more verbatim. He said he remembered the Minutes being lengthy and paraphrased but this set of Minutes has every single word that was ever stated at the meeting and they were 76 pages long and he did not feel comfortable approving them and that was why he had pulled them.

Mayor McLallen said unfortunately at the Saturday meeting, they were unable to reach that portion of the Agenda.

Councilman Mitzel explained his point was this wasn’t what they were doing before and it has become even more verbatim, and until they decide something, he would be comfortable with the Minutes as they were before. Mayor McLallen said the Staff was somewhat confused as to which "before" they were talking about.

Councilman Crawford said the Council’s direction was this and Mayor McLallen felt the Council has changed directions several times and hopefully they would put the Minutes on as a discussion item and bring them into control.

Councilman Mitzel said his point was there was no vote to change it to this way either.

Councilman Schmid concurred with Councilman Mitzel and said there was no vote to change it. He said the Minutes previously were not this detailed, but they were complete and he agreed with Councilman Mitzel that this set of Minutes has every uttered word. He said now those who oppose that motion were trying to make it out that they wanted this type of Minutes, but it was not the case and they had wanted complete Minutes as to the feeling of the meeting.

Councilman Schmid said those who opposed that wanted something less, but it was not the intent and the Clerk was trying to go to the other way so she could get the other vote and that was the wrong answer too. He said Councilman Mitzel was absolutely correct and it went that way to the other side at no one’s fault perhaps.

Mayor McLallen said she would appreciate it if the Council would give the Clerk and her Staff some clear direction as to what they anticipate from the Minutes. Councilman Schmid said it was on the Committee wasn’t it, and the Mayor said it was on the Committee of the Whole, but they couldn’t keep doing this to the Staff. Councilman Schmid said all they have to do is to keep going the way they were for the last 15 years.

Councilman Crawford said that was not the direction that this Council left and Councilman Schmid disagreed.

Mayor McLallen said as an action item on their next Agenda with the Council’s permission, she would like to put discussion of the Minutes because the Staff needs extremely clear directions and unfortunately, the direction has been somewhat mixed. Councilman Schmid said the direction has been very clear.

Councilwoman Mutch said since this item was pulled, she assumed they could discuss it. She then referred everyone to Page 48 where it says, Town Center Steering Committee, the very first paragraph and they could see there are two sentences and then it says, "Mrs. Mutch...." and that was because when they were doing the various committees and got to the Town Center Steering Committee, the Mayor had looked in her direction as she had her hand up, and the Mayor nodded her head, which she took to mean an appointment. She said that was how she came to the conclusion that she indeed was one of the people appointed and they then went on through the rest of the discussion. She felt this is a case where she was glad the very detailed Minutes were there, because that "Mrs Mutch..." probably wouldn’t have made it into a shorter version.

Councilwoman Mutch said as far as who else was appointed that evening, she had no clue other than what was listed here. She understood there was a Committee meeting and she apologized for missing it, but no one else knew she was appointed so it doesn’t matter.

Mayor McLallen then asked for a motion concerning the Minutes of November 20, 1995.

It was,

Moved by Councilwoman Cassis

Seconded by Councilman Clark

Councilman Crawford referred to the comments that Councilman Schmid made, and he didn’t want to be confrontational, but the issue was that Councilman Mitzel pulled the Minutes because of the format and Mayor McLallen said he has already stated his position. Councilman Crawford said but he didn’t feel they have given direction to the City Clerk and Mayor McLallen indicated they would have that discussion again at a formal meeting.

Councilman Crawford then asked would the Minutes of this meeting be verbatim. He said he was not in favor of verbatim Minutes, and he thought the Minutes that they had previously for the last 15 years were quite sufficient, but there was a rather heated discussion at this table, and he felt the Staff was left with a clear message that they needed to be verbatim and he was left with that message, much to his dismay, and he was very upset at the results of that meeting, but he felt that was the direction the Staff gathered from Council. He then asked where does the City Clerk go from here at this meeting.

Mayor McLallen said her understanding was that the Minutes of that night’s meeting will be as they were last time and then at the next meeting in January, they would discuss and finalize the issue.

Councilman Crawford said they could make it easy on Staff and themselves if they at least at this meeting give direction that the Minutes be in the past form of past several years, and he didn’t want to say verbatim because the Minutes were beyond that, but he didn’t know if there was a misunderstanding as to what verbatim was to be. He then asked if they could at least give direction that night if there is a consensus, that they go back to the previous typed Minutes and not the word-for-word verbatim, and then they could further discuss whether they want to even reduce it from there or what they want to do after that, but at least for this meeting, he would expect to see this kind of Minutes of this meeting and he didn’t think that is what this Council wants.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion was to approve the Minutes of November 20, 1995 and that was the sole motion on the table at the moment, and she asked for any further information just on that motion.

Councilman Schmid said he agreed that was the sole issue on the table so then the Mayor or anyone else should not suggest that the Clerk would type the Minutes as she typed these Minutes because that was not the intent of the previous decision and they should not infer that. He felt if they were going to say that, then they have to discuss it because that was not the intent.

Mayor McLallen said there has been a motion and support of approval for the Minutes of November 20th and she asked for a vote.

(Voice vote) (6) Yeas (1) Nay

MOTION CARRIED.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To permit the City Clerk to prepare the Minutes in the format that was previously prepared last summer and prior, and also that this item will be placed on their next Agenda for the first meeting in January for finalization of this issue by the City Council.

(Voice vote) MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilwoman Cassis began with a brief summary and said originally the City of Novi came forward with a Community Sports Park that they felt in terms of construction would cost approximately 1.1 million dollars. She said actually the price on a second bid came in at $1,162,343.00. She said the design services to design this project were $41,500, she believed. She said she was trying to make this very clear and yet it has a lot of information with it.

Councilwoman Cassis said the scope never changed between the 1.1 million dollar figure and the $1,162,000 approximate figure so no additional work would need to be completed except a mild increase for the rebid services according to Mr. Dan Davis, so there would be no change or increased scope of the project.

Councilwoman Cassis said the company that won these services for the design came back and said as a result of the construction package, it was going up approximately $52,000 and they asked for a percentage of that increase. She said to the credit of the Parks & Rec Director, he has been discussing this matter with them for over a period of time. She indicated initially they wanted to raise it up to an additional $40,000 or double the original price without any real change in services rendered.

Councilwoman Cassis said for all those reasons, she is requesting at this point, that their city Attorney review the contract with Ludwig and Associates to see if indeed this request for an additional $24,552.00 is a reasonable request and in the City’s best interest based on the contract that they have with Ludwig and Associates.

Councilwoman Cassis said so at this point, she would make a motion.

It was,

Moved by Councilwoman Cassis

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

(Voice vote) (6) Yeas (1) Nay-Crawford

MOTION CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor McLallen wished everyone a Happy Holiday. There being no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned 11:00 A.M.

____________________________________ ________________________________________

MAYOR CITY CLERK

Date approved ________________________