Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members Clark, Kramer, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid (absent)

ALSO PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Craig Klaver, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Chuck Young - SWAN, is surprised about the apathy in the community and that he is the only resident present. Mr. Young asked if they advertised the meeting.

Mayor McLallen replied they announced it on the agenda and it is in the work program.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated although it is an open meeting, residents normally do not attend Council’s goal and study sessions.

Mr. Young reported SWAN is going to expand to the Twelve Mile, Eight Mile, Beck and Napier area. Mr. Young explained that SWAN serves as a watch dog group. Mr. Young is amazed that they do not permit the Mayor to voice her opinion in the newspaper and he does not believe that is right. He believes she should have the right to speak freely. Further, Mr. Young believes many positive things are currently occurring in the city.

The Mayor stated the City was denied an editorial in the Novi News about the road bond program last fall.

Mayor McLallen reported the purpose of the meeting is for the Annual Program. The Mayor stated during the last two years it was held with the American Foundation and their director served as the facilitator. However, this year they hoped to have representatives from Walsh College, but they were unable to attend this evening.

Mayor McLallen advised the goal of the Work Program meeting is to set priorities for issues and programs that they would like the Administration or Council to accomplish over the next twelve to eighteen months. The other goal is to go into the 1997 - 1998 budget with a clearer definition of what it is they want to accomplish. The Mayor asked Council how they can best use their limited time. Further, the Mayor believes their efforts should be joint and not an individual effort. The Mayor listed a series of concerns brought to her attention. Mayor McLallen added that Mr. Kriewall has a list of fifteen items and adding that the list does not account for any new opportunities. Mayor McLallen believes that as leaders, Council must set the tone about how expectations are going to be met.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Item 1 under Issues for Discussion is similar to the written evaluation they did last year? For the sake of having a more productive meeting, Councilwoman Mutch agrees with the Mayor in that Council members should provide more input before a meeting. Therefore, when they go into a meeting they are not hearing something for the first time and the Mayor could better facilitate the discussion.

In support of Councilwoman Mutch, the Mayor stated that was the background for this evaluation. She asked what is it that Council is doing between themselves and how can they improve their communication.

Councilman Mitzel is looking at this as an opportunity to discuss concerns. Further, he believes the meetings are running smoother and they are adjourning on time more often. Councilman Mitzel believes how items are getting on the agenda has been greatly improved since Mrs. Bartholomew has initiated the departmental sign off sheet. In terms of improving communication between Council members and to reduce similar questions, Councilman Mitzel suggested copying all the members with questions individual Council members have directed to staff.

Councilwoman Mutch suggested that they divide tonight’s agenda accordingly if there is a general agreement to discuss all three of the items.

Mayor McLallen advised it is a suggested agenda.

Mrs. Bartholomew stated they cannot adopt it as the agenda because Councilman Schmid is absent, but they can use it as an outline.

Councilman Mitzel said his earlier point was that they have to continuously watch the meeting agendas because all members are guilty of talking more during the first half of the meeting than the last half.

Mayor McLallen reported in their rules and in the format that they follow, they have said that the procedure should be that they bring the petitioner and city staff before Council to present their case. At that time, Council’s questions should be about the issue before them. When they have laid all questions on the table, then someone should make a motion in support or non-support of the issue. According to the rules, every member will have two opportunities to speak. The opportunity is not limited in length, but it is limited in numbers. Historically, Council has not upheld that rule and the Mayor admitted that she has not been consistent in calling Council back to the issue. The Mayor asked if Council would prefer the motion first and then the question. However, the Mayor reminded members that they are hesitant to make motions without having their questions answered.

Councilman Mitzel agrees that they have not been consistent. He further believes reading the packet material is sufficient. Consequently, Council does not need petitioner or staff presentations and they could save their questions for more major questions. Councilman Mitzel recalled if there is a need for questions, Council would ask the petitioner to come forward. He repeated if the information in the packet is clear, the need for questions is eliminated.

Councilwoman Mutch concurs with Councilman Mitzel. However, the kind of questions she has are not generally questions that are answered by packet information. Her questions result from something that is being newly said or from a new perspective than what she had when she reviewed the packet material. Sometimes that is done by staff people or through audience participation. Councilwoman Mutch believes questions are necessary, but also believes there may be a more productive way to ask them. Instead of a presentation, she suggested that perhaps they should go around the table because the staff and petitioner should be out of it at that point and Council will already have all of the information. At that point, they could say a motion is in order and the discussion after the motion would help in separating opinion from fact.

Councilman Kramer presumes they are talking about items for action as opposed to public hearing items. Councilman Kramer believes it is hard to have a strict, rigorous procedure without some hardened guidelines. Councilman Kramer suggested if a presentation is necessary, the petitioner could present only the highlights. Council Kramer would prefer they go around the table with fact finding discussions.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes the way they have the meetings in recent months have been conducted properly. He also believes they need to be made flexible and from experience, whoever is running the meeting is able to judge what needs to be presented and what questions should be asked. Mayor ProTem Crawford reminded Council that many times they want a brief presentation to inform the audience. He would also like to revisit the rules for the length of their meetings. In addition, he suggested that they revisit the rule about members only speaking twice because sometimes speaking several times may be necessary. Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe that going around the table would be productive because members may be compelled to speak whether they were going to or not. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford believes they need to focus more on the actual issue and not editorialize on philosophies.

Craig Klaver agrees there are times when the audience does not know what is going on because they were not involved in the process and cited the labor contracts as an example. Mr. Klaver believes these situations that may need a summary.

Councilman Clark agrees Council is functioning well. He also agrees with Councilman Mitzel’s comments about sharing information. Councilman Clark agrees with Mayor ProTem Crawford’s comments about remaining flexible rather than enforcing strict rules. Councilman Clark suggested letting the consultants know that they have read the information in the packet and if they want to go beyond their report, they should only present the highlights or make sure it is something that is in addition to their report. Finally, when they make a motion, Council members should remember that unless they have something to say that really adds to the discussion, they should let it go and vote appropriately so the meeting can move expeditiously.

Councilwoman Mutch believes the Mayor already has the ability to waive the limit of speaking twice by asking if there is a Council consensus to do so. Secondly, the Mayor already summarizes items distinctly when she introduces the item. Further, the average informed person who takes an interest in the community would not get that much more information from a presentation. Councilwoman Mutch would also like to see something at the bottom of the television screen that would let the viewer know where Council is on the agenda.

Mayor McLallen stated there is new software coming in this week that would project maps on the screen behind Council.

Councilwoman Mutch believes that would also help to provide more information for the public. In addition, Councilwoman Mutch believes the agendas for Council and the Planning Commission should be on cable so that people know whether it is a meeting they would have an interest in. She also suggested they post the remainder of the agenda on cable during the break.

Mrs. Bartholomew reported they are planning to add hanging fires to cable.

Councilman Mitzel believes they may want to consider asking for a five minute limitation in those cases where they need a presentation. He reminded Council that most items that come before them have had a full presentation and public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting.

The Mayor suggested that Council notify the petitioner when they receive the agenda to summarize their presentation.

Councilman Mitzel suggested that when the petitioner is notified that they may be asked to provide a brief five minute presentation.

The Mayor suggested that she and Tonni Bartholomew work together to prepare something for the petitioners.

Councilman Kramer believes the coversheet gives an excellent overview and when they need summaries, he believes they should continue to do it how they do it. He suggested that the sponsor, who signs off on the project, could provide a summary. In the same light, when public hearings come before them, Councilman Kramer suggested that a summary of the Planning Commission’s position be presented by Community Development or the Planning Commission Chair.

Mayor McLallen said another issue concerning the organization of the agenda is how Council can maximize the usefulness of the three audience participations.

Although Councilwoman Mutch is inclined to keep the two earlier audience participations, she does not believe they should eliminate the last one either. She reminded Council that there is usually no audience left by the last audience participation and those who speak at the last one, usually talk about something that has already happened. Therefore, she believes the most productive place to have audience participation is at the beginning and if Council feels the need to eliminate the third, it would not limit the audience’s participation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford agrees the last audience participation is not effective. He suggested they may want to limit the first audience participation to only address the first portion of the agenda. Mayor ProTem Crawford added that the agenda should be prepared in a way to facilitate this participation. Mayor ProTem Crawford realizes there are some drawbacks, but there are also some advantages. Further, the second audience participation could be used to discuss previous or future agenda items and anything else. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes Novi’s audience participation policy is one of the most liberal in terms of audience input. He added that many communities require the participant to complete a form and submit it to their city clerk on the Wednesday before their meeting.

Mayor McLallen said the issue is how to maximize getting the public’s issues before Council in a way that will allow them to be heard and yet, allow the business of the Council be effective at a reasonable hour.

Councilman Clark does not have a problem holding three audience participations although he realizes the last one can be brief. Similarly, no matter how they shuffle the agenda, they are never going to get all of the items in the first segment addressed in the first audience participation. He believes the current format works well and they should leave it that way. Councilman Clark realizes there will be situations that, because of the importance of the issue, will take longer. However, he believes they can address that when they prepare the agenda.

Mayor McLallen advised that she and Mrs. Bartholomew prepare the agenda, and they try to map out the first part of the evening to be sure that they bring forward the public’s issues so they can go home.

Councilman Clark added when they know an item may generate two hours of audience participation, they should ask themselves whether they want fifteen items on the agenda.

Councilman Kramer sees a need for fine tuning the audience participation. Councilman Kramer stated sometimes Council needs to receive a maximum amount of input from the audience. However, sometimes the audiences have taken the agenda away from Council. Councilman Kramer suggested that the first one be limited to agenda items and the second one could be for comments or non-agenda based items. Further, under Council or Mayor time, Councilman Kramer suggested that they consider a means to acknowledge or decline the questions that they bring to the table. He believes Council members may appear as non-responsive to issues on the floor, yet they have given answers. Councilman Kramer is not certain about how they can work that into the agenda.

Mayor McLallen agreed that correspondence response is a frequent criticism of Council.

Councilman Mitzel advised that sometimes the answers to letters are copied in the communication section of the agenda and suggested that would be the appropriate place to put the responses. He reasoned if someone is following a letter in the agendas and a follow-up letter to it, it should probably appear in the next agenda and packet. Likewise, if Council requests Administration to respond to a request made during Audience Participation, they should copy that response to Council and to the public under Communications. Further, Councilman Mitzel would not support limiting the first Audience Participation to only agenda items because the audience does not know when they will have the opportunity to speak. Although he agrees the third participation is rarely used, he would not eliminate it. He suggested that they move it to the end of the meeting because it is too close to the second.

Mayor McLallen believes Council consensus is not to eliminate any of the audience participations.

Councilwoman Mutch agrees with Councilman Mitzel and added a final audience participation could serve as a way to for the public to vent their frustration.

Mayor McLallen believes during their forty-five minutes of discussion Council established that there should be a concentration by the chair on directing the meeting as they have and perhaps move the final audience participation to the true end of the meeting. They also established they should leave the other ones as they are so all issues and comments can be brought to the table. Further, they determined a need to initiate a policy for responses from Administration under Mayor and Council Issues for questions raised in letters. The Mayor further added that they may improve communication between Council if they copy other members with their questions and the responses to their questions preceding the meetings.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there is a way for those who participate in Audience Participation to let Council know if they are expecting a response or if they are just commenting.

Mayor McLallen addressed this issue earlier when she stated the Planning Commission‘s

agenda specifically addresses Audience Participation guidelines. She suggested that they might want to regenerate a guideline that they once used about "How to Be a Good Participant" or they can adopt something similar to what the Planning Commission is using.

Mayor McLallen reported that a form letter responds to most letters so that the author knows that the City has received their letter. Further, if it is about a specific issue, the letter lets them know that it has been forwarded to the appropriate department.

Mayor McLallen asked Council if they are comfortable with the length of the meeting. She said if they continue to improve and refine the procedure, they may not have to deal with this issue. Further, she stated if they self-govern, typically meetings should only have to extend past eleven thirty occasionally.

Mayor ProTem Crawford thinks they have managed their meetings very well in the last several months, but believes it sometimes takes longer than eleven thirty to conduct all the things they need to. Further, according to their rules, they can only have two fifteen-minute extensions. This means they have to stop discussion to make a motion and vote. Mayor ProTem Crawford said although he did not press the issue, they have gone beyond the fifteen minutes. Consequently, he would like Council to remove this rule. He understands there will be times that they may meet until 1:00 a.m. and they may not be as productive as they were earlier, but they are there to conduct the business of the City.

Councilman Kramer stated they can protect themselves if the rules state that they need to complete the first section of the agenda and whatever time it takes, they need to complete the items that are at the table for decision. He believes they could merely amend the rules to state that they must at least complete that section of the agenda.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if Council would invalidate a decision if they did not adhere to their rules. Mrs. Bartholomew replied that this question would have to be directed to Mr. Fried.

Mrs. Bartholomew stated they currently place removed consent agenda items at the end of the agenda. She believes they should insert them as the last action item because they are often action items. Mrs. Bartholomew further believes there should be a spot on the agenda under Actions - Part II and suggested that they title it "Consent Agendas, Items for Action."

Council concurred to move Consent Items after the second Matters for Council Action for now and bring back for formal action at a later meeting.

Councilwoman Mutch suggested if Council does not realize until after the meeting starts that an item may be more controversial than anticipated and may require additional time that Council could ask to put off other items on the agenda until another time. She believes Council has that option, but has never used it. Councilwoman Mutch said Council could state at the beginning of the meeting that they expect to complete the agenda, but explain they are moving items to the end of the agenda and may not get to them.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes that is difficult to foresee and would be difficult to decide which ones they should eliminate. Further, Audience Participation often prolongs the meeting. More often, there are items that only Council addresses and unexpectedly have a lengthy discussion.

Mayor McLallen believes there is a consensus that Council has to conduct their business in the most timely fashion without circumventing anyone’s input.

Mayor McLallen said Council manages to get through the participant items, but the things that do not get discussed are Council business.

Councilwoman Mutch is concerned because when they adopt the agenda, they are saying they will get through all of the items.

Mayor McLallen moved on by stating that this Council is fortunate because of the things that are happening in Novi. She also stated that they have had a historic policy of not expanding the City’s staff. However, this Council has now added staff positions and their efforts are just beginning to be seen. The Mayor said Council still needs to make the most of their time and asked for suggestions from Council about how they can address major projects such as the Levy property.

Councilman Mitzel believes major projects need a special meeting or a joint meeting as appropriate.

The issue that Mayor McLallen would like Council to discuss is how are they going to maximize their efforts for large projects. She asked if they should establish time frames.

Councilman Mitzel believes this goes along with what he asked for from Administration for the ice arena project. One component of the time line that was important to him was to notify Council in advance when they their action may be needed to accomplish their goal of a fall opening. Likewise can be said for the Levy property or other major developers. Councilman Mitzel suggested that as certain issues develop which are pertinent to a project, the developer could ask Council to reserve agenda time if they need action. Councilman Mitzel believes Council should only request a deadline if they care about when an item should come back before them. Further, Councilman Mitzel reminded Council that he believes they requested the Clerk’s office to track Council requests as of January 1, 1997.

Mrs. Bartholomew stated the Clerk’s office is tracking Council requests on a log and the individual departments have the responsibility of updating the status of the request.

Councilman Mitzel advised the Mayor gave him software from the National League of Cities that would track information if someone called in with an issue from the public as opposed to tracking Council postponements.

Mayor McLallen asked Mrs. Bartholomew to present her concerns about this program.

Mrs. Bartholomew replied she is sending the items out and will have a lot of follow up in terms of getting the departments to respond. She added just because they responded once does not necessarily mean that item is complete. Consequently, it would mean that it would have to be something that they continuously update themselves. Mrs. Bartholomew reminded Council that she has a difficult time getting agenda items for packets Thursday. Mrs. Bartholomew sees this as something that is not going to be possible to accomplish. Although she realizes it is important, she does not believe the departments will give it the weight that Council wants it to have.

Councilman Mitzel believes their intent is that the Clerk’s office would only maintain the list so that Council knows that someone is keeping a master list and they have dropped nothing off. Councilman Mitzel added that the Clerk’s office can request the departments to update the list and if they don’t, Council can ask Mr. Kriewall to address it. Councilman Mitzel made it clear that it will be the department’s responsibility to log into the common file and update the log on the Wednesday before the meeting.

Mrs. Bartholomew is also concerned about the length of the list. Councilman Mitzel replied Council is only concerned with outstanding items.

Mayor ProTem Crawford recalled that the list should include agenda items and requests made during a meeting, but it is not up to the Clerk’s office to see that the task has been completed.

Mrs. Bartholomew asked if it is her responsibility to assign a person to each request made to Administration.

Councilman Kramer believes they need to track open items, the person responsible for the item and the timing. He also suggested that they include project items. As a result, Councilman Kramer stated the open items would serve as a menu of future agenda items for Council.

Councilwoman Mutch has the same concern about Ordinance Review and she falls back on the minutes mentally to keep track of outstanding items. However, her greater concern is that she is not certain about how that is supposed to operate. When she is the only Council member present at Ordinance Review, she is uncertain if that means they have discussed the item and moves on or should it be held over until another member of Council is present. She also does not know who does the forwarding. She has heard Mr. Watson state that it is time to bring an item forward and she just assumes that he will. Councilwoman Mutch also asked whose responsibility is it to report to Council under Committee Reports when she might have been one of two members present.

Councilman Mitzel believes committee members should add those items that they believe are important to the list. Further, he believes there is a weak link between the request and when it comes back.

Mayor McLallen believes it is typically the attorney’s responsibility to move items from Ordinance Review to Council. However, Council is not telling the attorney when they expect it back.

Councilwoman Mutch stated Mr. Watson attends the Ordinance Review meetings and Mr. Fried attends Council meetings. Consequently, Mr. Fried’s response is that Mr. Watson is working on that item.

Mayor McLallen moved on to "Coordination with staff and other deliberative bodies." The Mayor explained this item is asking Council about how they feel they are doing in their relationship with staff. The Mayor believes it is improving because of the number of times they have met with the different bodies.

Councilwoman Mutch appreciates joint meetings with the different bodies and believes audience participation would be more productive at the end of the meeting.

The Mayor concurred on the basis that they are not decision making meetings, but they are more of a fact finding meeting. Further, based on the City attorney’s opinion that all meetings have an audience participation and because it is an information program gathering meeting, she believes it would be appropriate to place the audience participation at the end of the meeting. However, the Mayor said they must make a distinction that meetings with the Library Board or Historical Commission are for fact finding and because time is limited, they hold them an hour before a regular meeting and place the audience participation at the end .

Councilman Mitzel believes if it is a "no decision" meeting, it may be appropriate. However, in those cases, the Mayor must be very conscious about allowing enough time to allow the public to speak.

Mayor McLallen moved on by reporting that Mr. Kriewall prepared a listing of priority issues and asked Council if they concur with it. The Mayor said the first item appears to be the number one priority, but the others are in no particular order. The only item Mayor McLallen took exception to is Item 6.

Mr. Klaver added that these items do not represent strictly the Manager’s priorities because a lot of them are bond issues or items initiated by Council. In other words, the list represents major issues that are already on the plate.

Councilman Mitzel believes the list is a good start. However, he believes they need to list out those items that were funded and already projected in the 1997-98 budget year. Further, the remainder are items that they want to work on and what they can include in the budget. Councilman Mitzel believes they are trying to get a consensus that they should include these work items in the budget right now so when they develop the budget, Council will already know what is included.

Mr. Klaver asked if Councilman Mitzel is looking for a summary format similar to what they did for the bond issues? Councilman Mitzel replied he is looking for something similar to the timeline Mr. Nowicki presented about the road bond issue that listed each project by fiscal year. Councilman Mitzel stated there is an overall Council consensus that the items on Mr. Kriewall’s list, on the park’s list and on the road list are things that Council agrees Administration should work on. Of these items, Councilman Mitzel reported Council voted to authorize a request for proposals for a feasibility study (financial, market and environmental) for the tree farm. They also discussed whether this was the right site for it and suggested considering alternatives if they decide a golf course is important. Further, Administration made a good case about the police bond issue and the voters did not approve it. Councilman Mitzel reported the police needs are still there and he believes it is imperative that Administration find ways to incremently finance those needs through the budget process or do small projects. He suggested that they may want to look at creative financing and cited the ATM proposal as an example. Councilman Mitzel advised he would agree to all the other items on the list. Further, he believes by Charter, Council is responsible for approving administration organization and he does not recall Council approving the Data Department in Item 9. In addition, Councilman Mitzel believes Council should formally set the goal for opening the ice arena in September. Councilman Mitzel believes this is the year that a lot of things Council has been working on will come to a head. Councilman Mitzel noted the Lake Property clean up item is missing, but they will address that in February. He also believes there will be many projects that will seek money from the State Revenue Sharing. He thinks that may require a special meeting and a list from Administration.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if this list will be their recommendation or will they prepare a list.

Councilman Kramer would like it to include Mr. Kriewall’s recommendation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not want anything excluded before it comes before Council.

Mr. Klaver suggested that they follow the same budget format and Administration will give Council the department’s shopping lists.

Councilman Mitzel said they should get the whole list and a cover page from Administration with their recommendations. Councilman Mitzel would like to see the lake property clean up included on the list.

Councilwoman Mutch believes there will be community input on this and asked what is the most effective way to include them.

Councilman Mitzel replied that the meeting will be public and the list will be a part of the packet.

Mayor McLallen said the biggest challenge Novi has is that it there is no universal access to a communication system; the Novi News, cable, the Free Press or the Oakland Press are not universal.

Council members discussed the budget process and how they should allocate these funds.

Mr. Klaver asked if the money should be spent on short term projects (i.e., aquatic facility).

Mayor ProTem Crawford said they could allocate some monies for studies.

Councilman Mitzel clarified that Council is looking at this as a possible funding source for short term needs.

Councilwoman Mutch stated they have made some commitments already by believing that they will get the money from somewhere and these funds would make it possible to accomplish those commitments. She suggested that they compile a short list of those items that are already committed and not ask for wish lists from the various departments.

Mayor McLallen stated they should complete this list no later than the second meeting in February.

Mr. Klaver asked if the Manager can make recommendations, but not solicit the departments. The Mayor agreed and added she believes they should consider the police situation and the Fuerst property.

Councilman Mitzel reported his list includes some things that are not on Mr. Kriewall’s list, but he thinks they would be if they did a full list of the road and park projects.

Mayor ProTem Crawford reminded Council about the closing of Grand River at the viaduct and they may need additional funds for signage.

Mayor McLallen reported she has not been able to contact Brent Bair at the Oakland County Road Commission about their maintenance schedule and the condition of county roads in Novi.

Mayor McLallen asked if Council can suggest any new city wide initiatives that will require funding.

Councilwoman Mutch suggested that there may be ways the City can better utilize cable.

Councilman Kramer asked if the maintenance of City property can be found anywhere in the regular budget process. Mr. Klaver replied it is not on the list. Mayor McLallen added they have talked about having trust funds to build up the maintenance fund.

Councilman Kramer believes they need to examine what the City owns and what maintenance is needed. Mr. Klaver reported that is on their agenda.

Mayor ProTem Crawford is concerned about the trash along the roadside and asked whom is responsible for its removal.

Councilman Clark suggested that they erect signs that state the road has been adopted by Novi residents and abandoned by Oakland County Road Commission.

Mayor McLallen said her major issue this year is to take on the Oakland County Road Commission.

Councilman Mitzel has seen signs in other communities that identify roads as a "county" or a "state" maintained road. He believes the roads reflect the community. Councilman Mitzel added that he believes the Twelve Mile landscape and the tree trimming program should be added to the funding list for consideration.

Mayor McLallen stated said she will address the issue of public clean up at the State of the City address to which homeowner association and civic club presidents have been invited. At that time, the Mayor will suggest a mass volunteer clean up project.

Councilman Kramer asked if there is a listing of available volunteer projects? Councilman Mitzel believes it would be a good idea to have a list available for those who would like to do a clean up project.

Mayor McLallen advised Administration is not in harmony with Council about Item 6 and asked if Council would like to discuss this. Various Council members replied that it is not definite that it will be an issue for the ballot. Mayor McLallen asked if Council would like to send a strong message back to Administration that Council has no interest in this issue and that they should pursue other avenues of funding.

Councilwoman Mutch replied that she believes Council sees the need, but this is not the way they want to address it.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if her list for funding consideration is accurate: Lakeshore property development, maintenance of municipal property, Twelve Mile landscaping, the tree trimming program, and communication initiatives in general. Another missing item is library expansion services. Councilwoman Mutch believes they should coordinate this with the library because at some point they will also be asking the voters for funding.

Councilman Mitzel said included on the list is the road bond with all the roads, the tree farm property is incorporated with all the parks, creation of a computer data department and the ice arena with a September goal date for opening.

Mayor McLallen stated one issue before Council is how to restructure the Community Development Department. Mayor McLallen asked if this is the time to address issues that are outside the budget, but would require funding. She further asked if this is the time to ask about the service available through the Michigan Municipal League or anyone else to evaluate the administrative structure and staff. Mayor McLallen personally believes they need to go outside to get an assessment.

Councilman Kramer asked if they are expecting to get anything from the 20/20 program in terms of citizen’s expectations?

Mayor McLallen replied that is a possibility. However, her concerns are about the growing work load. She reported although they added staff last year, there are some constraints in economic and community development and there are concerns in terms of who is in charge and who is reporting to whom.

Councilman Mitzel stated he has not been convinced that they have the most effective administrative organization. Although he does not claim to know what is the best, he also knows that it is part of Council’s responsibility to administer organization. Before they convince him that they should add more staff, he believes they should look at the big picture. He also agrees that they need an assessment.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes the idea of an outside organizational assessment has merit and is necessary to determine if more staff is necessary, to determine if they need to revise departments or create new ones. Councilman Crawford suggested they might use some of the windfall money to pay for it.

Mr. Klaver believes they may find this type of study to be a fairly comprehensive, somewhat lengthy and expensive. He suggested that they ask if another city has done something similar.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that the MML is currently offering it as one of their services.

Mrs. Bartholomew stated she has been a part of two studies and reported they worked well. She added Plante & Moran conducted one and a firm in New York conducted the other.

Mr. Klaver reminded Council about the study conducted by Public Administrative Services for the police department and believed the cost was approximately $20,000.

Mrs. Bartholomew said the studies took approximately four months. During the process, they met with each employee and reported their findings directly to Council. At the time, the city made the changes in stages and they did not make sense. However, once all the changes were in place, it was very beneficial.

Mayor ProTem Crawford stated the 20/20 program is a good process, but reminded Council that it could stop in the next month or so. Consequently, it could just be a general mission visioning statement.

Councilman Kramer asked if they were going to get feedback in terms of level of satisfaction with the various city services. Mayor ProTem Crawford replied that is possible, but that is not the direction of the 20/20.

Councilman Kramer asked if a city survey is a part of the 20/20. Mayor ProTem Crawford replied it is not.

In summary, Mayor McLallen stated they have made progress on refining the presentation process of the meetings and there is also a consensus to have joint meetings for major development issues.

There was Council consensus to discuss the allocation of the census money at the March 3, 1997 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes