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

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Ed Kriewall, Assistant City Manager Craig Klaver, City Attorney David Fried, Finance Director Les Gibson, Parks & Recreation Director Dan Davis, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

SWEARING IN OF FIRE FIGHTERS

Lisa A. Acker Paul Bischer Mark A. Bonadeo

Paul J. Candela Craig W. Coe Edith F. DeForge

Jeffrey D. Duneske Steven C. Florsheim Scott A. Rich

Daniel S. Schultz Todd D. Seog Robert J. Shoupe

Maria J. Skwarski Timothy P. Sullivan David C. Spannos

Wayne E. Wang (absent) Kerry L. Wood Robert R. Thomas

Chief Lenaghan introduced each fire fighter. The City Clerk swore in the new fire fighters.

Mayor McLallen thanked the members of the Police and Fire Departments, DPW, the water and sewer staff, the Building Department, the Parks and Recreation Department and especially the dispatchers for their service during the worst ice storm in ninety-four years.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Roger Jacob - 3935 Lakefront St., Waterford Twp., stated he is the property owner of the parcel on Novi at Erma Street. Mr. Jacob recently fought with the Planning Commission about the Erma Street vacation. He advised he was against the recent rezoning because he does not believe it was feasible for the area. Mr. Jacob advised that although he respects Council’s decision to change the zoning from commercial to residential, as a property owner, he is concerned about the effect it will have on his property value. Mr. Jacob would not want to live on a parcel next to a party store because of the truck traffic. Further, when they changed the zoning, the City Manager stated there was a possibility they would vacate Erma Street and it would be advantageous to him. Mr. Jacob said that was their only hope right now for separation. Mr. Jacob explained it would mean safety for anyone that might want to live on the parcel. He also understands there are other safety concerns that they could mitigate along with the closing of Erma Street. In conclusion, Mr. Jacob stated he supports the closing.

Lynn Bond - 290 Shamrock Hill, stated she opposes the Erma Street closing. Ms. Bond has lived on Shamrock Hill for thirteen years and explained that she often travels on Erma to the party store with her two children. However, if they close Erma Street, they must walk on Novi Road because there are no sidewalks. She agrees although there is now less traffic, it moves much faster and is unsafe for pedestrians. She also believes the truck traffic is an enforcement problem. Further, she is sorry that there is traffic in the subdivision, but the residents knew the party store was there when they purchased their homes. Ms. Bond reiterated her concerns about safety.

Joseph Mariniello - stated he was before Council at their last meeting when he represented the Golden Touch Massage Application. Mr. Mariniello stated he would like to clear something up about his letter. He advised that he met with Mr. Fried after the last meeting to determine what the procedure is for scheduling a rehearing and added there is nothing in the current massage ordinance to address that. Mr. Mariniello believes it is in his client’s and the City’s best interest to have a rehearing. Mr. Mariniello added they are now very aware of what the City’s concerns are regarding their application and the perceived deficiency in the application in which they sent. Mr. Mariniello hopes to resolve this by going back to his client and to the Police Department. However, in the interest of time and money, Mr. Mariniello asked if there is a rehearing procedure because he would like Council to consider setting this matter on their agenda within the next three weeks. He will then work with the Police Department in the next few days to try to resolve any issues they have. Mr. Mariniello invited Council members to contact him if they have any questions.

Glen Davis - 1988 Austin, spoke in favor of the Erma Street 120-day closing. He suggested that they install a pedestrian path for any hardship caused to the south end residents. He would like also like to see traffic reduced for safety reasons.

Debbie Koder - East Lake Drive, stated she is the treasurer for SES and has been asked to read a letter to Council from Bill Halvangis who was unable to attend the meeting. Ms. Koder read Mr. Halvangis’ letter about his concerns in terms of the Erma Street vacation. Mr. Halvangis believes the 120-day closing is valid and reasonable. In response to Mr. Robbins’ petition, Mr. Halvangis wrote there has never been a flood issue with the property. He further believes the closure of Erma would return much of the land to vegetation and will likely improve the drainage/erosion problems during rainy periods. He added consideration of the drainage issue and the walkway plan could even enhance the process of reduced erosion and improved water control. Regarding pedestrian safety, Mr. Halvangis wrote that a decision to provide a walkway clearly answers those concerns and also addresses Mr. Robbins’ concern about the children’s safety on North Austin. Mr. Halvangis explained if they reduce the number of streets on which traffic flows, the amount of opportunities for children and vehicles to come into contact would also decrease. Further, any traffic increase on Austin will likely involve Austin residents who are more likely to be sensitive to the safety of the children than the nonresident drive through traffic from the store. Mr. Halvangis said Mr. Robbins’ point about inconvenience to him personally caused by reduced access to the store undercuts his point about concern for children’s safety. Mr. Halvangis further wrote that with Erma closed, trucks and nonresident traffic will have no advantage in traveling on Austin in the first place. In terms of inconvenience, Mr. Halvangis wrote they will most inconvenience him because he will no longer be able to make a quick stop at the store and go directly home without going around the block. Mr. Halvangis considers this personal inconvenience a small price to pay for the reduction of the outside nonresident traffic that has little reason to be cautious or concerned about their neighborhood.

Mayor McLallen interjected, the three minutes are up and that Council has a copy of Mr. Halvangis’ correspondence.

In conclusion, Ms. Koder stated Mr. Halvangis disagrees with Mr. Robbins’ final point about the invalidity of SES. Mr. Halvangis is a member and he thinks SES has represented his views. Further, many of the signatures on the petition are not Austin residents and they are not affected by this decision as directly as he is.

An unidentified speaker stated she has been involved in ice sports for more than twenty eight years and that she would like to address Item 3, Approval of Resolution Approving Building Authority Contract for the City Council. The speaker believes the ice arena is a very important issue for the City. She also believes it is important for the revenue of Novi and it is something that the community needs.

An unidentified speaker opposes the Erma Street closure. He believes a simpler solution in terms of truck traffic would be to construct a sign, enforce it, and then look into closure. He believes a vast majority of the neighborhood opposes the closing, but they could not attend tonight’s meeting.

Mary McDermaid opposes the Erma Street closure. She reported there are ten separate residences on Austin Street. She then explained Shawood Heights is an entire subdivision that also includes Pleasant Cove, Crown and Shawood. For pedestrian safety reasons, Ms. McDermaid would agree to closing the road entirely and adding a walkway. She does not believe it will be any safer if the road is only blocked halfway.

An unidentified speaker is opposed to the Erma Street closing. She reported they tried it four years ago and it did not work. Further, she reported it was the only entrance to the subdivision during the recent ice storm for over twelve hours.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, opposes Items 1, 2 and 3 on the agenda because she has a problem with the City subsidizing private development again. Ms. Gray is supportive of the ice arena and knows it will make money. However, she has a problem that the ice arena is going to benefit a land locked developer. She believes if land locked developer’s want their property opened, they should pay for it. Ms. Gray also has a problem with using the mid-decade census money for a road for the ice arena. She has a problem with using the road bond money because the $2.5M was proposed for subdivision streets and this is not a subdivision street. In regard to Item 4, Ms. Gray is offended that some of the area residents have called her and SES a liar. She stated SES does represent some of the residents in the Shawood Walled Lake Heights Subdivision and reiterated that they supported the resident’s request to close Erma Street because they are concerned with health, safety and welfare as stated in their September 13 letter to Mr. Kriewall. Further, Ms. Gray stated she raised the safety issue on Novi Road and believes the speed limit should be reduced to 25 m.p.h. Ms. Gray also believes the City should consider reducing the speed limit on Thirteen Mile Road at Novi Road.

Jim Korte - Shawood Lake, referred Council to the packet he delivered and advised that he is speaking for himself. Mr. Korte reported that he discovered that six new points were added to the petition afterward. Mr. Korte did not realize there were problems with the rezoning and Mark Robbins, and he believes this is what the vendetta is all about. Mr. Korte believes a walkway will solve the everyone’s problem.

Mark Robbins - is opposed the Erma Street closing. Mr. Robbins explained their letter is not an addendum to the petition. He added that the petition signatures are from the residents, not the actual property owners. Mr. Robbins stated they are concerned about flooding, losing an entryway to and from the subdivision, and many other issues. Further, Mr. Robbins does not believe this is a City Council issue, but that it is a neighborhood issue. He believes the residents could have solved it if they had talked about it and then came before Council with a proposal. Mr. Robbins stated the City did not notify them properly. Mr. Robbins believes that the SES does not represent all the residents and they especially do not represent him. Mr. Robbins explained the issue is not between him and Mr. Korte, but that he would like the road to remain open because of its convenience and the number of residents who use it.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor McLallen would like to add Union Negotiations to Item 17 under Matters for Council Action - Part II to Schedule an Executive Session to follow the meeting for Property Acquisition.

Councilman Clark asked to rearrange the order of Items 1 and 3 to 3 and 1 under Matters for Council Action - Part I.

Mayor McLallen explained that since the decision for the Resolution for the Building Authority will affect Items 1 and 2, Councilman Clark is asking that they address Item 3 before Items 1 and 2 so that the order will be Item 3, Item 1 and then Item 2.

CM-97-03-080: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve main agenda as amended

Nay: None

CONSENT AGENDA

The Mayor advised that the City Manager requested that they remove Item 14 from the Consent Agenda. She further advised that there is a letter before them from the Fire Chief concerning the same issue.

CM-97-03-081: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve all items on the Consent Agenda except Item 14

CONSENT AGENDA

15. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 484

Nay: None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART I

Mr. Klaver understands Councilman Clark’s request to reorder the agenda. However, he reminded Council that they have clearly indicated to them that one assumption underlying the feasibility of the project is that the road that is necessary to service the project be provided by other funds. Mr. Klaver explained to the extent that decision could be possibly reconsidered, it would then have an impact on the project. For the benefit of the public, Mr. Klaver stated that the City has talked about wanting to move this project forward and it seems as if some decisions have been fairly recent. For example, they tabled this issue from Council’s last meeting. He would also like to point out that there has been a great deal of work performed by appointed citizens as far back as 1992. He further stated that this is not a proposal that sprung out of nowhere. Mr. Klaver would also like to commend the Community Clubs for their thorough job and the Building Authority for their diligent work. Mr. Klaver stated there was also discussion about the Plante & Moran report that inadvertently was left out of the packet which they distributed tonight. At this point, they have brought in all of the planners and the bond attorney will give a brief presentation. Mr. Klaver said after the presentation, they will be looking for further direction from Council.

Mayor McLallen stated the first paragraph of the Building Authority Contract Resolution says, "the need to acquire, construct, furnish and equip a two-surface ice arena, together with the site therefore and all necessary site parking, utility and road improvements and all appurtenances and attachments thereto." She explained what they want Council to be very clear on is that the road improvement in the $8.5M is not enough.

Mr. Klaver replied the total estimate of the road is $850,000 and it would be contingent upon providing other funding for the road. Further, Mr. Klaver believes it needs to be understood that a portion of the land acquisition cost does include the road. Originally, they scheduled the project to be on property that the City currently owned which did not require road improvements. However, in building the road they are covering part of the cost of acquiring the property because that was one negotiation factor that was part of the entire site acquisition.

Dennis Neiman of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C., stated the resolution before Council approves a Building Authority Contract lease between the City and the Novi Building Authority. Mr. Neiman explained the lease provides for the acquisition, construction, furnishings, equipment of a two-surface ice arena together with the site, necessary utility, parking, road improvements and all the pertinencies and attachments. Mr. Neiman reported the cost is $8.5M which includes hard and soft cost, capitalized interest for eleven months, engineering design and construction. The lease has been approved by the Building Authority at their March 3 meeting, but it is not a contract until it receives Council’s approval.

As Robert Shaw presented the architectural renderings of the elevations building materials of the ice arena, Dan Davis described the arena as a 77,000 square foot, two ice surface facility along with the appropriate amenities. The actual skating areas will be an NHL style rink that will accommodate regulation hockey, figure skating and open skating activities. Further, an office area, concessions, restroom facilities, and conference rooms will support the ice skating facilities. There are four conference rooms and one can be broken down similar to the Civic Center’s rooms and can accommodate 80-100 people. Mr. Davis reported the lower level contains eight changing rooms, a figure skating locker room area, a team room, a small concession area will be outside the locker room areas in addition to an area for ice skate rental. Further, there is a common space area that will be used when they clear the arena for ice resurfacing to accommodate those coming in without needing to go upstairs to the concession facility and having to remove their skates. In addition, there will be a support facility for maintenance to house the ice resurfacing equipment and compressor operations. Mr. Davis further advised that the facility sits on a fifteen-acre site that will be serviced by the road talked about previously and will cul de sac in from Novi Road. The parking area will accommodate 258 parking spaces with additional spaces for staff and handicapped accessible parking. Mr. Davis stated water, sanitary sewer, electric and gas will service the facility. They are currently working on their secondary access issue with the property owner to the immediate south. Mr. Davis advised that there is green space to the rear of the facility that is available for future expansion based on the success of the two facilities. Mr. Davis noted that they have submitted the plans to the Planning Department and they are looking to move it forward through preliminary site plan review pending Council’s approval. Mr. Davis added that the preliminary reviews indicate that they are meeting all of the City’s ordinances regarding height, setbacks and so forth. Further, they will not require that they go before the ZBA regarding any of the issues for the site and consequently, they will be in total compliance.

Mr. Shaw reported there is a slope to the site and they are building the structure into the hill to minimize its volume. In the front, there is a focal point brought out away from the flat face of the structure, and there is also glass and a stucco type appearance with a round sign above it. Mr. Shaw then noted there are two main entrances are on the sides and that the lower area surrounding the building is a split face or texture block. Further, there is an accent stripe that is also block around the structure’s perimeter. Mr. Shaw stated the side of the building drops off toward the rear so that the front part of the building looks much smaller than its rear. Mr. Shaw added that the rear is in the hillside and faces the railroad tracks. He then noted that there are some wetlands on the other side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Shaw stated the drawing for the side toward the south shows the articulation in the raised area that they have provided in the front. They have carved the back of the structure into the hillside and that is actually the arena level. The block is planned to be a tan color and the metal siding is different in color than most of the green tone metal siding used on the rest of the structure. Mr. Shaw stated the air-conditioning units and so forth are in a screened recessed area in the back of the building. In conclusion, they constructed the building from flat metal panels with a standing seam style and textured blocks below it.

Councilman Clark asked what amount of annual income would have to be generated to meet the bond payments. Mr. Neiman replied that a major part depends upon the interest rate. However, assuming an interest rate of 6½% which is considered high in today’s market, the debt service would be almost $700,000 net after operating expenses.

Councilman Clark said assuming the ice arena generated $700,000 a year after operating expenses, when would the bonds be paid off. Mr. Bendzinski replied they would pay them off in twenty-five years.

Councilman Clark asked if the Resolution provides under Paragraph 5 that if revenues from other sources are insufficient for any reason, that the City will be obligated to generate more taxes against each piece of taxable property in the community for the next twenty-five years to make up the shortfall. Mr. Neiman replied there were two ways to finance the project. One was on a revenue basis which would drive the costs up dramatically in terms of debt service. Mr. Neiman estimated the cost would have been $100,000-$150,000 above where it would be today. Mr. Bendzinski interjected, they would also have to increase the size of their financing because bond holders would require them to put up a bond reserve equal to 10% of the par amount of bonds being sold. In this case, they would want an $800,000 reserve for $8.5M. Further, they would have to covenant that their revenue stream would produce certain types of revenues to provide a coverage factor or what is more commonly known in business as profit. In the bond industry they call it coverage, which means if the debt service is $1.00, the revenue stream must show a budgeted amount of $1.10 or in this case $1.25 - $1.50. Therefore, the revenues would be higher, the bond issue size would be higher due to the fact it would be a revenue bond as opposed to a general obligation bond and the City would carry a higher interest rate.

Mr. Neiman added it could all have been done, but it would drive the amount that they would have to net dramatically higher. It is their understanding that Administration, Parks & Recreation and the Community Clubs are comfortable with the projections and that the $700,000 is attainable. Mr. Neiman reiterated that the 6½% is high and they purposely estimated it that way because if the market jumps, they do not want to have assumed an unreasonably low rate. In respect to Paragraph 5, Mr. Neiman reported that Councilman Clark is correct and it would most likely be a General Fund obligation.

Councilman Schmid commended Mr. Klaver for bringing forth some missing material. Councilman Schmid then noted they did not have an analysis and adaptation of the feasibility study dated March 17. He added that they also did not have the preliminary building design nor did they have the marketing and feasibility study. Consequently, Councilman Schmid feels more comfortable after reviewing the feasibility study that compares them with the Farmington Hills’ facility. Councilman Schmid wanted to make certain that the skaters could pay for the arena and not the taxpayers if it is not profitable.

Councilman Schmid noted that the construction cost for the arena is approximately $8M and asked what will the additional $500,000 be spent on. Mr. Bendzinski replied they have what they call "cost of issuance" which includes bond counsel, a financial advisor, a local attorney, ratings, official statement, bond discount, and printing and publishing which equates to $274,500. Mr. Neiman interjected, of which $170,000 is the bond discount or prepaid interest. Mr. Bendzinski stated they have eleven months capitalized interest at 6½% which is interest during the conception period and should the revenues not produce what they are expected to produce once the facility opens, it gives the City some comfort if they have revenues to meet that first interest payment. Mr. Neiman added they will pay interest from the day they receive the money and they are not going to have any revenues for a period of time during the lease period of construction. Consequently, they have assumed a small period of a few months to give them some start up time so that they are not cutting it tight.

CM-96-03-082: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Building Authority contract on behalf of the City

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel stated they are going to fund the roads separate from the bonds, yet the language of the Resolution still states that the road improvements are a part of the improvements. Mr. Neiman replied the facility does not work out of the roads. Therefore, when they prepared the notice of intent and the project itself, it is a general project description. Further, it is to the extent that if project costs come in lower and the interest costs become higher in terms of their reinvestment, they could theoretically cover a portion of the road improvements out of the bond issue.

Councilman Clark is not opposed to ice rinks, but believes the question before them is one of fiscal responsibility. Councilman Clark further believes they began addressing the ice arena as a need and he believes it is a want. Therefore, the City can want to have an ice rink, but he does not agree that it is something they absolutely need. Councilman Clark explained it is not a government function to provide everything for everyone at someone else’s expense. Further, Councilman Clark does not believe an ice arena is necessary for public health, safety and welfare. Councilman Clark stated they have already commented that the project would have to generate $700,000 per year after expenses to pay off the bonds in twenty-five years. Councilman Clark reminded Council that the documentation indicated that the ice rink industry average from 1995 for income generated after expenses was approximately $577,000. Councilman Clark stated this would mean there would be a shortfall of $123,000. Hopefully, Novi will do better, but assuming they only meet the industry average over the next twenty-five years, Councilman Clark is concerned that they will be asking the taxpayers to pay an additional $2.075M. Councilman Clark added that the feasibility study was completed by the management group that they will pay close to $100,000 per year to manage the project whether the taxpayers have to pick up the short fall or not. He realizes their job is to manage for a certain fee and they do not care where the money comes to pay their fee. Further, Page 10 of the Executive Summary, which is part of the feasibility study, projects $746,300 during 1997-98. Councilman Clark noted that amount is barely over what they would need and is also far in excess of what the industry average is. Councilman Clark believes the projected figures are excessively "rosy." He also believes if they are such great moneymaking projects, they could expect to find one in almost any community of any size and private enterprise would build them instead of government. Councilman Clark has some serious reservations that the project can pay for itself without direct subsidizing from Novi’s taxpayers for the next twenty-five years.

Councilwoman Mutch echoed comments in terms of the appreciation of the additional detailed information. Councilwoman Mutch found that the material was more than adequate to answer some of the questions that they had and was also somewhat reassuring. Councilwoman Mutch added that it also served to reinforce some concerns that she had that are so fundamental to the concept of the ice arena and the proposed structure of the relationship between the City, Community Clubs and Center Ice Management to require essentially going back to square one if she were to raise them in a way that she felt would really get to the heart of her concerns. She added that they put her in the position of having to say that there are people and previous councils who have worked on this for five years in good faith. Consequently, Councilwoman Mutch is willing to defer to their judgement and say that their answers to the questions are adequate. She does not see any reason to vote in a way that would bring a stop to this project at this point. Further, she believes that some of her concerns are things that they cannot easily answer. She suggested that they may be a matter of preference on her part and she does not believe her preferences should dictate whether this project moves forward or not. Councilwoman Mutch is prepared to vote for this project. Further, she wishes certain things had been done differently and is specifically concerned about the way Center Ice Management is involved in a relationship with the City and Community Clubs. However, she is not certain anything can be done about that. She is also concerned about the way they made a decision sometime ago to go about this project in a way that says, Center Ice Management and its partners who are the architects, designers and builders of the ice arena make most all the decisions. She understands that Community Clubs has some oversight, but overall most decision making is in the hands of Center Ice. Although she understands there is a cap in what they can spend, she believes they have a lot of flexibility in terms of where they can spend those dollars. She is concerned that they may sacrifice some of the quality they are assuming in some areas to the profit of Center Ice Management.

Mr. Neiman replied that he was not involved with the original draft of the contract and he understands that the contract will be with the Building Authority. It is also his understanding that the Building Authority will have substantial involvement in the approval of the final design and where the money will be spent. Mr. Neiman believes the Building Authority appointees have some experience and insight into this type of project. Further, their questions and concerns will serve to protect Novi as a community in terms of this process.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how has the role of the Community Clubs changed because the Building Authority was not originally involved in this project. Mr. Neiman replied that role has to be defined by Council. Mr. Neiman explained that the Building Authority will own the facility and will lease it to the City. However, the contractive lease stipulates that the City has the right to sublease to whomever they deem appropriate. Further, because the nature of the financing changed from private to public, that has not been addressed with any degree of definiteness. Mr. Neiman knows Mr. Shaw has been actively involved in assisting the Building Authority and Dan Davis with respect to analysis of the project. He also knows that other Community Club members have been involved as well. He added that the lease is flexible because he did not know what Council wanted to do about operations and subleasing to Center Ice Management. In reality, Mr. Neiman believes it is Council’s decision. Mr. Neiman explained they are leasing it to the City and they can sublease it to whom they think appropriate.

Mr. Klaver added that the City attorney is revising the agreement to reflect the addition of the Building Authority into the entire process. Mr. Klaver asked Council to recall that they created the Building Authority initially for the senior housing project. In that regard, Council also had the wisdom to create a Senior Housing Implementation Committee which was the core of the original citizen’s committee that looked at that. They structured it so that the Senior Housing Implementation Committee would serve as an advisory committee that would be involved in much of the work and make recommendations to the Building Authority in terms of what components at which they should look. Mr. Klaver stated they are looking at a similar relationship between the Community Clubs and the Building Authority, and it seems there is a high comfort level regarding that type of relationship. Mr. Klaver added that the Community Clubs would be involved in much of the day-to-day operations and suggested that they may even review the performance of Center Ice Management. However, they would be reporting on an advisory basis to the Building Authority on a periodic basis. The Building Authority would review annual budgets and reports on perhaps a quarterly basis, and make the final decisions.

Councilwoman Mutch remembers when they changed the financing mechanism they asked if the Building Authority would then have two big projects to address. She recalls that the answers were that they do not have to get involved in that because they are only the financing mechanism. Consequently, she assumed that the Community Clubs would act in a similar way. More important, she stated they appointed the members of Community Clubs to make certain they had a good cross section of people in the community who could deal with the types of issues surrounding the ice arena. Councilwoman Mutch reluctantly admits that she does not know who the members of the Building Authority are other than Larry Czekaj and Mr. Kriewall. She is concerned that they did not appoint these members with this in mind and now she understands that they could have a much more active role than what they originally envisioned.

Mayor McLallen asked if Council has the ultimate authority over all of this. Mr. Fried replied they do.

Councilman Kramer’s impression is that the Building Authority would be empowered to oversee construction for the facility, the Community Clubs would be the administration oversight group, and Center Ice Management would be the day-to-day managing expertise that would run the facility. Since his impression is correct, Councilman Kramer suggested that the roles be written and clarified. Mr. Klaver interjected, that is the agreement that the City’s attorney is revising.

Councilman Kramer believes the project’s overall demeanor changed over time, but he believes the City is in the position of assuming the financial risk of the facility to lower the cost and the risk. Councilman Kramer further believes the benefit is for the community and Council is expressing diligent concern. Councilman Kramer suggested that their concern is heightened because initially they believed Community Clubs could handle this and issue their own obligations. However, the reality is that the cost of doing business that way is excessive. Councilman Kramer believes they are constructing a parks and recreation facility that is well within the scope of City services. If it is not for health, safety and welfare, it is for health and welfare, and is in line with other park and recreation programs. Further, he believes it is their overall philosophy to have most of the parks and recreation programs paid for by the users and that is the intent expressed in the design of the ice arena program. Councilman Kramer further believes the report assumptions and reasons behind them were conservative. He added it is prudent that the people making the projections take that kind of an approach so the numbers will not look rosy. Councilman Kramer believes it is their obligation to paint a realistic, if not pessimistic view of what the world could look like. In addition, Council on behalf of the City, will be assuming a financial risk as discussed. More to the point, Councilman Kramer stated this has been years in the making and there is substantial support to provide the benefit for the City. Further, the program has been well studied and he believes there are controls in place to insure good oversight and operations. Consequently, Councilman Kramer is prepared to move forward.

Councilman Mitzel stated the industry average is based upon a one surface ice rink and that is why the revenue numbers are so much lower when compared with Novi’s proposed two ice rink. Mr. Shaw replied that the I.S.I.A. study was based upon an 1.4 average rink

surface so that the revenues as well as the expenses are depressed when compared to Novi.

Councilman Mitzel asked if it is correct to state that the Farmington Hills’ operation confirms Novi’s project in that there would be enough gross profit to cover the debt service. Mr. Shaw replied the point of assembling their analysis was to compare their proposed feasibility study and operations to the Farmington Hills’ experience.

Councilman Mitzel asked if this is a more reasonable comparison. Mr. Shaw replied it is.

Councilman Schmid will take the position that the experts know what they are talking about and he is pleased with the information provided in their packets. Consequently, he will vote for the project, although somewhat reluctantly. Councilman Schmid noted he was a member of the committee and he opposed Center Ice Management. Councilman Schmid believes it would have been better if the City handled it themselves.

Councilman Schmid asked if down time insurance is necessary if the facility burned to the ground. Mr. Neiman believes they should have business interruption insurance that would cover the debt service during the reconstruction period. He also would encourage the City to build up a debt service reserve and that they do so by retaining any excess earnings unless they want to use it for other recreation programs.

Mr. Klaver interjected, they have a budgeted insurance allowance for $75,000 which would include business interruption and casualty insurance.

Councilman Clark asked for clarification of Paragraph 4 in the Resolution Approving Building Authority Contract. Mr. Fried believes it should read statutory referendum "period." Mr. Neiman interjected, the statutory referendum period is forty-five days.

Councilman Clark has some serious concerns about the facility being able to pay for itself.

Twenty-seven years ago, Mayor McLallen stated a group of citizens believed that less than 5,000 people could create a viable city out of thirty-six square miles with few paved roads, a lot of mud and no major resources. Now they have proved those people right many times over. The City of Novi is an exemplary city with a net worth of more than $2 Billion SEV. The Mayor added that they support the City on one of the lowest tax burdens in the metropolitan area and the City has a history of being financially frugal. She reminded Council that during the project’s five year period, it has been continually refined and has reaffirmed the citizen commitment and input into creating a valuable asset. The Mayor believes this is an asset for every citizen in the community. Further, it is something they point to that they collectively created and that they collectively own. Consequently, they are collectively responsible for it. Mayor McLallen believes the City’s history proves that they can be responsible and added that there is nothing in life that is without risk. However, they have looked at this risk from every angle and it is time to vote.

Nay: None

Mr. Klaver stated Council first indicated in late January that they would like Administration to come back with recommendations. Consequently, they solicited the department heads and have a fairly lengthy list of suggestions about how they would like to see the funding allocated. Mr. Klaver noted that the list before Council is their final recommendation and they are: Ice Arena Road Construction for $425,000, Parks and Recreation Fund for $125,000, Lakeshore Property Clean up for $75,000 and Police Department Building Improvements (ADA) for $175,000. Mr. Klaver concluded by stating that the total is $800,000 and would allocate the entire amount of the revenue sharing.

Les Gibson reported of the $800,000, they have received a check for $500,000. However, the remaining $300,000 has to be budgeted by the state. To this point, the Governor has put eleven cents to the dollar in his budget. Mr. Gibson noted that they began the same way last year and Novi ended up receiving the full reimbursement for all of the additional population, but it was six months late.

Mr. Klaver noted it would take several months to align the expenditures, by which point in time he would presume they would be more comfortable with the exact amount.

Councilman Schmid thought Administration would only come back with a recommendation of either $800,000 or half of that for the roads for the ice arena. He did not realize that they would add Parks and Recreation, Lakeshore Property Clean up and the Police Department Improvements. Councilman Schmid is willing to vote on the $425,000, but does not want to commit to the others this evening.

Mr. Kriewall stated as an alternative, Council could appropriate only the money they have which would be $425,000 for roads and $75,000 for the Lakeshore Property Clean up. They could then conceptually move ahead with the police station estimates of cost and go out to bid for the Parks & Recreation fund. However, he recommended that they amend the budget to reflect the $500,000 that they already have.

Councilman Kramer asked what is the difference between allocation and spending is. He thinks they are declaring an intention to spend monies in these areas. Except for the roads, he would anticipate that this is not a commitment to spend the other money. He believes they would have to come back with the detail for approval. Councilman Kramer stated during their Parks & Recreation joint meeting they indicated that they needed to provide some support facilities for the Sports Park to preserve the sodding and seeding, and provide restrooms for the users. Councilman Kramer asked if they could earmark money for the Sports Park because he believes it is a more pressing need. Mr. Kriewall replied they will be presenting a budget to Council in a few weeks and they can discuss that issue then.

CM-97-03-083: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION FAILED: To approve Budget Amendment #97-14 in the amount of $800,00 based on the utilization of State Shared Revenues which are being realized from the Mid Decade Census Fund

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the intent is to use the first $500,000, which they already have, for the road construction and the Lakeshore Property Clean up. Councilman Clark said that is correct. Further, Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if and when they get the remaining $300,000, would they then allocate that to the Parks and Recreation Fund, and the Police Department. Councilman Clark said that is correct.

Councilman Mitzel would support the motion, but reminded Council that the Lakeshore Property Clean up is currently out for bids as per Council action.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they already have that money in hand. Councilman Mitzel replied that they do not have the money. Councilwoman Mutch asked if they went out for bids with the expectation that the money would come in later. Councilman Mitzel replied that is correct.

Councilwoman Mutch stated she would have supported the motion if it had been to amend the budget so that they could allocate $425,000. However, she is concerned about giving a blanket approval for the allocation knowing that it cannot be spent without coming back before Council with detail. Therefore, it is earmarked for things that they have no detail on and she does not want to support that.

Councilman Schmid totally supports spending the money for the road, but they should not have included the other items at this time. Consequently, Councilman Schmid will not support the motion.

Councilman Kramer believes that rejecting the motion may be prudent. However, he would approve the $425,000 for the road. He suggested that they consider the other requests during the budget process.

Mayor McLallen shares Councilwoman Mutch’s concerns about the Parks & Recreation request. The Mayor explained she would be willing to support a motion that would include the roads and bathroom facilities for the Sports Park

Nay: McLallen, Kramer, Mutch, Schmid

CM-97-03-084: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Budget Amendment #97-14 with the allocation of $425,000 of the $500,000 Mid Decade Census revenues collected to date to the ice arena road construction

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel stated the budget amendments have to balance and asked that the other $75,000 be placed in a contingency.

Councilman Clark and Mayor ProTem Crawford accepted the amendment.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if holding the other $75,000 in a contingency is necessary. Mr. Gibson replied that it does not matter.

Mr. Klaver stated Council adopts this plan by Resolution each year. Therefore, they are bringing this back in recognition of the tentative commitment Council made to share the cost of this road project from the mid decade census and the road fund. Mr. Klaver added that Mr. Nowicki included the cost of that project in the schedule before Council and that it will be necessary to reprioritize some of those later years. However, Mr. Klaver reiterated that Council goes through this process each year and they will be doing so shortly. Further, Mr. Klaver added Council will need to decide in the next couple of years regarding the project that they will contain in the end of that six-year program.

Councilman Kramer said although this is an appropriate use of the road funds, he would like Council to consider the suggestion that they consider this expenditure as a loan from the road fund.

Mr. Fried believes Council should first consider the motion before them. He then suggested that Council address Councilman Kramer’s suggestion in another motion. Mr. Fried believes it is a reasonable request as long as they do not include any dates in terms of when they should repay it.

Councilman Schmid believes Councilman Kramer’s suggestion has merit. However, he was ready to make a motion to approve the resolution as presented. Councilman Schmid explained he is prepared to do this because the road program is reviewed yearly and they can make adjustments as they go along. Although he does not disagree that the ice arena should pay the road fund back, he thinks they can still justify using this money for the road. Further, he would rather see any revenue received in addition to paying the debt service placed into a fund to protect itself in the future.

CM-97-03-085: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Resolution to revise the 6 Year Road Program to show an expenditure in the amount of $450,000 for the construction of the ice arena road

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch referred to the last page of the Preliminary Project Cost Estimate - Ice Arena Access Road and asked if it also includes the cost to construct sidewalks from Novi Road to the ice arena. Mr. Kriewall replied it does.

Councilwoman Mutch would like some consideration for sidewalk or bikepath access from Ten Mile and for access from the residential neighborhoods at the eastern portion of the property. Mr. Kriewall believes it would be better to incorporate that with future development plans. Mr. Kriewall noted there is a large wetland and a stream located north and east of the arena. He believes they can accomplish it, but it may be expensive.

Nay: None

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel recalled that the agreement approved last year between Community Clubs, Center Ice and the City include guidelines of what uses are allowable for the excess funds. Councilman Mitzel believes it included reinvestment into the community for recreational type activities and such. Councilman Mitzel believes they want to add consideration for the roadways.

Mayor McLallen stated Councilman Kramer has done that in the form of a motion.

Councilwoman Mutch believes because of the changing roles of the Community Clubs and so forth she suggested that they not direct this to whomever controls the spending. Mr. Klaver suggested that they include the Building Authority.

Councilmen Kramer and Crawford agree to include the Building Authority in the motion.

Nay: None

4. Reconsideration of the Temporary 120 Day Closure of Erma Street

Councilman Mitzel asked that this item be reconsidered based upon the resident input from their last meeting. In speaking with Mr. Fried about the process they need to follow to proceed, Councilman Mitzel believes he would make a motion to reconsider the closing. If they second and approve it, then the motion that they approved on February 24 would be back on the table for readoption, amendment or voting down. If Council does not wish to reconsider the motion and votes down the motion to reconsider, then the February 24 motion stands and they move on to the next item.

CM-97-03-087: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To reconsider CM-97-02-062

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch stated one issue was about whether it was necessary to close the street for the full 120-days in order to get enough information to decide whether the closing should be permanent. She asked why should they bother opening it, if there is nothing more to be learned.

CM-97-03-088: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED: To initiate a trial closure period of 120 days including the maintenance of an easement for a pedestrian traffic for the access to the market. The City’s Administration will monitor pedestrian traffic and report back to Council at the end of the trial period. (Also reference CM-97-02-062)

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen asked if the time frame is significant and can the information be garnered sooner. Mr. Arroyo believes 90-120 days is appropriate. He believes anything less than 90-days would not allow enough time for things to adjust and get a full understanding of what impact that improvement would have. Consequently, he believes 90-days would be the minimum.

Councilwoman Mutch would support the motion if it were amended to 90-days and moved to amend the motion as such.

Mayor McLallen stated the motion dies of lack of support.

Councilman Kramer stated although 120-days originally seemed long to him, he believes they need more time for the weather to improve so they can see the impact it will have on pedestrian traffic. Mr. Arroyo added that they have to do some work to prepare the road for closing first. Consequently, he does not see the closure taking place before April and it will be well into July before the 90-days will be up.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if the road can be closed in such a manner to leave a pedestrian right of way. Mr. Arroyo recalled that was to take place and there would be pedestrian access from Austin to the market wherever appropriate.

Councilman Schmid believes this is a neighborhood dispute. Councilman Schmid recalls that he made the statement that he would be more comfortable if they had a trial period of trying to enforce no through traffic of commercial vehicles by placing a sign and enforcement. The more arguments Councilman Schmid hears, the more he thinks they should keep it open in terms of safety and access. Consequently, he will not support the motion. He would prefer that they keep the road open for 120-days and try to discourage those things that upset the citizens.

Councilman Kramer believes they could try the signs, but thinks enforcement may not be realistic. However, he believes signs and enforcement may work for 90-days. They could then come back to see whether they should take step two and close the road for a time period. Councilman Kramer believes a sign is less traumatic, would promote community unity, and provide an overall assessment about what is the right thing to do.

Councilwoman Mutch agrees that this might be a neighborhood problem that may have more of a neighborhood-based resolution than what has come forward so far. She thinks they should be reminded that the legal descriptions of subdivisions do not define neighborhoods. One thing they have been striving for in more recently subdivided areas of the City is to develop some sense of neighborhood and linkage between subdivisions. She believes the Erma Street neighborhood is indisputably a neighborhood whether they live in the same legal subdivision or not.

CM-97-03-089: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED: To amend the main motion by changing the 120-day closure to 90 days with a pedestrian access. Further, the closure will not take place until April 15, they will install appropriate signage and they conduct appropriate enforcement during the trial period

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if they vacate Erma, would the City be able to retain ownership of a portion as opposed to an easement for pedestrian access. Mr. Fried replied they could.

The Mayor announced there is Council consensus to take a five minute break.

BREAK - 10:12 - 10:19 P.M.

5. Approval of Final Plat - Delfino Estates Subdivision, SP 95-06K - Property located south of Nine Mile Road, west of Taft Road

CM-97-03-090: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant final plat approval for Delfino Estates Subdivision, SP 95-06K subject to the City staff and consultants’ recommendations

6. Approval of Final Plat - Willowbrook Farm Subdivision, SP 95-02K - Property located north of Ten Mile Road, between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads

Mayor McLallen asked if the applicant resolved the title insurance issue. Mr. Kahm replied they have provided both policies. One was a plat policy and the other was a policy for the road over the one platted lot. However, Mr. Kahm advised Mr. Watson informed him that the endorsement had to be amended and he gave it to the title company today. Mr. Kahm requests that the Clerk be instructed to sign the final plat subject to the endorsement. Mr. Fried interjected, the Clerk should not sign the plat until they approve the title amendment.

Councilman Schmid asked if they plan to plant trees on the western border. Mr. Kahm said it is included in their landscape plan. Mr. Pargoff agreed.

James Chen of Evergreen III gave Council a brief history of the Main Street project and added that they are going to deliver exactly what they promised for a downtown in Novi. Mr. Chen reported they are ready to proceed with Buildings 200 and 300, and the Main Street Court. Mr. Chen pointed to the appropriate areas on his rendering and described the project. Mr. Chen realizes they have received a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission, but he believes there was a miscommunication on his part. Mr. Chen explained one issue was about the wetland. He stated there will be some building over the wetland area, but it does not mean they will be in the wetland area. He explained there will be a second floor balcony type of structure. Secondly, Mr. Chen stated they were concerned about the set back on the south face. Mr. Chen explained they will include the ten-foot set back dimension on the drawing for final site plan approval. However, they request to let the vehicle bumper right at the edge of the ten-foot set back so that a vehicle can allow for 2½ feet of overhang. Lastly, they included the sidewalk along Main Street as a small portion in the calculation for the open space. Mr. Chen believes this project is ready to move. Further, if Council were to ask the owner of Vic’s, he would say they are moving too slow because he needs a neighbor. Mr. Chen is hoping that Buildings 200, 300, 500 and 700 are completed within two years. Mr. Chen is asking for preliminary site plan approval because he is trying to get some of the building finished by the end of the year for their tenants.

Councilman Schmid asked what portion of this project will they complete the parking and landscaping. Mr. Chen replied a phasing plan is included and clearly identifies the area that they will complete this year. Mr. Chen pointed to areas on the renderings.

Mr. Rogers concurs with Mr. Chen in terms of meeting the shared parking requirement formula. He added they are exceeding the requirements in the front. Further, Mr. Rogers stated there will be a demonstration after the first few buildings are complete to see if the parking is sufficient. Mr. Rogers stated they need all the area they show, but they have also provided the interior green space for an urban setting.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers to comment on the Planning Commission’s concerns. Mr. Roger’s replied that the balcony cantilevers about five to eight feet into the buffer area.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Rogers to address the parking on the south side of the pond. Mr. Rogers pointed to a ten-foot encroachment and then pointed to another five-feet along another edge. Mr. Rogers stated they satisfy him and Ms. Tepatti with this.

Councilman Schmid is supportive of the plan and believes the facades are excellent.

CM-97-03-092: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Preliminary Site Plan, Phasing Plan and Wetland Permit approval for Main Street Novi, SP 95-53C subject to staff and consultants’ recommendations

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Arroyo to address the concerns about access on Sixth Gate Road. Mr. Arroyo believes the Market Street/Main Street road network can support the development project. He added this is particularly true for the first few phases. Mr. Arroyo reported the Sixth Gate access is an issue in terms of outbound traffic and their recommendation is if they construct it with access to Sixth Gate Road as a gravel road that it is inbound only at the approach where the Main Street development accesses Sixth Gate. Further, it may be eventually necessary for the Sixth Gate/Grand River intersection to be right turns in and right turns out only. Mr. Arroyo added if there were no restrictions at all on Sixth Gate, there would be high volumes eventually on that roadway and if they did not pave it, it could pose some problems. That is why they have identified some concerns and are recommending that there be some things done to minimize traffic on that road.

Councilman Mitzel asked if Paul Bunyan Drive currently connects to Sixth Gate. Mr. Arroyo does not believe it does now. Councilman Mitzel asked if they vacated it. Councilman Mitzel’s question was left unanswered. Councilman Mitzel is concerned in terms of their goal to have a quality development, yet one of the main access points is a gravel path.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what are the long range goals for the gravel road. Mr. Kriewall believes as the project develops and builds out toward Novi Road, the option may be to vacate or close that street. Mr. Kriewall explained there is no point in blocking that road off right now until the traffic volumes build to a point that they may want to close it.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if there are plans to pave it. Mr. Kriewall said no.

Councilwoman Mutch stated she is especially concerned about the largest expansive parking situated in the south. She realizes it is at the back side of the buildings on the south side of Main Street, but it does connect to the building facing Novi Road. Councilwoman Mutch explained that there does not seem to be a pedestrian connection between the building on Novi Road and the rest of Main Street. She believes there should be something that would encourage people to take advantage of the rest of the site.

Mr. Chen replied there is underground parking for Buildings 200 and 300. He explained eventually Buildings 200, 300, 500, 600, 700 and 800 will all have underground parking. Mr. Chen stated they need the underground parking for the upper office tenants. In response to Councilwoman Mutch’s question, Mr. Chen stated they are working with Linda Lemke who has some very good ideas about how they can improve Main Street Court.

Councilwoman Mutch remembers the discussion that began before Vic’s was even constructed centered around how can they encourage pedestrian traffic. She recalls one suggestion was rather than have actual sidewalks was to have walkways indicated by either brick pavers or another design element that would encourage pedestrian traffic between buildings and in the parking areas. Mr. Chen replied they plan to show that on the final site plan. Mr. Chen then displayed and described the pedestrian plan. Mr. Chen added that they realize that the pedestrian walk is important and according to their plans, it does not matter where patrons park. He explained their goal is to provide accessability from the second floor throughout the complex without walking outside and still retain a main street look.

Councilman Schmid asked if there will be any fences. Mr. Chen replied there are no fences in the plans except for the existing wire fence between the industrial on the south.

Councilman Mitzel asked at what point in the approval process does the pedestrian route have to be developed within the developed parking. Mr. Rogers replied the route for Phase I that leads toward Grand River is part of the site improvements, and will be shown on the final site plan. Further, security will be required to make sure they construct it.

Councilman Mitzel further asked if it is acceptable for the developer to still be making revisions at this point. Mr. Rogers replied Council is approving the overall preliminary site plan and phasing plan. Mr. Rogers explained that the next step will be for Mr. Chen to submit the Phase I final site plan with all the parking lot improvements, sidewalks and trees. Mr. Rogers added the Phase I final site plan will be the plan for which he will be bonding.

Councilman Mitzel stated then including all of the pedestrian linkages is not critical. Mr. Rogers replied there will still be some adjustments made.

Councilman Mitzel will be expecting a final site plan that is very well landscaped with sensible linkages similar to what they required for Vic’s Market. Mr. Chen replied they will submit the landscaping plan for the entire project the next time they come before Council.

Councilman Mitzel added that he realizes Sixth Gate Road is beyond their property line, but he thinks it would make a lot of sense to make improvements or make a pedestrian connection to Grand River to help the project function. Mr. Chen is willing to discuss this further with the City.

8. Approval of Front Yard Utility Waiver - Bristol Corners West Subdivision Number 1, SP95-17 - Property located west of West Road, south of Pontiac Trail

Arnold Serlin stated he is with the Novi Group and they are the developers of Bristol Corners. Mr. Serlin reported they have worked diligently since November to accommodate the ordinance requirements for the location of Edison transformers in rear yards. Mr. Serlin explained there are twenty transformers in the first phase and twelve of them have been located in the rear yards as required by the ordinance. Mr. Serlin stated eight of them have been located in the front yards; two of which they granted an administrative variance because of woodland considerations. Mr. Serlin advised that the other six have extenuating circumstances. On behalf of Edison, who was unable to attend tonight’s meeting because of the ice storm, Mr. Serlin reported they are asking that the developer place the remaining six transformers in the front yards. Mr. Serlin explained the walk out grades on some of the lots are more than 12% and the concern is accessing transformers with vehicles. Mr. Serlin added this hardship is not only during construction, but may occur in the future and the disruption would cause a significant hardship. In addition, Mr. Serlin stated another hardship involves two transformers that would encroach on the rear yards of lots along the north property line. Mr. Serlin explained there is a tree line that is separated from the actual development by a snow fence for tree protection purposes. Outside the snow fence and on the lot there is a requirement for a rear yard storm drainage. The rear yard storm drainage would then occur outside the fence line and would put the drainage about twenty-five feet from the property line. To place the Edison transformers along the rear yards, it would require the placement of the transformer and lines approximately thirty feet into the lot. They believe it is an unreasonable encroachment on the lot and unsafe. It is Mr. Serlin’s opinion that most residents would not realize that Edison may have encroached thirty feet into their yard and may construct something that could cause a disruption.

Councilman Clark would like to add an additional condition. He stated the proposal is to allow six transformers in the front yards as indicated and the recommendation is that approval is subject to the developer providing sufficient landscaping to screen the transformers while retaining necessary access. He would propose that they add to the motion, "and a provision that if Detroit Edison in the future during maintenance damages landscaping it will be replaced with like kind, quality and size."

CM-97-03-093: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To grant the variance requested for Bristol Corners West Subdivision No. 1, SP 95-17 subject to the developer providing sufficient landscaping to screen from view the transformers to the extent possible while retaining access. Further, if Edison damages landscaping, it is to be restored with like kind, quality and size

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked who are they holding responsible for the replacement of the landscaping. Councilman Clark replied the responsibility would lie with Edison.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they have the authority to do that. Mr. Fried replied it is difficult in that Edison is not a part of this process. Mr. Fried believes they can condition the approval in that matter with the consent of Edison to do that.

Councilman Clark asked what would happen if Council approves it tonight. Mr. Fried replied it would require the developer getting the consent of Edison and if they do not, they do not approve it.

Mr. Serlin noted that Mr. Pargoff had indicated that the front yard transformers require the developer to provide a bond to insure that the proper screening will occur. Mr. Serlin added that it does not fall to the homeowner or Edison, but it is the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Serlin understands that the transformer’s doors face the lot as opposed to the street and consequently, the landscaping occurs on the street side. Further, because access is from the lot side, landscaping damage would be minimal. Mr. Serlin believes he can arrange with Mr. Pargoff to keep the bond in place to secure the knowledge that they will stand behind their commitment.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how will they enforce it when the developer is no longer involved. Mr. Fried reiterated that it should be conditioned upon Edison entering into an agreement with the City to maintain the landscaping if they damage it.

Councilman Schmid is opposed to front yard transformers. Further, the City clearly has an ordinance that states the transformers will be in the back yard. Councilman Schmid stated unless the developer can provide a severe hardship or wetlands/woodlands intrusion, they belong in the rear.

Mr. Pargoff stated they are basically opposed to placing five of the eight boxes in the front yards as requested in Zeimet/Wozniak’s letter dated February 26 because they believe Edison can feed those boxes. Mr. Pargoff explained there is no impact along the rear of the boxes between 24 and 25 because they have already removed the trees. Mr. Pargoff believes Edison could put the box between Lots 27 and 28 because they have done this before in Novi. Mr. Pargoff explained they could put the transformer in the back and loop back up to the front. Mr. Pargoff stated the critical area that they object to is between Lots 55 and 56, Lots 59 and 60, and Lots 62 and 63. Mr. Pargoff explained when they put in these three boxes, it almost mandates that Phase II will have front yard utility boxes also. Further, to put rear yards in Phase II, they have already fed these boxes from the front rather than going into the backyard which is what the City is proposing.

Councilman Schmid urged Council to consider this closely, especially with the Phase II project and decline the developer’s variance request for the five transformers that Mr. Pargoff described. Further, Councilman Schmid believes Council should continue to encourage rear yard boxes.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if there are any safety issues with the two on the top and running underground wires between lots or along the side of the houses. Mr. Pargoff is not sure. However, Mr. Pargoff added that the issue is that Edison has fed the line into the back along the side lot line in the past. He further advised that Edison already plans to do this in Arden Glens. Mr. Pargoff believes the lines will be planted 4-5 feet deep.

Councilman Kramer asked if the grade issue applies to any of the five lots. Mr. Pargoff replied that it does not appear to apply. Mr. Serlin interjected, there is a steep grade on Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Edison will have a difficult time maneuvering a two-ton truck on this grade. Mr. Serlin added they are very sensitive to the streetscape and they design every lot to have a side garage. He advised Edison’s easement would be at the edge of the driveway and would move from three feet to several feet onto the next lot. Mr. Serlin stated the front grading to the rear of the house is seven feet and continues to fall off to the drainage swale which ordinance requires. Consequently, these lots could have a grade problem, and if the ground is wet and sodded trucks may have a difficult time negotiating the grade.

Councilman Schmid noted that the developer does not know if there is a safety issue. He also does not blame Edison for not wanting to put the boxes in the rear because of the additional cost. Further, a 12% grade for a 300-foot lot is not steep. He urged Council to support the City’s ordinances and the consultants’ recommendations.

Nay: Crawford, Kramer, Schmid

9. Approval of One Step/Two Step Liquor License Transfer from Novi Ventures (One Step) to Meilin, Inc. (Second Step)

Alphonse Tabaka representing Meilin, Inc. stated they had hoped to have the updated fire compression system completed before tonight’s meeting. However, he advised that they should install it by the end of the week.

Susana Chang introduced herself and her husband Kelly, and gave a history of their experience and background.

Mr. Frey stated the applicant’s documentation is in order.

The Mayor stated their only concern is the Fire Department’s concern with the kitchen equipment under repair. Mr. Tabaka believes that will be resolved this week.

Mayor McLallen asked if there are any concerns about the license staying with the existing site. Mr. Fried replied that he has no concerns.

Nay: Schmid

Councilman Clark would like to move to approve the transfer of the Resort Class C Liquor License from Novi Ventures, Inc. to Meilin, Inc. subject to the safety violations being corrected to the satisfaction of the Building and Fire Departments before any certificate of occupancy is issued.

Mr. Fried suggested that the motion should only approve the transfer and the other will take care of itself.

CM-97-03-095: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To approve the transfer of the Resort Class C Liquor License from Novi Ventures, Inc. to Meilin, Inc.

Councilwoman Mutch asked when does the applicant anticipate opening. Mr. Chang replied they will open in approximately two weeks.

Councilman Schmid does not support the motion because of the lack of consistency in the ordinance.

Nay: Schmid

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

James Korte - thanked Council for the action taken for Erma. Although they accomplished it in an inordinate amount of time, he believes they are making progress slowly. Mr. Korte would like to direct his comments to Councilman Schmid in terms of signage. He explained he has tried to have signage erected to restrict commercial traffic and has been denied. Mr. Korte then explained the frustration he has experienced with his attempts to have "No Parking" signage put back on the streets over the last sixteen months.

Bob Shaw - thanked Council for their support for the ice arena project. Mr. Shaw also commended Council for their willingness to review the massive amount of documentation involved. Mr. Shaw explained that the "Mom & Tot" program is similar to public skating. Consequently, they will not pay $102.00 to skate. He believes they will charge $3.00-$4.00 for a parent and a child to skate together. He explained the $102.00 is how much revenue they expect to generate during that one hour time period from the $3.00-$4.00 fees. In regard to the 10% usage, Mr. Shaw said that is working in the City’s favor. He explained that they did not want to over estimate how much ice time they would sell, but under estimate how much ice time they would sell. Consequently, when they say they are projecting 10% sales during the day, it is actually a very low number. He added they expect to go beyond that, but they did not want to guarantee it. He explained they will be working to sell that through the Mom & Tot skate or pick up hockey. Mr. Shaw stated the $743,000 net figure in the feasibility study is only the first year project. He explained after they are able to boost their sales through developing programs, they expect the numbers to increase. Mr. Shaw noted on Page 10, that they are projecting a net operating income of $978,000 in year two and $1.2M in year three. Mr. Shaw said they have not been trying to prove those numbers; they know they will happen. They wanted to be sure if they can make it the first year, they can make it in subsequent years because they know sales will increase as the program increases. In terms of the $92,000 management fee to Center Ice, Mr. Shaw reported that Center Ice has a management contract that includes that they provide the arena manager and all the benefits for the manager. Mr. Shaw said the Farmington Hills salary and benefits for their manager is $78,000, so there is only approximately $14,000 left in profit for Center Ice to manage the rink. In regard to Community Clubs, Mr. Shaw advised that they have expressed the direction they are going in management with the Building Authority to Community Clubs and will bring them up to date. Mr. Shaw explained no one is upset that they have usurped some of their duties. Most are interested in the programming aspects, and providing hockey associations and figure skating. Consequently, they are not concerned about being involved with the architectural details. However, the Buildings & Grounds Committee from Community Clubs will continue to provide support. Mr. Shaw wanted to clear up these issues about the rink.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Shaw to guesstimate what Center Ice will make on the construction costs. Mr. Shaw replied Center Ice has the development task.

Councilman Schmid asked what the profit might be. Mr. Shaw replied Center Ice is serving as the developer and acting as the owner’s agent in many cases. In addition, they are serving in a construction management role. However, they will pay most of the construction management fees to Rudolph Libbey as opposed to Center Ice. Mr. Shaw believes they will be making some money, but he would say it is more of creating a job for themselves than making profit.

BREAK - None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART II

Mayor McLallen noted that Council is aware that this site is potentially scheduled to be a joint park/school site.

CM-97-03-096: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED: To approve Zoning Map Amendment 18.596 for City-initiated rezoning from I-1 and I-2 Districts to R-1 District

Councilman Mitzel does not understand why the City initiated this rezoning when they are currently going through the process of amending the I-1 District to allow parks as a use. Further, this is another City-initiated rezoning that he does not believe ever came before Council to see if they would want to proceed with the expense of initiating the rezoning. Councilman Mitzel is concerned about changing a zoning that already allows parks and will permit a General Industrial District to directly abut a Residential District. He explained it appears that there are now a few uses that they will not allow in the I-2 District because it will abut residential, although it was master planned for industrial in that area. He believes they can accomplish park land use through text amendments, which is Item 11 on the agenda. Consequently, he will not support the motion.

Councilman Schmid asked if there is any consideration that the building facade be different on a recreational facility as opposed to an industrial building in an I-1 District. Mr. Rogers replied, there is not.

Councilman Schmid asked if there is a need for a change. He is concerned there could be some uses that will be in an area that will not be seen, but there could be buildings abutting residential constructed of block and metal. Mr. Rogers replied there are two types of variations. He explained if the ice arena were in an I-1 District and within 300-feet of a major thoroughfare, certain upgrade standards take effect. Secondly, if a parcel were developed adjacent to residential, the maximum height is twenty-five feet. On an averaging basis, the ice arena would comply. Mr. Rogers believes it is something to consider, but he did not think of it before now.

CM-97-03-097: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark: MOTION CARRIED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt second reading of draft Ordinance 97-18

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel stated Council previously discussed immediate application of this ordinance because of the time schedule for the ice arena and asked that they add this to the motion. Mayor ProTem Crawford and Councilman Clark agreed.

Nay: None

Councilman Schmid noted they are beyond the time for their meeting. Councilman Mitzel stated they would only affect the adjournment if they do not have items for action remaining on the agenda.

Mayor McLallen stated Items 12-15 are matters to bring the City’s ordinances into compliance with State Law. Mr. Fried agreed.

15. Approval of Proposed Ordinance Amendment No. 97-37.17 to include notice and appeal provisions to those subsections dealing with the discontinuance of water services for nonpayment, from the Novi Code of Ordinances - I Reading

CM-97-03-098: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve proposed Ordinance Amendments No. 97-160, No. 97-1.11, No. 97-37.16 and No. 97-13.17 for I Reading

Nay: None

Mr. Fried recalled that the City has an interest in the property because they took it back because of failure to pay taxes. However, the owner did not have to pay the taxes because they included the taxes in the total subdivision. Consequently, the City has no interest at all in the lot.

CM-97-03-099: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the quit claim deed for Lot 179 in Whispering Meadows Subdivision No. 2

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid asked for further clarification about the nonpayment of taxes. Mr. Fried explained the owner did not have to pay taxes because they assessed them against the whole subdivision as a part of the park improvement.

Councilman Mitzel clarified by stating they got a piece of the park and they attached a lien on a lot. He explained the City is keeping the park and they are just releasing the lot.

Mr. Fried added they levied taxes against this property because of the park. However, they tax the park indirectly by way of all the lots in the subdivision paying for that improvement. In other words, when the assessor assesses property in the subdivision, it includes an element for the park and somehow, they assessed this piece for that park separately. As a result, the taxpayer did not pay the tax, the State took it back and deeded to the City.

Nay: None

17. Schedule an Executive Session to follow the meeting, Re: Property Acquisition and Union Negotiation

CM-97-03-100: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to following the meeting, Re: Property Acquisition and Union Negotiation

Mayor McLallen stated the City Manager requested that it be removed.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch noted they still have an Audience Participation.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked for the status of the senior citizen housing project on Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Kriewall replied they will discuss it during the Executive Session under Property Acquisition.

COMMUNICATIONS

20. Letter from Steve and Laurie Dudek, Re: Move forward with Ice Arena

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 A.M.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes