Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:31 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 Attorney Lou Bugbee, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

PRESENTATION

1. Introduction of Police Officer - Basil Ghawi

Police Chief Shaeffer introduced Officer Basil Ghawi. Officer Ghawi graduated with a business degree from Wayne State University and attended the Oakland Police Academy. In 1994, he joined the Detroit Police Department and he has now joined Novi.

1a. Arbor Day Proclamation

Mayor McLallen advised before this meeting City Council planted this year’s Arbor Day red maple tree in the Beautiful Mile which is part of the Beautification program in front of the Civic Center. The Mayor read the sentiment on the proclamation and presented it to the City Forester, Chris Pargoff.

2. Novi 20/20 Vision Statement - Craig DeRoche

Craig DeRoche, Novi 20/20 Committee Chairman distributed copies of the vision statement to Council members.

Mayor McLallen reported this process has been ongoing since early January through citizen led meetings to discuss the present and laying the groundwork for the future of Novi. She explained the vision statement is a preliminary output of that committee.

Mr. DeRoche reported they held citizen forums on January 30 and February 1 in which more than one hundred citizens participated. Mr. DeRoche reported during those sessions the citizens compiled a list of what they felt the city’s treasures and aspirations are, and most of the participants shared the same ideas. Since then, a Citizen’s Visionary Panel met five times and formulated the actual vision statement. It was a difficult task because the panel had to capture the language of the citizens that met in the forum. Mr. DeRoche believes they did an excellent job in preparing a concise statement considering the great amount of information they gave them. Mr. DeRoche reported the next steps in the process after the Vision Statement would be a Goals Session and then a Strategy Session. Mr. DeRoche read A Vision for the City of Novi into the record.

Councilman Kramer asked when will the follow-up begin to work. Mr. DeRoche replied after Council’s acceptance of the vision statement, they will involve the Public Information Department to increase publicity and call on the pool of residents again. He explained they will need another month or two for lead time so they can start on the right foot with as many people as possible.

3. Road Commission for Oakland County - SCATS Project - Brian Whiston

Mayor McLallen stated this project is of interest to those citizens that travel Novi Road and Grand River Avenue where SCATS are currently in place.

Brian Whiston reported he is responsible for the ITS operations. Mr. Whiston advised Fast Trac was first developed to address unmet road needs and added they came up with $1.6M in unmet road needs. Mr. Whiston stated they currently spend approximately $20M per year to improve their roads and consequently, it would take more than one hundred years just to solve today’s road problems. Mr. Whiston said they began to look at technology to see if it could be used to get more out of the current road system. At that time, the federal government created a special funding program to see if they could use technology because everyone realizes they would never have the necessary tax dollars to improve the roads they way they need to be. They also developed Fast Trac because as the roads become more congested, they found it was imperative that they have a warehouse of information with everything going on with the roadways in terms of traffic, construction, permit work and so forth. They can then distribute the information to the motorists so that they can choose alternate routes if necessary.

Mr. Whiston reported the Fast Trac goals are: 1) decrease serious injury accidents, 2) decrease time spent at intersections in the peak directions, 3) decrease travel time in the peak direction, 4) incident management, and 5) provide travel information.

The Fast Trac signal program is made up of detection through an autoscope or a camera light device. That information is then sent to a SCATS traffic controller and the traffic signal controller adjusts the green time based on two pieces of information. Mr. Whiston reported the two factors that go into the signal timing are the actual traffic counted at the intersection by the detection devices and they unite the signals to allow progression based on other systems. He explained traffic signal timing is not only based on individual intersections, but on how that intersection impacts the intersection down the road.

Mr. Whiston reported they are just beginning the instant management part of the Fast Trac program. However, in addition to accumulating information, they are working with several police departments so as they dispatch or when an officer arrives at the scene, they type the information into a computer that they automatically send to Fast Trac.

Mr. Whiston reported traveler information providing all this information that they collect is the next program and they are currently distributing the information to the Chrysler World Headquarters where ten thousand plus employees receive real time traffic information on a Fast Trac television. He added they will be expanding that information to cable television in several areas and they are also considering many other types of communication. Their goal is to get the information to the public before they begin their travel so they can adjust their route if necessary.

Mr. Whiston stated they have made improvements to the system based on comments they received from communities like Troy, Rochester Hills and Novi. One improvement that has made a significant enhancement to the system is that they have gone from a 2003 Autoscope Controller to a 2004. He explained that is the hardware they use and they have seen improvement in terms of shadows from things like flags which were often counted as vehicles. Further, the 2004 has 50% fewer parts and consequently, they are having fewer repair problems.

Mr. Whiston reported they have seen a 60% reduction in serious accidents because of the SCATS System according to evaluations from University of Michigan and Michigan State University. They have also seen a 10- 20% reduction in travel time in the peak direction which means if they are reducing travel time in the peak direction, the off peak must wait a while longer.

In conclusion, Mr. Whiston reported they conducted a survey of what the public thought of the Fast Trac System which also included the Novi area and the results are: 54% reported they were spending less time at intersections, 90% thought that the two second all red at the end of the signal provided clearance of the intersection, 57% said their drive time was the same or decreased, 89% felt the left turns were much safer and easier, 52% said peak travel time was the same or better and 77% believed the system was safer. Overall, 72% said that the Fast Trac System was a benefit because they could see that it does adjust traffic signal timing based on actual traffic conditions. Mr. Whiston added they are going to continue to expand deployment of the Fast Trac System in the future. He explained they have approximately three hundred intersections with eleven hundred signals throughout the county under Fast Trac control.

Mr. Whiston said one common question is about signal timing in terms of individual intersections and he advised they have to factor in what is happening at all the intersections along Novi Road before they can answer that. He added chances are motorists are now stopped for approximately half the time than under a Free Time System. He explained a motorist may have to wait through the entire time of a Free Time System cycle before they get a green light. Mr. Whiston noted he has included his phone number because he can adjust the system from his home.

Mayor McLallen noted there was also an informative article in the Detroit Free Press.

Councilman Schmid asked what is the maximum time a motorist could sit at an intersection. Mr. Whiston would have to research that, but believes it would be from sixty to eighty seconds.

Councilman Schmid asked how was the system able to decrease injuries. Mr. Whiston replied the most serious injuries result from left turn accidents because they are either head on or near head on. The Fast Trac System adjusts the amount of green time based on the amount of people who want to make left turns. He explained in the past they may have had eight seconds to make a left turn and there may have been twenty cars. People would become frustrated and try to go when the appropriate gap was not there. Secondly, the system can reintroduce the left turn. He explained some intersections have a blinking red light, some have a green arrow and some have both. He stated it is the way they treat left terms in terms of how much time they allocate to them that make it safer.

Councilman Schmid asked what is the estimated cost of a typical intersection. Mr. Whiston replied the estimated figure they use is approximately $75,000 for complete installation.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

John Margle - is appearing before Council on behalf of fifty-four lakes’ area residents regarding the Port Papadapolis’ Liquor License Withdrawal. Mr. Margle submitted and read his letter that the other residents also signed. Mr. Margle’s letter requested that Council place the Papadapolis’ item on their May 5, 1997 agenda. He reminded Council that this project has been before them for approximately fifteen years and gave a brief history of the action taken regarding the liquor license request. He noted the only permit Mr. Andris has applied for is a Soil Erosion Permit that he has not yet picked up. Mr. Margle also commented on Mr. Andris’ request to rezone his lake front property. Because Mr. Andris has no intention of building his restaurant on the site that they have already approved, Mr. Margle believes it would be irresponsible for Council to continue to tie up this valuable liquor license and that they should offer it to a more deserving applicant.

As a point of information, Mayor McLallen noted that a letter has been forwarded to Mr. Andris to inform that there is no action by Council to extend this.

Linda Racey - 24740 Taft Rd., is opposed to Matters for Council Action, Item 1 Special Assessment District 148 - Salow’s Walnut Hill Sanitary Sewer - Lots 1-5 because of the cost. Further, she reported the vote to move forward is based on each property owner’s assessed value, but how they will distribute the cost will be decided later and she believes that is unfair. If the vote is based on the assessed value, then the cost should be based on assessed value. She also believes a mandatory connection is improper and unfair. She also believes they should not impose any penalties if a property owner does not choose to tap in. On a personal note, Mrs. Racey reported her property has five very mature evergreens that would have to be removed if they connect the sewer to her home.

Mayor McLallen reported they have a letter from the City’s attorney saying that the property owner has the right to waive a mandatory hook up.

Tom Jurwitz - Tax Manager for Lear Corporation, is before Council to present himself and will answer any questions about the issue of their Transfer of Employment.

Pete Hoadley - reported he has been a resident for approximately six years and is before Council to commend the City of Novi and its leaders.

Debbie Koder - 1129 East Lake Dr., reiterated her remarks from earlier Council meetings about the poor condition of the Andris Romain property at Fourteen Mile Road and East Lake Drive. She reminded Council that they gave Mr. Andris two weeks to clean up the property and she presented photographs to show that he has not complied with Council’s direction. She also provided photographs of the property before Mr. Andris removed the dense trees. She believes it is a disgrace and embarrassment that the City has allowed this piece of property to remain in this condition.

Mayor McLallen asked Administration to find out why the ordinance failed in this way. Mr. Kriewall replied Mr. Andris has received a violation notice and the ordinance officers are following up on this matter.

Jim Korte - Shawood Lake, commented on the status of the temporary closing of Erma Street. He reported the City installed the fences on the fourteenth and they bulldozed them half over within twelve hours. He realizes this could have been an accident, but several days later, they physically removed the posts from the right-of-way. Mr. Korte does not believe anyone should be surprised that the small fence would stop the north end marauders about whom he has often talked. He believes they have no respect for property. Mr. Korte believes the fence will be replaced before Wednesday and asked if they would erect a barricade on the residential side although it may not be attractive. He reminded Council he will be the only resident that will have a constant view of it. Secondly, Mr. Korte questioned the spending of $100,000 on the Lake Shore Clean up for something the City should have maintained in the first place. He added they have also not performed an environmental impact study and he is concerned about possible contaminants.

Asa Smith - 1294 East Lake Dr., asked why doesn’t the City have an emergency plan of action for storm damage clean up. He believes Novi should provide special rates, pick up, chippers, truck availability and so forth for all its citizens. He believes most municipalities have this service available. He noted most of the area still looks like a disaster zone from last month’s ice storm. Secondly, he asked why did the City pay a lot of money on New Novi Road between Twelve Mile and Twelve ½ Mile, and Old Novi Road but has allowed two of the most unattractive foot bridges in the state to be a part of this road project. He asked if there is a plan to install street lighting on the stretch of roadway? He believes they should install the lighting before the sidewalks and landscaping is in place.

Mayor McLallen noted that most Novi residents have contracted private trash haulers.

Adalia Echelmeyer - Barclay Estates resident, asked Council to reconsider Dunnabeck Subdivision’s use of the Barclay Estates’ entryway. She added their homeowner’s association currently pays to maintain the entry and she is also concerned about construction traffic in terms of the children’s safety.

John Barcol - Barclay Estates resident, is opposed to the construction of Dunnabeck Subdivision. Specifically he is concerned that the smaller size and less expensive homes will negatively impact the value of his home. Further, the entry on Stratford offers a unique amenity to Barclay Estates and to share it with another subdivision that do not share the same caliber does not make sense. He believes it takes people with character to stand up and say this is not right even if it meets all the letters of the law. He added that he believes Mr. Dunnabeck is taking advantage of the Barclay Estates residents. The bottom line is that the residents of Barclay Estates believe Dunnabeck deserves to have its own entrance because it has a unique identity.

Deborah Bundoff - concurred with Mr. Smith’s comments about the foot bridge. She noted her property is adjacent to one of the unattractive bridges.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilman Clark requested that they add under Matters for Council Action - Part II as Item 7, Schedule Port Papadapolis as an action item for May 5, 1997 Agenda.

Councilman Mitzel requested that they add under Matters for Council Action - Part II as Item 8, Formalizing Budget Policies.

CM-97-04-121: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Agenda as amended

Nay: None

CONSENT AGENDA (Approvals/Removals)

Councilman Schmid requested the removal of Items 9, 11, 18 and 19.

CONSENT AGENDA

17. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 487A & 487B

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Approval of Resolution No. 3 - Special Assessment District 148 - Salow’s Walnut Hill Sanitary Sewer - Lots 1-5

Councilman Kramer noted they have expanded the proposed district to include lots 1-21.

Joe Kapelczak of JCK & Associates is before Council to present the costs of the sanitary sewer. He explained the plan would serve parcel 300-012 from the side and Yorkshire is considered to be the remainder of the district from the north. Mr. Kapelczak stated they could move the manhole one way or another to accommodate some mature trees. However, they cannot do that until further engineering is done when they actually consider the topography. Mr. Kapelczak reported the color codes on the map depicts the yeas and nays of the meeting that they held with the residents. He explained there are fifteen residents who support the project, three are opposed and three are unknown. Further, the total estimated cost of the project composed of approximately 2,300 feet of 8" sandstrip sewer is approximately $165,000.

Mayor McLallen asked how will the cost be shared by the members of the district. She stated the residents asked whether it is based upon SEV or single lots. Mr. Kapelczak believes that is a question for Administration.

Mr. Kriewall stated typically in this type of situation, most of the lots are of the same size and they would share equally in the cost.

To be clear, Mayor McLallen stated 51% of the homeowners have to favor the district to move ahead.

Mr. Kriewall said that was basically correct, but it is still a Council decision. He added historically in areas of special assessing, Council usually moves ahead when 60-70% are in favor.

Councilman Kramer asked what step is the moving of manholes in the seven step process. Mr. Kriewall stated it will be in the next step. Further, he stated they will have a public hearing at that time.

Councilman Kramer asked if it would be their intent to service that property in the final design. Mr. Kapelczak stated that is correct. He added it is their intent to build the sewers to service the entire area so that they do not have to add a hundred-foot manhole later.

Councilman Schmid asked if $165,000 includes the sewers from both directions. Mr. Kapelczak replied that is correct.

Councilman Schmid stated twenty-one homes would equate to approximately $7,000. Further, Councilman Schmid understands they have a letter from the attorney regarding a mandatory hook up. He believes the City’s position historically is that a resident must hook up within a certain period because of sanitary issues and to pay off the sewer’s cost.

Mr. Kriewall said they typically have a special assessment district and they would probably assess the people who are not using the sewer at this time at the same time. If a resident chose to stay on a septic tank, the City Attorney allows for a comparable through an ordinance amendment. In other words, they would still special assess for the cost of that property.

Councilman Schmid asked if he is saying whether they hook up or not, they would still pay the special assessment. Mr. Kriewall replied that is correct.

Councilman Schmid stated that is a new factor that they should consider. However, he noted if 60-70% of the residents have signed a petition, it leaves them no choice.

Lou Bugbee stated the current ordinance requires the hook up and to waive it, an amendment to the current ordinance is required.

Mayor McLallen asked what is the current tap fee. Mr. Jerome replied it is between $3,200-$3,400.

The Mayor stated the assessed cost for those residents because the improvement would be available would be $7,000, but the cost to make it functional would be close to $11,000.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what is the term for this improvement. Mr. Kriewall replied they normally spread it over fifteen years. He noted Council has historically allowed the tap fee to be spread over fifteen years also.

Councilman Mitzel stated they mentioned Council could waive the tap in requirements and asked if they have a mechanism to defer the special assessment until the time of tap in. Mr. Bugbee suspects they could. However, he does not know if it would be advisable from a financial standpoint.

Mr. Kriewall believes they are unable legally to exempt a parcel in a SAD contract.

Councilman Mitzel asked if a contract SAD would be possible in this situation. Mr. Kriewall replied it would. He explained they could actually get everyone to agree to the district that wanted the sanitary sewer and they would agree to pay for the entire cost. However, the exempted property owners who do not want the sewer would pay a faction fee down the road at the end of the district and reimburse the district. Mr. Kriewall explained the major inequity in this proposal is that if someone were to sell their house after they funded the cost of the other lots, they may never see the benefit of the money coming back to the district.

Councilman Kramer noted for the benefit of the homeowner’s that there are three elements. He explained there is the SAD divided by the number of lots, there is the tap fee and the cost for the individual homeowner to hook up to the system.

Mr. Kriewall reported by the time of the first public hearing they will have already passed Resolution No. 3, which is before Council tonight, and they already have a sense of moving ahead with the project. He explained in the next step, Council orders engineering plans and significant engineering dollars are spent to accomplish that.

Councilman Clark asked if all the affected residents affected by the amended Resolution No. 3 were notified about the expanded district.

Mr. Bugbee replied the Clerk’s office notified all the affected residents. He further explained when the issue was before Council at the February 21 meeting for its first public hearing, they were directed to bring it back for a continuation of that public hearing. He stated before Council takes action on Resolution No. 3, he believes they have to reopen and close the public hearing.

Mrs. Bartholomew stated they completed the public hearing portion the last time it was before Council, but the action was not completed.

However, Mr. Bugbee noted at that time the public hearing was only for Lots 1-5 and the citizen’s asked to expand the district. He believes the residents of the expanded lots should have a public hearing.

Mr. Kriewall said if so, they would have to technically start the process over.

Mr. Bugbee said after the first public hearing under the ordinance one of the actions that Council can take is to modify that which they originally proposed. He reminded Council there will still be another public hearing following this resolution to give the public the opportunity to speak again if there is a problem.

Mayor McLallen asked if they have notified all twenty-one lot owners properly. Mr. Jerome said they invited them to attend a meeting with the engineers on April 3 and they also notified them that the item was on the agenda the next week.

Councilman Clark was concerned about proper notification because he believes the public should have the opportunity to be heard before they start spending that substantial sum of money.

Councilman Mitzel noted that Mr. Kapelczak indicated he has met with the homeowners who had the opportunity to express whether they support the district. Mr. Kapelczak added they took an actual vote of the residents at that meeting.

Councilman Clark asked if the residents are aware that their share could potentially be as much as $10,344. Mr. Jerome reported Gary Streight from JCK gave a presentation to inform the public about how the property would have to be served in the north from the south. Mr. Jerome stated they gave the residents the option of splitting it into two special assessments. He added they also provided copies of the ordinance that addresses special assessments so they can understand what the actual process is. Mr. Jerome explained once they get to Resolution No. 3, they direct the engineers to come back with final plans. However, before the plans and cost come back before Council, they normally have another information meeting with the residents so that they know before the public hearing whether they favor or are against the special assessment.

Mr. Jerome stated they originally reported there were twenty-one lots in the plat. However, one lot was split and there are actually twenty-two parcels. Mr. Jerome believes nineteen of the twenty-two owners attended the meeting. Further, one resident, who was unable to attend, notified them of his support. Mr. Jerome believes they can address some of the problems when the final plans are prepared. He noted these plans would specifically address how the sewer in the construction process impacts the lot with the mature pine trees and added they will do everything possible to protect, save or replace them. He believes the end product may be closer to one 100% acceptance of the special assessment.

Councilman Schmid suspects they will pass the special assessment. However, considerable money will be spent in engineering work. He stated this is acceptable if Council is assured that they will pass this. He asked if there should be another public hearing on this issue to include all twenty-one lots.

Mr. Kriewall’s recommendation is that the City’s attorney determine whether they properly notified the resident’s and whether they can legally extend the district. He then suggested that they come back before Council at their next regular meeting to advise if proceeding with Resolution No. 3 is proper.

Councilwoman Mutch understands Council’s right to modify as part of the public hearing process, but she believes this is more than a modification because of the number of lots involved. From the City’s point of view, Councilwoman Mutch asked if those who do not tap in right away persuade their neighbors to foot the bill for the entire system, can those other people also cover all of the financing so that they protect the City. She specifically asked if it includes any cost of carrying.

Mayor McLallen stated the contract SAD allows them to do that. However, the standard SAD pays for the improvement through amortization over the years.

Mr. Kriewall reported the newest contract SAD carries a high risk and the City would build in a carrying cost. He explained it would be interest accrued and that the homeowner’s who delayed, would have to pay a slightly higher fee because the rest of the district that was carrying them would eventually get the money back. He reiterated problems arise when somebody sells their home.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if it makes more sense to run it through the twenty-two lots from an engineering point of view. Mr. Kapelczak replied there are some instances where they cannot go around. He added they could stop short, but there may come a time when the Health Department will require a hook up and that will increase the cost.

Mr. Bugbee noted if there is an inclination to start the process over, it will not come before Council again until June.

Mrs. Bartholomew explained because the meetings are the first and second Mondays of the month, if this issue comes before Council at their first meeting in May, there will not be adequate time to put a five-day notice in the newspaper. Consequently, the public hearing will not occur until the first meeting in June. She thought that rescheduling the public hearing right might be advisable.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mr. Bugbee read from Section 30-7 (b) of the ordinance, "At the public hearing on the proposed improvement, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to be heard, after which the council may modify the scope of the local public improvement in such a manner as they shall deem to be in the best interest of the city as a whole, or the council may be resolution terminate such public improvement project . . . "

2. Approval of Final Preliminary Plat - Dunnabeck Estates Subdivision, SP 96-39C - Property located East of Beck Road, South of Nine Mile Road

George Norberg of Seiber Keast & Associates, reported the plat conforms to the one they received tentative approval on at a previous meeting. Mr. Norberg noted they also received approvals from outside agencies. Therefore, they are requesting final approval for their preliminary plat. Mr. Norberg understands there is concern about construction access and they have temporarily allocated an area for construction access and the location of the driveway is better presented during the tentative preliminary plat. Mr. Norberg added that he does not have an answer about the entrance marker.

The Mayor asked if there is signage proposed. Mr. Norberg believes there will be some type of marker located within the greenbelt easement.

Councilman Clark asked if there is a way for this project to provide its own entrance. Mr. Norberg explained they are trying to eliminate as much traffic as possible on the mile roads by eliminating entrances.

Councilman Clark noted they are only talking about traffic for fifteen lots. Mr. Norberg is not sure to what extent they reviewed this initially. However, he explained because of the nature of the configuration of the frontage that exists on that street, taking the entrance-way off that existing residential street was prudent.

Councilman Clark believes this is an instance of sloppy planning and they are establishing a bad precedence with multiple subs using an entrance for another development. He stated they have pointed out that the current residents are paying for maintenance for the entrance and have their own regulations governing that subdivision to address the issue of the cost of the maintenance. Because it is a contractual agreement, he does not see how they can then turn around and force Dunnabeck Subdivision to contribute to the cost. Councilman Clark is not opposed to the subdivision, but believes it is bad planning in terms of the idea of the entrance to the subdivision. Given there are only fifteen homes, he would support a plan that provides for their own entrance.

Councilman Kramer believes they should consider the issues of identity in terms of homes of different size and character. Before moving forward, he would like to see the two subdivisions establish an arrangement in terms of identity. He believes they should agree on a design that is appropriate for good traffic management. He agrees it does scramble residential identity and offered some solutions for placement of the signs. Councilman Kramer cannot support the project until they work out the identity issue.

Councilman Schmid missed the last meeting, but after reviewing the Commission minutes he would have voted against it. He believes it is a matter of protecting the rights of citizens and the value of their homes. He supports a Beck Road entrance.

Councilwoman Mutch thought they had compelling discussion at their last meeting in terms of safety and traffic for this configuration. She explained part of it affected a public street and not a private road. Further, she reminded Council all traffic islands are City owned property and it seems to her that part of the attractiveness of that entrance is what will remain an undeveloped pond green area. Councilwoman Mutch does understand the housing issues, but there are other areas in the City where they have raised that question and no one seems to have suffered from it. She then cited the Singh development as a reverse situation where they are constructing larger more expensive homes adjacent to thirty-five year old homes.

Mr. Norberg reported the final plat will be back before Council and will include landscape plans and entrance markers. He added before that time, the owner plans to meet with the Barclay homeowners to resolve these concerns and it will become a part of the final plat package.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council she was the sole no vote when this matter first came before them. She explained the preliminary plat was identical to the plat before them tonight and it passed five to one. Consequently, the issues tonight are unresolved from the previous time. The Mayor stated there are two issues before them. She reported Stratford is a public road and is one of three entrances to Barclay Estates. Further, they share one of the entrances with Bradford of Novi and Bradford of Novi shares an entrance with Lexington Commons. She added all these houses are varied in price. The reason she supports the entrance is that although the proposed subdivisions has only fifteen homes, Beck Road is not bearing the traffic that Beck Road will bear in the future and this subdivision is going to be in Novi long term. The Mayor stated putting an entrance from a small subdivision onto Beck Road and causing a curb cut is only going to cause more traffic. This is especially unacceptable when they have a reasonable alternative of putting a curb cut on a public street. Mayor McLallen added the petitioner is offering to work with the homeowners and developers to achieve individual identity. Therefore, she does not support a curb cut on Beck Road.

CM-97-04-124: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION FAILED: To table item two weeks to allow the petitioner to meet with the Barclay Estates homeowners or representatives from the homeowner’s association of the existing subdivision. In the event they are unable to come to a resolution, they should come back with an alternative that includes a separate entrance

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch sees no reason to postpone because they have to come back anyway. Councilman Clark asserted it would give the petitioner the opportunity to pursue something actively.

Councilman Mitzel recalled if the final preliminary plat met the general street layout of the preliminary plat, that Council was to approve it. In other words, they locked in the street’s layout at the tentative preliminary plat stage. Mr. Bugbee stated he is not familiar with that procedure.

Mayor McLallen reiterated the issue was that this is a final preliminary plat and the petitioner has to come before Council again for final plat approval. However, if the final preliminary plan conforms to the original plan and the conditions of the original, they require approval. The Mayor added to be comfortable with a decision from Council, there is some concern that they want a resolution to the issue of road access and signage. However, they did not bring out those issues at preliminary. She explained the preliminary plan was essentially the same as the final preliminary. She noted Councilman Mitzel brought up the point that if they have approved the final preliminary map, is there any mechanism not to approve it when they can bring forward the solutions that they are seeking at final.

Councilman Mitzel said his point is the same as Councilwoman Mutch in that they thoroughly discussed this issue. He reminded Council that consensus at that time was to wait and see. He asked if the Planning Department can answer the question about a final preliminary plat compared with a tentative preliminary plat.

Mr. Wahl replied it is their understanding that the design of the road system was already set at tentative preliminary plat and was approved by Council. He added the remaining issues might be landscaping or amenities. However, he he reiterated they have already established the road system.

Councilman Schmid does not recall anything about changing the street layout after preliminary plat approval. However, he is not sure it is not possible. He stated if it is possible, he would like to see if they can work something out under which either they come to an agreement or they propose another entrance. He believes they are overlooking the issue of protecting the investment of the homeowners in the existing subdivision. Councilman Schmid believes providing a Beck Road entrance can easily resolve this issue. He does not believe one subdivision with fifteen homes will have that much of an impact on Beck Road traffic. He urged Council to take another look at this issue because it has considerable impact on an existing area in Novi. He also believes they would better serve the proposed subdivision if it had its own entrance.

Councilman Kramer stated if he supports a postponement he is not looking for any major revisions of the plat although they may have to make some minor road realignments to relocate signages or some widening to readjust the entrance slightly to provide what both parties would agree would be reasonable identification for the two subdivisions. He added since they do not know the answer, two weeks would provide some time to get together, generate some alternatives and look at how it could be done.

Councilman Clark agrees with Councilmen Schmid and Kramer’s comments. It seems they told them that after preliminary plat, it was set in stone. However, that would mean it would come back before Council for a final preliminary plat approval for something that as a routine matter would be done Administratively. Consequently, Councilman Clark has some reservations about whether something can or cannot be changed or set in stone. He believes it is better to err on the side of prudence and take the extra two weeks to be absolutely sure where they are going with this before they make a final decision.

Mr. Bugbee stated according to the provisions of Section 3.02 in terms of Council action, they can either grant approval or reject the plat. Further, that same section refers to department heads, officials and applicable consultants in that they shall review the plat as submitted to determine compliance with the tentatively approved preliminary plat and tentatively approved sanitary sewer and stormwater mains. It is his understanding that this has received approval and at this point, the determination of Council is to determine whether they should grant final approval of that preliminary plat as approved by the consultants.

Councilwoman Mutch thought the Mayor’s earlier comments about Beck Road were clear. She stated the concern is not about the fifteen homes adding to the traffic, but rather if they had a separate entrance for them directly onto Beck Road, it creates problems for them when they exit. She reiterated that Mr. Arroyo made a compelling case for this roadway pattern at their last meeting for not only this subdivision but for the entire City of Novi. She sees no reason to postpone this matter.

Joe Sutschek, Ramco-Gershenson Properties, is before Council to present a $4M second phase of the West Oaks I project. Mr. Sutschek reminded Council that they stood before them approximately one year ago with a plan that included the replacement of the Krogers store with Circuit City. Mr. Sutschek reported that their architect designed the facade for Circuit City and it was to be the model for the continuation for renovation of the balance of West Oaks I. Mr. Sutschek stated the second phase includes the entire area between Service Merchandise and K-Mart. They want to build the front of the building out slightly so that the front facade is consistent and then slightly expand the rear of the area. That equates to approximately 11,500 square feet of new building area or 5% of the entire center. When they are finished, Half-Off Cards will remain, Designer Shoe Warehouse will occupy the middle and Office Max will occupy the additional space. In order to do this, they had to take some significant economical steps for their company by liberally allowing the existing tenant leases to expire. Consequently, they had a loss of revenue. They also had to buy out the balance of one of the leases which was a six-figure item by itself. Mr. Sutschek described his drawing and landscaping plans. He added they agree with the City’s landscaping consultant’s request to add further landscaping. Mr. Sutschek reported they are seeking two variances. He explained they built the shopping center in 1981 and the ordinance requirements are now significantly different today. Mr. Sutschek also reported their parking lot is currently not used to its full capacity. They recently performed a parking study and discovered at no time was the parking lot ever used to more than 40% of its capacity. They hope that the addition of the new retail tenants will improve that, but noted that a factor by two and one half times is not realistic.

Mayor McLallen noted they scheduled this item for the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for May 6, 1997.

Councilman Clark knows Service Merchandise owns their own pad and asked if they have discussed the possibility of joining in. Mr. Sutschek stated it is their hope that they will join in once they are finished with their renovations.

Councilman Clark agrees there is under utilization of the parking area and asked if there are any plans to improve the poor lighting from a safety aspect. Mr. Sutschek replied they have not considered that, but it is something they will consider.

Councilman Schmid is concerned about the landscaping and would like a public clarification of the plans in terms of aesthetics. Mr. Rogers described the improved landscaping plans.

Councilman Schmid concurs with Councilman Clark’s comments about the inadequate lighting. He then asked who maintains the parking lot. Mr. Sutschek replied they have an ongoing Capital Improvement Program where they routinely resurface their parking lot.

Councilman Schmid asked the applicant to rate the parking lot on a scale of one to ten. Mr. Sutschek replied it is probably a seven.

CM-97-04-126: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Kramer, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for West Oaks I Renovation, SP 97-04A subject to City staff and consultants’ recommendations and variances being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked the applicant to address damage and traffic hazards caused by shopping carts. Mr. Sutschek replied the shopping carts are clearly a function of the individual tenants and it is their responsibility to police their carts.

Mayor McLallen asked as lessor, does he require tenants to police their carts. Mr. Sutschek replied they can discuss it with them and encourage them to do a better job. However, to his knowledge, they do not have a lease provision that would permit them to mandate to them how to control their carts.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the City has a say in the control of shopping carts and cited Vic’s as an example.

Mayor McLallen believes the question is valid and asked if there is Council consensus to have staff research a precedent for cart control.

Councilman Kramer would be willing to have parking place shortages to allow for additional cart corrals.

The Mayor stated there is Council consensus to have the Planning and legal staff research precedents to address the issue of shopping cart control.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how many previous tenants were relocated within West Oaks. Mr. Sutschek replied Your Hair & Us will be relocating to West Oaks II and all of the other tenants have left the center.

Councilman Kramer supports the additional landscaping. Councilman Kramer asked if Mr. Arroyo is satisfied with the road markings and lay out of West Oaks Drive. Mr. Arroyo replied in terms of the markings, it is something he can look at because they tend to fade at this time of the year. In regard to the lay out, he is unable to provide an exact answer right now and it is something he can look into with D.P.W. to see if it needs further modification.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked if they should include the issue of lighting in the motion. He thought if they are going to put in additional landscaping, it might be an appropriate time to add a new island and more lights. Further, in regard to shopping cart corrals, Mayor ProTem Crawford would be willing to send a recommendation to the ZBA to request fewer parking spots so the applicant can add parking corrals. He is not certain where this fits in terms of the whole process.

The Mayor noted there is a Council request about whether Council would choose to make this part of the planning ordinance.

Steve Cohen stated Council may choose to bring it back, but the normal procedure for the RC District is for just the preliminary to be reviewed by Council and that the final will be reviewed Administratively.

Mayor ProTem Crawford suggested that Council’s comments can be considered through their minutes, staff and the Planning Commission.

Councilman Schmid thought stores had to provide inside storage of their carts. Therefore, he thinks it is a matter of insisting that the store owners police their carts on a continuing basis. He is concerned that corrals will take away necessary parking.

The Mayor thought that was the original intent. She noted they obviously cannot superimpose new things on an existing process in the pipeline, but they can study it for future projects.

Nay: None

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Arroyo if there is anything the City can do about the difficult maneuver from the road that travels from the DoubleTree Hotel onto easterly West Oaks Drive. Mr. Arroyo stated there has been some discussion about modifying some striping for outbound traffic from West Oaks Drive to Novi Road. Other suggestions are to encourage the use of Donelson or make substantial changes to signs. He thinks that is something that they should monitor and he believes there is some potential for some striping modifications. He believes the next step from that would be prohibiting turns.

Mayor McLallen stated there is Council consensus to research this further.

Nay: None

5. Approval of Ordinance 97-18 - Site Plan and Development Manual Revisions - I Reading

CM-97-04-128: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant first reading approval for Ordinance 97-18 - Site Plan and Development Manual Revision to include comments

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel stated when site plans come forward they typically require a Planning Commission review of the preliminary site plan. However, he now notices in minutes and Flash Floods that the Planning Commission decides when the final does not come back to them and he does not know what criteria they use to bring it back. He is concerned that they may not apply it consistently.

Mayor McLallen asked if he is suggesting that perhaps staff should look at the criteria for returning the site plan to final rather than let it be approved administratively. Councilman Mitzel stated that is correct. He added that he is trying to determine what the advantage would be in having it come before the Planning Commission for final as opposed to receiving an administrative approval. It seems to him that they are handled just as well administratively rather than adding to a public body’s agenda.

Councilman Kramer believes the tenet there is that finals are by Site Plan Manual provisions review. He thinks it is a discussion by the Planning Commission about where they have concerns. He does not know if they really want to encumber them by trying to define various items of concern by which they can withdraw administrative approval.

Councilman Mitzel noticed recently that it seems to becoming more of a trend that final should come back before the Planning Commission almost to the point where they should get rid of the manual.

Mayor McLallen asked if there is a particular page where they might work that in. Councilman Mitzel suggested the section that discusses the final site plan review process on Pages 15 and 16.

Steve Cohen stated Section 2516 points out that discretionary action which allows the Planning Commission to call it back. He believes that adding to Section 2516 would be best and they should address that at the zoning ordinance update.

Mayor McLallen referred to Rezoning on Page 28, #5 and asked if they could include language to state what prompts the ordinance officer to remove rezoning signs.

Councilman Mitzel noticed most City initiated rezonings that came forth recently have a sign posted. He asked who posts the sign for City initiated rezonings as opposed to a private developer.

Steve Cohen believes most City initiated rezonings have signs erected by D.P.S. He agreed there is a problem with the removal of those signs and suggested that he could write a letter about removing the sign to the applicant and copy the ordinance officer.

Mayor McLallen suggested that they add a page for telephone numbers for utilities, county offices and other agencies with all the pertinent telephone numbers within the City offices.

6. Schedule an Executive Session to Immediately Follow Regular Meeting for the Purpose of Property Acquisition

CM-97-04-129: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mutch, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting for the purpose of property acquisition

Nay: None

7. Schedule Port Papadapolis for May 5, 1997 City Council Agenda

Councilman Clark stated considering the pictures they have seen tonight, he does not think anyone that would agree to live next to that. Councilman Clark adamantly stated that this situation is totally unacceptable.

CM-97-04-130: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To bring Port Papadapolis back before Council on May 5, 1997

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch believes one issue is the property debris, which is actually an enforcement problem that they should not have to discuss at the Council level. The second issue is the liquor license. It seems to Councilwoman Mutch that if the applicant does not comply with the deadline, they will not issue him the license. She asked why do they need to schedule this issue as an agenda item.

Councilman Clark believes they should make a motion that they are withdrawing the conditional approval and notify the Liquor Control Commission at that time.

Councilwoman Mutch believes they need to do that, but reminded Council that the applicant is not going to have anything to verify that he complied. She does not disagree with the goal, but she is opposed about adding something to an agenda that will take care of itself. She believes the license will expire May 1.

Mr. Frey reported he sent certified letters to the three stockholders and only received a response from one.

Mayor McLallen stated there is a difference of opinion between Council members. She reported Councilman Clark wants to close this matter publicly and Councilwoman Mutch believes it will take care of itself whether they do it in public or not. She notted if this applicant has not made major progress on the site by May 1, the liquor license and site plan are expired.

Councilman Kramer reiterated the two issues are the liquor license and clean up of the site.

Councilman Schmid concurred with Councilwoman Mutch and he will not support the motion.

Mayor ProTem Crawford agrees they have talked about it a lot, but he believes it needs final closure publicly.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what will they actually discuss on May 5. She asked if they will publicly announce that the liquor license has expired and that they have no intention of approving additional extensions. She reiterated the clean up is a matter of ordinance enforcement and suggested if it is such an urgent matter that they direct it to the City Manager to make sure it is cleaned up.

Councilman Clark stated based on the letter that Mr. Frey sent and the May 1 expiration date, he would like to have a formal motion on the record and send a formal letter from Administration to the Liquor Control Commission to put closure on this project.

As a point of information, Councilwoman Mutch believes the liquor license never existed. Councilman Clark noted there is a conditional approval and a license was held for many years.

Mr. Frey stated Council will need to issue a denial through the Clerk’s office because there is an approval on the record.

The Mayor stated they must make a formal motion for denial.

Steve Cohen clarified by stating with conditional approvals, they do not send the liquor license to the state, but they hold it in the Clerk’s office until it meets all the requirements. Mr. Cohen added that although the Liquor Control Commission currently does not have anything on this, they need to have a rejection sent to the Liquor Control Commission if that is what the City Council’s role is.

Nay: McLallen, Mutch, Schmid

Mayor McLallen noted the bid is approximately $40,000 less than the number originally proposed.

Tony Nowicki noted there is a JCK letter dated February 3 in the packet that describes the various alternatives. Mr. Nowicki stated Council approved two alternatives; Alternate C and Alternate D. He explained both alternates generally consist of removing the concrete retaining wall, doing some grading, removing some fill and placing some fill, removing wooden flooring and constructing curbs to improve access. Further, they would remove all the concrete, the old roadways and the old foundations for both parcels. Mr. Nowicki reported Alternate D is a less comprehensive version of Alternate C. Mr. Nowicki stated they are recommending Alternate C for $95,867.00. He explained when they factor in engineering costs that typically are 20% of the construction costs, they came down to a dollar total difference between the two projects of $25,921. Further, Mr. Nowicki believes Mr. Gibson provided a budget amendment for $110,000 to provide the funding for the comprehensive cleanup job of the lake property.

Councilman Mitzel said the main difference between the alternates is that one would remove all the concrete up to the removal process and the other one would clean it up throughout the area. Mr. Nowicki stated that is correct. He explained the second alternative would only put it in a condition that it could be used. However, if there is any future work done on that site, the debris would have to be removed and fill material would have to be placed there. Consequently, there would be duplication of effort.

Councilman Mitzel asked what is the timing based upon Council approval tonight. Mr. Nowicki replied they would mail the contracts within two days. The contractor would have fourteen days to return it and then it is up to the attorney’s review. In the best case scenario, Mr. Nowicki predicted it could be two weeks. He is not certain about a date of completion, but he believes the contractor could complete it in several weeks.

Councilman Schmid asked what is the total cost. Mr. Nowicki replied the total cost is approximately $115,000 if they include engineering costs. He noted that is a guess, but the engineering costs are typically 20% of the entire contract.

Councilman Schmid thinks that spending this kind of money to move dirt and concrete on a piece of property that they will probably develop is ludicrous. He believes the City’s crews could clean up the area.

Mr. Nowicki noted they are also removing the retaining wall because it an attractive nuisance for children and creates problems in that area.

Councilman Schmid supports the clean up, but not at this cost. Consequently, he will not support the motion.

Councilman Kramer does not recall if they discussed how much money they would be willing to allocate to this project from the mid-decade census. Councilman Kramer would prefer to let this flow into their budget process. He stated there are other items they are looking at for other departments and he wonders if this should be considered in full. He knows there is mid-decade census money, but they are contemplating from contingency money which was income out of the amount carried over into the budget consideration for next year. He supports the clean up of the property, but he would rather consider it in the budget process although he recognizes it will delay the clean up.

Councilman Clark supports the clean up and asked if this is the only bid they received. Mr. Nowicki replied there was a proposal and bid published in the Michigan Contract Builder and all of the papers, and they received a total of seven bids.

Councilman Mitzel said Council originally discussed two alternatives. He explained one was basically to cover the concrete with dirt for $75,000. The other one was more comprehensive and was estimated at $156,000, but actually came in at $96,000. Councilman Mitzel reminded Council that they expect Mr. Andris’ to clean up his property and therefore, he believes that cleaning up their own piece of property to make it presentable and safer is appropriate for them. Councilman Mitzel stated the proposed budget amendment provides funding for this and they are not actually transferring any funds from contingency, but shows there is $66,000 more in State Revenue Sharing and $49,000 more in Interest on Investments which will cover the clean up. The proposed budget amendment recognizes an additional $115,000 is appropriated to General Administration - Capital Outlay.

CM-97-04-131: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve budget amendment as provided by Finance

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid stated nobody suggested that the property not be cleaned up. The question is how are they going to clean it up. He supports cleaning it up with $50,000-$75,000 and using City staff. He opposes spending $115,000 on this piece of land at this time. Further, he believes this is a major restoration of this property.

Councilman Kramer asked how much of this is included in their budget deliberation for next year. Mr. Kriewall stated the way the Finance Director has this worded, there is more in State Revenue Sharing and $49,000 in Interest on Investments.

Councilman Kramer would like to find a way to do the job. Further, he believes they did not get a reply from D.P.W. or Parks & Recreation in terms of whether they would be willing to undertake the job or what portion might be reasonable for the City to undertake. He added he will not support approval because he would like to see the expenditures against the total budget.

Mr. Nowicki stated unfortunately at this time of the year he does not believe the City has the staff to undertake this type of project. Further, he is not certain whether the City has the appropriate equipment to accomplish this task.

Councilman Kramer agrees, but they should see if there is another appropriate time within the calendar year to tackle part of this.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if any of the elements in the bid package are out of line. Mr. Nowicki replied in terms of bottom line, all the bidders were close and nothing appeared to be out of line. He added he did not do a detail analysis on each per unit, but in his opinion nothing raised a red flag. Mr. Nowicki added this site could have things in the ground that they do not know about and is one of the problems they had in evaluating this project. That is more of a concern to them than unit price.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they are not ready to do a park site development plan, but something more than cosmetic improvements would it seem that the alternative that calls for a six-inch cover layer be reasonable and usable. Mr. Nowicki replied that was an attractive concept, but when they looked at the difference of approximately $26,000, they decided it was worth the additional cost to remove all the debris.

Councilman Clark is interested in finding out what is on the site and noted there was information in the packet about using ground radar to find out what is there. He suggested they use this before they get into a contract with contingencies. Mr. Nowicki reported the use of ground penetrating radar for a site that large is costly.

Councilman Schmid asked what is Mr. Nowicki’s technical background that allows him to determine what bids are reasonable. Mr. Nowicki replied he has been building projects and analyzing bids since 1981. He also relies on the City’s consulting engineers whom the City of Novi has paid to perform a particular function. He added they have reviewed these numbers and provided their recommendations.

Councilman Schmid asked which engineer made the recommendation. Mr. Nowicki replied, David L. Potter of JCK & Associates.

Councilman Schmid stated the residents may ask Council if they are responsibly spending the taxpayers’ dollars and he believes in this case they are not.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION

CM-97-04-132: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve bid award to B&V Construction for the Lake Property Clean-up Project (Alternate #1) in the amount of $95,867.00

Councilman Schmid noticed they are spending $18,000. Mr. Nowicki stated as with all special assessments with developers, the developers provide the money for the conceptual study in this context. They will be providing the checks to the City and the City would draw on that dollar amount. Mr. Nowicki explained should Council opt to proceed with the SAD, those funds have to be reimbursed to the developer. Mr. Nowicki stated the policy they began four years ago is that the developer would pay the City of Novi and the City would pay the engineers. He explained the developer is paying for all engineering costs.

CM-97-04-132: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize the City Attorneys to prepare a draft agreement for a possible sanitary sewer special assessment project conceptual and study phase report in the area of parcel 50-22-01-300-010 (13 Mile and M-5)

Councilman Schmid asked for an explanation about the delay, what is the anticipated time frame and an explanation about the process itself.

Caren Collins, SWOCC, reported the current fifteen year contract expires in May. Ms. Collins said they began the formal renewal process three years ago. She explained it is an extensive process and most of the responsibility falls on the commission. She reported they conducted two technical audits and the second one was just completed after Time Warner completed their fiber optic installation. She added they required two franchise fee audits and the second one is ongoing. Further, there are numerous focus groups, technical studies and needs assessment studies. In addition, they commissioned Wayne State University to do a scientific telephone survey and that took a lot of time. Furtherr, Ms. Collins reported along the way there were two stumbling blocks. One had to do with the National, the Federal and the State Telecommunications Act which changed the picture for them and forced them to rewrite their draft franchise agreement. The second was that they had to undergo a transfer process according to the FCC guidelines. She reported the original company was Metro Vision when they approved the transfer to Time Warner. She reported they have begun negotiation, but they feel more time is need for this negotiation process and they are asking the cities to approve an extension until the end of August. She added this is not an unusual process and noted there are numerous cities throughout the metro area and Michigan that are in extensions right now.

Councilman Schmid asked if other companies have come forward. Ms. Collins replied there are no other companies that have come forward and according to the FCC guidelines, that is not a part of this process. However, SWOCC and the three cities are open to competition from other providers.

Councilman Schmid asked if anything can be done about cable costs. Ms. Collins replied there is not much that they can do. She explained according to the FCC reporting rate reviews, they must follow the FCC guidelines which are pretty complicated. She reported they just received a rate survey from Time Warner and find that their rates are below average in the metro area. Further, Ms. Collins reported they are aggressively pursuing the renewal process in negotiations and hope to have it finalized by August.

Mayor ProTem Crawford reported several months ago, Ameritech came before the Commission with a preliminary presentation about what they may offer in the future. Mayor ProTem Crawford stated they welcome competition, but they have not actively solicited it.

CM-97-04-133: Moved by Schmid, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution for the extension of the current cable franchise agreement with Time-Warner Cable of Oakland to August 31, 1997

Nay: None

19. Approval of Consent Judgement Trial Agreement - Briar Pointe Veterinary Clinic

Councilman Schmid removed this item to vote against it.

CM-97-04-134: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve Consent Judgement Trial Agreement - Briar Pointe Veterinary Clinic

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked if Mr. Walter’s letter is appropriate. Mr. Bugbee believes it is.

Mayor McLallen reported there is Council consensus to defer reports.

Deborah Bundoff - stated the City has the responsibility when they hire a company to do a job on or about private property to notify the resident and insure the privacy and rights of the homeowners and business owners.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.

Transcribed by Barbara Holmes