REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI

  MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2000, AT 7:30 PM

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

Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:38 pm.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor ProTem Lorenzo, Council Members Bononi, Crawford, Csordas, DeRoche and Kramer

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo added, under Matters for Council Action II, Item #12 to schedule an Executive Session for 9/25/2000 to discuss pending litigation. Also, under Mayor and Council Issues, #1 Meadowbrook Lake Dredging, #2 Concession stand vandalism at Community Sports Park and #3 Bituminous and concrete pavement improvements at Village Wood and Cranbrooke.

Member DeRoche had requested Quail Ridge be on the agenda for this meeting and it was not and asked that it be added to the next agenda. Mr. Helwig noted it would be #1 on September 25^th. He was requesting the history, who was involved, situation now and how we got here.

Member Bononi added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #4 Traffic Signal at Taft and Ten Mile, #5 Tornado Siren test results and monitoring.

Member Kramer added, under Mayor and Council Issues, #6 Ordinance Review regarding noise.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt it would be helpful to have a dateline chronology of the Quail Ridge situation.

Mr. Galvin, representing Henry Sasson, requested Item #7, Approval of Agreement with Henry Sasson for completion of SAD 94 sanitary sewer be postponed until October 2^nd and a request for a one-year extension of the approvals of Mr. Sasson’s project be on the agenda of September 25^th.

Mayor Clark presented Maureen Mack of Mervyns with a Certificate of Appreciation for their support of Novi Youth Assistance. Tom Lindberg, Novi Youth Assistance acknowledged the participation and enthusiasm of the Mervyns employees.

Mayor Clark read into the record the Proclamation for Constitution Week.

Mr. Nowicki noted in January 2000 a motion was made that there be 100% coverage, or as close as possible, of the City. They worked with Oakland Emergency Management, reviewed the entire City and made several recommendations for the installation of several supplementary sirens. Before Council tonight was the last siren in the City coverage program located at 13 Mile west of M-5. Mr. Nowicki requested that Oakland County be authorized to install the siren.

Mr. Helwig requested a date be set in November 2000 for City Council Goal Setting Session and long term visioning that Council could use for administrative guidance and how priorities and resources were allocated. He suggested Saturday the 11^th or Saturday the 18^th. He also suggested the possibility of beginning on Friday night and carrying it over to Saturday.

There was Council consensus on Saturday the 18^th from 9 AM until 12 PM and if necessary the following Monday evening.

Member DeRoche noted Mr. Helwig came with a wealth of experience and successes from other cities. Therefore, he asked Mr. Helwig what format worked best in his experience?

Mr. Helwig said it had been his experience that if they did not have a facilitator Council would be a more active participant. If Council wanted him to facilitate he would and he would give them homework in advance to identify merging and major issues, short term and long term that were facing the community. They would use this input and wean it to something manageable in terms of near and long term goals. This would identify the critical items that needed to be focused on. Sometimes it was helpful to go through this on Friday night and then on Saturday morning get into additional issues. He would like administration to suggest priorities based on their knowledge of things. This was some of the most valuable work Council would do. The tendency was to do it all in one year which would not happen. He wanted a reasonable action plan of expectations which would be a way to grade the staff and would get the community engaged in what they decided to go after. He wanted to give as much detailed homework in advance as possible so Council could see the individual responses and explain what their ideas were on Friday night and then narrow it down on Saturday.

Mayor Clark noted the meeting would be a couple of hours on Friday the 17^th and Saturday the 18^th.

Mr. Helwig said Friday would be for Council to see what each of them had and to understand them and Saturday morning would be to go through and decide what they would tackle. Then administration would have what they needed for budget preparation and what was needed in terms of policy work sessions.

There was Council consensus to meet on the 17^th at 7 PM and 9 AM to 12 PM on Saturday the 18^th.

2. DEPARTMENT REPORTS

Household hazardous waste collection day update-Director of Public Services Nowicki.

Mr. Nowicki stated the program was very positive and successful with 1,300 vehicles between 9 AM and 2 PM. Of the 1,300 vehicles 956 were from Novi and the amount of materials left had taken two days to remove. A pilot program of computer parts was new this year and they obtained 12 pallets of computer parts, which would not end up in a landfill and would be re-used. Mr. Nowicki asked to repeat this program again next year.

Mr. Nowicki advised residents, during off-hours, to call the Novi Police Department at 348-7100 if they have a flood emergency such as basements, roads, etc. They could also call 911 and speak with the dispatcher.

Member Csordas talked with someone over the weekend whose lot was deep in water and discussed it with Mr. Helwig and Mr. Nowicki to get someone to go out and look at the situation and they did. He felt that would be a very positive Customer Service Card statement and there had not been any in a while. He asked for Mr. Helwig’s input to jump-start the Customer Service card program again.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo commended the staff and community for their hard work during Hazardous Waste Day and for making the community a healthier and safer place.

Mr. Davis noted that this weekend, September 15^th through 17^th, was their Partners in Preserving the Fuerst Farmstead Program jointly sponsored with the Novi Chamber of Commerce. They were receiving great participation from the business community and residents. They had volunteers signed up and work activities planned for Friday afternoon from 12 PM to 5 PM and Saturday from 9 AM until 8 PM. Novi High School students would be participating along with DPW and Parks and Recreation employees. Shifts were set up, volunteers would be fed and people would be on site doing some of the preliminary work. There had been great coverage from the Novi News over the last few weeks and it had generated some interest in the residential community. He invited Council Members to sign up through the Chamber of Commerce or the Parks and Recreation office. On Sunday the Novi Historical Commission would be having their annual Fuerst Farm Family Picnic celebration from 1 PM to 4PM.

3. ATTORNEY - None

Jerry Holtzman, Physician Assistant and licensed paramedic for 23 years in State of Michigan addressed the union fire fighters proposal. He noted the newness and evolution of EMS and asked how many more lives would be saved with this proposal? Adding $3.1 million to taxes every year for a service that Novi did not have and did not need would not help save lives. There would also be an additional ambulance bill and he felt it would be more efficient to hire a dedicated ambulance service with well-trained personnel with two dedicated ALS ambulances for the City. We already have early access to care with 911, AED and advanced life support. The critical link in treating victims in cardiac arrest is early defibrillation as each minute of delay in returning the heart to a normal pattern of beating decreases the chance of survival by 10%. The American Heart Association said there was no difference between Novi’s EMT’s who can defibrillate and paramedics. Our EMT’s have Auto External Defibrillators. Their studies also showed that Police use of AED’s was a more effective strategy because they usually reached the victim prior to fire staff. Police response time was lower and victim survival was higher than paramedics again emphasizing early defibrillation was the key to survival.

To equip Police Officers with Auto External Defibrillators there would be a one-time cost of $30,000 for six defibrillators as opposed to $3.1 million for life with the fire proposal. These are easy to learn and the average citizen could use them without difficulty. Airports, and malls such as Twelve Oaks, etc. currently use them. He spoke about the administration of cardiac drugs that the paramedics give following defibrillation and stated the drugs do not improve survival. This information was from the Coroners Journal of January 2000.

He spoke about trauma and trauma patients and stated a study was done in Houston, Texas regarding giving IV fluids to trauma patients and concluded it was not helpful and could be detrimental. The Second Edition of Trauma study stated "Review of IV fluids used in 6,855 patients in the San Diego EMS system indicates no influence in the mortality rate by administration of IV fluids." Paramedics also put tracheal tubes down a patient’s throat into the trachea to help prevent aspiration and to better control breathing. According to the Journal of Trauma, April 2000, "Advanced life support procedures can be performed by paramedics on major trauma patients without prolonged on scene time but they do not seem to improve survival." A study done by the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas showed similar results. The Advanced Trauma Life Support Course the pre-hospital treatment of trauma patients consisted of airway management, control of external bleeding, shock and immobilization of the patient and immediate transport to the closest trauma center was the preferred method of treatment. The survival of a traumatic cardiac arrest was less then 2% regardless of basic life support or advanced life support treatment given in pre-hospital care according to trauma surgeons at Detroit Receiving Hospital which is a Level 1 Trauma Center.

Basic life support with defibrillation, which the Novi Department presently had, saved lives. He felt enhancing the present system at a fraction of the cost would be the best way to save tax dollars. He felt contracting a private company for two Advanced Life Support Ambulances was what should be done because the run volume of the Novi Fire Department was one to two runs per night. Five or ten percent of that being true emergencies did not warrant the need for a full time Fire Department.

Jim Korte, Shawood Lake, spoke regarding the vacating of Elm Court and stated this was the third time the vacation was brought before Council and no site was ever proved. He noted there were many problems with DEQ, ZBA, etc. He said the building site had nothing to do with the road. If the road was vacated they would create utility and drainage easements. If made a drainage easement this evening the City would open itself to the liability of controlling the drainage and did not think the City wanted to do this. He asked if it was the developer who wanted the City to correct the drainage to give him the building site? It would be absurd for it to become a drainage easement. Mr. Korte asked, relative to the canal, how many feet of property was actually there? We are in no better shape to make a decision of the building site then we were two years ago and asked Council not to vacate.

Mark McManus, 9 mile and Center St., requested the Police Department monitor the traffic from Novi Road to Center St. and up to Taft for speed. The speed limit is 30 and traffic was going 50-70 mph. He had made two or three requests to the Police Department regarding this.

Mayor Clark asked City Manager Helwig to follow through on this enforcement.

Jorg Linke, Clark St., had previously asked what the cost for a dedicated ALS unit would be and had not received an answer. Mr. Helwig stated Chief Lenaghan was on vacation and would get that information to him. He asked why not hire 26 additional paid on call fire fighters, which were already in the budget and without an increase in taxes, rather than pay the $3.1 million dollars.

Henry Baldridge, Elm Court, did not see any benefit to not closing that part of the road since it was of no benefit to anyone. He felt it should be closed.

Andrew Mutch, spoke regarding Item #3, Wilshire Abbey. When approved by the Planning Commission one of the conditions was that those lots along the northerly side of the property line be shifted to the south as there were regulated wetlands and woodlands. By removing those lots, environmental features would be protected, avoid future conflicts by lot owners and it would keep commons areas protected with conservation easements. The original motion included the Planning Commission recommendation and he asked that when the final plat was approved the motion reflected the reduction of those lots.

Member Bononi removed Items C and F.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. August 28, 2000, Regular meeting

B. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2000-16.05 to delete Section 35-17 from the Novi Code of

Ordinances and to amend Section 35-51 of said code, to eliminate the regulation of taxicab

rates of fare by the City of Novi-2^nd Reading & Adoption.

D. Approval of Traffic Control order #00-76 for installation of Stop signs on northbound and

southbound Broadmoor Park Lane at Argyle Street in Broadmoor Park Subdivision No. 1.

E. Authorization to solicit construction bids; Shawood Heights Water Main (SAD 152), Shawood

Heights Sanitary Sewer (SAD 154), and Beck Road Sanitary Sewer Extension.

G. Approval of Request to transfer ownership of 2000 Class C Licensed business from Novi

Mongo L.L.C. to Mongolian Operating Company, L.L.C.

H. Award bid for Twelve-Mile Sprinkler System to American Sprinkler (low bidder) in the amount

of $43,372.

I. Approval of Ordinance No. 2000-44.10-To amend Sections 7-48 and 7-49 of the Novi Code

of Ordinances to reduce the number of Hearing Officers necessary to evaluate dangerous

structures – 1^st Reading

J. Approval of Ordinance No. 2000-15.04-To amend Section 16-57 of the Novi Code of

Ordinances to provide procedures for the abatement of litter nuisances within the City of

Novi – 1^st Reading

K. Approval of claims and accounts: Warrant No. 579

Mr. Helwig stated staff had spent more time on this matter generating a finding and recommendation. Mr. Helwig, Mr. Watson, Mr. Potter and Mr. Klaver visited the site and they reached a consensus that this was a justified vacation and that any pre-judgement about a development proposal was just that and should rise or fall on its own merits. It was a valid vacation consistent with administrative philosophy and it did not serve a public purpose.

Mayor Clark noted there was no determination made with regard to a building site.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned about the statement in the resolution that it was necessary for the health, safety, comfort and welfare, etc. because that determination had not been made. She asked why was it necessary and how did it further the health, comfort, safety and welfare of the people of the City when in vacating it it would set the stage for development of this property? The property was a floodplain and had wetlands on it and felt the City would be encouraging development by virtue of vacation. She asked how that would further the health, welfare, comfort and safety of the people of Novi?

Mr. Watson said the purpose of the vacation was primarily the fact that a road would never be built. It was not realistic to believe the lagoon would ever be crossed to build the extension of a street that would never serve a purpose. No judgments were being made with regard to the building permit status. There was no reason to maintain it free from the tax rolls if it was not going to be used for that type of public purpose. It was not benefiting the citizens to keep it off the rolls.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it was possible to use it in the future for sidewalks, pathways or a bike path.

Mr. Watson replied they could not conceive of a sidewalk back there because of the location of the lagoon and the fact that it would not be a walk or pathway that would lead any where. If Council thought there might be a bike path or sidewalk back there an easement could be retained for that purpose but they did not see it as having any potential.

She asked what having a drainage easement meant? Mr. Watson said it meant if the City desired or needed that land for drainage improvements they could do it.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked about the property being under water? Mr. Watson did not know and stated it was another reason for vacating the property. She asked if it was necessary to vacate the property in order for Mr. Baldridge to develop it? Mr. Watson did not know how or if he could use the land if it was vacated and did not know if he could use it in the absence of vacation. She asked if Council was under any obligation to vacate? Mr. Watson said they were not.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo would not support the vacation, as it would leave the door open for development of this area. She thought the property was an MDEQ regulated wetland and cautioned residents to request a public hearing from the MDEQ if the vacation went forward.

Member Bononi asked if there was a risk exposure with this paper street? Mr. Watson did not think so but if there was it would be minimal. She asked if vacated could Council elect not to provide drainage? Mr. Watson said yes.

Member Csordas noted all consultants recommended vacation as well as the City Manager. He was concerned about encroachments on Mr. Baldridge’s property. Mr. Watson said it appeared that the lawn was being mowed but where the boundary lines of the cutting were in relation to the property lines was difficult to tell. Mr. Klaver noted there were two different issues. There was property across the road on Walled Lake that a fence had been erected on. There was also a separate issue at the rear of the property where the road would be vacated there was a lawn that had for years been maintained by that house. The property behind the house was not fenced it was a clearing area they mowed with no structures. The area fenced was on the north side of the road and did not affect this.

Member Csordas was concerned and noted it was not appropriate for anyone to take over this person’s property and asked Mr. Klaver to check to be sure that was not the case and to have the fence removed.

Member Kramer noted the Elm Court right-of-way was 25 feet wide and we would retain right-of-way for drainage and utility easement over the 25 feet. Mr. Watson said it would be an easement for drainage and utility purposes. Member Kramer asked if this was an easement how did the status of the property affect the building site location? Mr. Watson said any building site would be subject to the easement. Member Kramer said if vacated, 12 ½ feet would go to property owners on the north and south. In the absence of an easement it would allow the building site to be 12 ½ feet closer to the existing properties to the north. Mr. Watson noted the building site was still subject to setbacks; the easement would not affect the setbacks. Mr. Watson noted before building all existing ordinances had to be met.

Member Kramer was not convinced there were appropriate controls for an individual lot and thought maintaining the road right-of-way was more important. He would not support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the ordinance precluded lots with wetlands from being plotted? Mr. Watson said this lot pre-existed that requirement and was already platted.

Mr. Helwig noted that in his experience where the city owned land there was risk exposure and that was a factor in their recommendation to Council. He felt it was inappropriate, with this agenda item, to discuss the building site and thought there was exposure in doing that. The recommendation for the vacation was based on whether the City had a legitimate public purpose for owning the land.

Member Crawford concurred with Mr. Helwig that there was no public purpose for the city to retain the property and although minimal there would be risk to the city.

Mayor Clark said a sidewalk or pathway would enhance the liability as well. Mr. Watson agreed.

Member Csordas asked Council to remain consistent because this was almost identical to the vacating of the street near the party store. At that time, Council was told there was significant risk and liability to the City and he believed there continued to be risk if ownership was retained.

Roll call vote on CM-00-09-298 Yeas: Bononi, Crawford, Csordas, Clark

Nays: Lorenzo, DeRoche, Kramer

Matt Quinn, represented Beztek, regarding the Novaplex project. He requested a 24-foot wide driveway to accommodate the request of City consultants to have a double turn out going right and left from the driveway. This was a request for a four-foot variance.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo noted in Mr. Arroyo’s letter of August 3^rd under Access, page 2, #6, he noted that the curb return on the south side was encroaching on the frontage of the neighboring parcel but felt it should be permitted by both the City and the road commission. She asked how the City had authority to allow the encroachment? Mr. Arroyo said technically the encroachment was not on the property but was across the side lot line within the right-of-way of the road commission.

The Design and Construction Standards and the road commission regulations specified that the curb radius be within the side lot line. However, it could be encroached upon if needed for traffic safety services or if there was no other prudent reasonable alternative. Mr. Arroyo supported it in this location because it lined up with the boulevard across the street in Farmington Hills. If, in the future, it was expanded into a boulevard on the west side of Haggerty ith could serve as a reasonable location for a future signal.

She asked if the applicant would provide a center left turn lane on these locations of his development? Mr. Arroyo said it was a condition of the approval that they would extend a center left turn lane to serve their main entryway. She asked if the warrants were being met regarding the traffic volumes on Haggerty Road to substantiate a light? Mr. Arroyo said probably not at this time and no study had been done but they felt they could be met in the future if the property to the south developed and they shared a driveway. She asked who would pay for the light? Mr. Arroyo said if it was coming forward as a full boulevard they could request the developer pay for the light but thought it was premature to address it at this time. She disagreed and felt there should be a light installed.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if Council had the latitude to require or request a traffic light be placed there paid by the developer? Mr. Watson said yes, the provisions of the Design and Construction Standards that dealt with variances grant Council certain authority. If the conditions could not be met without the traffic light then it would be needed. If the traffic light was not related to permitting them to meet the conditions then it would be a problem.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the waiver was not granted how would it affect the applicant? Mr. Arroyo said they would build a standard width drive and it would function as a one lane left out and right out and would reduce the ability to move traffic through the drive.

George Hartman, represented Wilshire Abbey, responded to Andrew Mutch’s comments regarding the moving of lot lines and stated that had been done. They were in full compliance with the Planning Commission recommendation.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked for concurrence from Mr. Arroyo. Mr. Arroyo said they had pulled the lots out of the regulated wetland area but there was still lot encroachment into the woodlands and it would be addressed separately. Mr. Hartman noted there was a preservation easement for the woodlands. Mr. Watson had not seen documentation yet but it was a requirement and it would be verified.

Member Kramer noted there had been an issue with the location of the emergency exit road with regard to three lots in the adjacent subdivision to the south. There had been a request to provide appropriate screening between the road and the lots. He asked Mr. Arroyo what the alternatives were for screening a road from residential property.

Mr. Arroyo noted one of the significant issues with providing screening along this boundary was the fact that there were both regulated wetlands and a sedimentation basin located adjacent to the drive. This limited the ability to shift that drive to the north to create an area for a wider landscape buffer; therefore it needed to be moved as close as possible to the south property line. Ms. Lemke worked with the property owners and applicant to develop a screening plan that would do the best that could be done in the limited amount of space.

Member Kramer was dissatisfied with the fence and felt the detention pond could be designed in another manner. He would not support the motion until there was an appropriate buffer between the road and the three lots. Mr. Hartman noted the fence had been removed and the landscape plan was prepared with landscaping and buffering. Mr. Arroyo showed the screening plan per agreement with adjacent property owners which had buffering installed between the lots and home of Cheltenham Woods. Mr. Hartman explained the landscape plan and noted they had met the requirements of Ms. Lemke.

4. Request for approval of Agreement with Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex and

Mr. Helwig and Mr. Klaver met with Mr. Fisher in preparation of the agreement with an October 16^th effective date for the assumption of these general services. Mr. Helwig noted the termination clause stated with cause termination could be immediate and without cause termination would be 90 days on the part of either party.

Mr. Helwig introduced Mr. Fisher and Mr. Schultz from the Municipal Law Department of Secrest, Wardle, Lynch, Hampton, Truex and Morley, P.C. who would be servicing Novi.

Member Csordas assured Mr. Fisher and Mr. Schultz that there was no disrespect to them by his no vote and that he voted no because he felt all of City Council should have been able to meet with them prior to this decision.

5. Approval of Thirteen Mile/M-5 Tornado Siren Site.

6. Approval of Design and Construction variance request – Fountain Walk Project Stormwater Detention Basin Design.

Mr. Nowicki reported that the ordinance prohibited a chain link fence. However, the developer felt a variance would allow the construction of a perimeter fence to prevent or deter vandalism. The side slopes of the basin would be steeper to provide more volume in the basin.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if the fence would be visible from the highway? Arman Garbooshian, representing PLC, stated the fence was imposed upon them by Detroit Edison and was visible. He understood Council wanted the retention basins to look as nice as possible but given the conditions placed on them by Detroit Edison they were seeking a variance.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if they would agree to landscape around the fence? Mr. Garbooshian said they would explore other types of fences that would also serve the purpose.

Member Bononi asked, regarding the storm water basin, how much of an increase in capacity were they accommodating as a result of the increase into the easement? Mr. Garbooshian said it would not make that much difference in terms of a hazard. Member Bononi asked if the basin was deeper than it was before? Mr. Garbooshian said this had always been the design. Sizing deficiency meant in order to accomplish the required volume they needed to use the 1 on 3.

Roll call vote on CM-00-09-304 Yeas: Lorenzo, Crawford, Csordas, DeRoche,

Kramer, Clark

Nays: Bononi

7. Approval of Agreement with Henry Sasson for completion of SAD 94 sanitary sewer –

Removed by applicant’s representative Mr. Galvin.

8. Final Report – Consultant Review Committee.

Member Bononi commented she would like to see more reports generated from the committee as the process moved forward. She did not think there was enough concurrent information given during the process and thought communications with Council could have been better as a whole.

Member DeRoche and Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo concurred with Member Bononi.

9. Request for Final Plat Approval – Tollgate Woods Subdivision SP 98-50, located in Section 11, on the southwest corner of Meadowbrook Road and Thirteen Mile Road, zoned RA, Residential Acreage District (PUD)

10. Approval of Management Contract to P.M. One Ltd. For Meadowbrook Commons Adult

Mr. Helwig commented this was the agreement that staff was authorized to develop with the management firm that had been suggested and reviewed with Council.

Mr. Davis noted this met within the scope of the RFP and had been thoroughly reviewed by the City Attorney.

Member Kramer asked how frequent the financial reports and updates would be?

Mr. Davis commented Jim Reuschlein, Vice President of P.M. One was present and available for questions. Mr. Davis stated such reports would be available on a monthly basis for their review and for Council review.

11. Approval of General Rules of Occupancy, Rental Guidelines, and Tenant Preference Plan for Meadowbrook Commons Adult Residential Facility.

Mr. Klaver noted Mark Sturing from the Building Authority was present to answer questions and he acknowledged the dedication of Kathy Crawford. He also acknowledged the residents who worked with the building authority and felt it produced a better product.

Mr. Klaver said the proposed rental structure represented average estimates. When PM One began marketing the units they would get into such factors as locations, balconies, patios and etc. that would determine the final rents. Council had also received information regarding Oakland County average income. They would reserve 40% of the units for people who met 60% or less of the Oakland County median income. It was a State and Federal Standard used in housing projects.

Mr. Davis spoke about the General Rules of Occupancy which was an accumulation of policies and rules assembled from the Citizen Advisory Committee talking with other providers, working with the Building Authority and the administrative team working with PM One on their preference as to how they wanted the facility operated. They reviewed these and felt comfortable using these items as the starting point of their operations.

The second component was the Rental Guidelines, which basically said that the rents derived from the building operation would be enough to support the operation costs and the debt service payments for the facility.

The Tenant Preference Plan talked about age requirements and recognized 55 years as the minimum age requirement and created a preference for those of age 62 or older. Those two ages would be the criteria.

Mr. Davis commented the other ingredient was the income preference and they had established 40% of the units would be for applicants whose household income did not exceed the 60% median income level for Oakland County. Mr. Klaver had included this in the supporting documentation and it was a graduated scale that would be adjusted annually. Presently, for a one-person income it would be $26,220.

Member DeRoche expressed concern and thought some of the rules were a little restrictive; such as Item 12 regarding no bird feeders on patios or balconies. Mr. Davis responded that these items dealt with maintenance related items and could be modified down the road. He felt that PM One would have the keen sense of how to deal with these issues down the road.

Member Csordas noted the annual income would be approximately $70,000 and asked what would be done with that money?

Mr. Davis replied that was a policy question back to Council and administration. However, they were attempting to create a cash reserve that would stay with the facility for long term capital expenses. Member Csordas commented that was what he had hoped they would do so that the money could not be moved around but would stay with the development.

Member Kramer asked that an analysis be done to recommend how much of a contingency fund needed to be set aside in order to maintain the longevity of the facility. He asked if the $70,000 would be enough for future needs or would it exceed the needs of the facility?

Mr. Davis noted they would be working with Kathy Smith Roy and PM One on operational budgets for the balance of this fiscal year and the next. As part of that those items would be taken under advisement and incorporated into the budget process.

Member Kramer noted the Building Authority helped create the facility and asked them for a brief over view and a rate that would keep the facility in topnotch condition over a long period of time. He requested this be done in the next two months.

Mr. Klaver commented the Building Authority had looked at this and there were some recommendations. Mr. Neiman predicted a certain amount for maintenance reserve funds. They had also gathered information from other facilities to see what their reserve funds were.

Member Kramer asked that the analysis be put in Council’s packets.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo shared Member DeRoche’s concerns about Item # 12 and Item #11that said tenants shall not keep any pets on the premises. She was opposed to these two restrictions because studies had indicated that a relationship with a pet promoted healthy lifestyles and physical and mental well being. She asked if the amenities would be reflected in the rents?

Mr. Davis responded they would except for carports. He noted that annually all costs would be reviewed to reflect expenditures and to see if the income was sufficient.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt that 40% of the units for lower income residents was not enough. She asked how the percentage was arrived at and was it possible to increase the number of units available to lower income applicants and raise the other rents to make up for that?

Mr. Klaver said looking at the mix of units the total of one-bedroom units represent 44 of the total mix of the project. The ranch units were closer to market rents.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt the intent of the project was to serve senior citizens who could not afford market rates and wanted staff to explore increasing those numbers as much as possible.

Mr. Klaver said that was the goal and purpose of the entire project. A major step was taken when they were concerned with the original project and adjustments were made. They significantly expanded the number of ranch units because they would generate more of the rent because they were closer to a market type rent. They would help make the project affordable and at the same time minimize rent for the lower one-bedroom units. He cautioned this could become a highly debated and divisive subject because the residents would be aware that other people were paying more to subsidize it.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if an association would be formed? Mr. Davis said that had not been discussed with PM One yet. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo felt the human element was missing from this project.

Jim Reuschlein, from PM One, noted they would support resident councils or committees and have them on a vast majority of the properties they have. They met with them monthly regarding issues PM One and residents had. He agreed there would be issues among the residents and they had seen it everywhere there was a different rent structure and they could do something about that.

The reason behind the bird feeder rule was they caused other unwanted animals to come around and then it became an issue of extermination. The environment was not conducive to people having pets. Situations occurred when they could no longer care for a pet and could not take them outside on a regular basis. The residents had to have a clean and safe environment.

Mr. Kramer supported the idea of reasonable accommodation of pets and suggested allowing them in certain areas, as it would lend to the well being of residents. He asked Mr. Reuschlein to be more accommodating regarding pets

Mayor Clark suggested once the facility was full to let the residents decide what they would like in regard to pets. Also, some might not want pets so it would be the simple solution to let them decide the issue.

Member Kramer requested periodic progress reports.

Member Bononi asked who would provide security for the facility and what the system would consist of? Mr. Reuschlein stated the main building would have key cards but they would have to look into providing a security service for the ranch units. Mr. Klaver stated the main building was limited access and each unit had emergency call buttons for medical or mechanical emergencies. She asked if it would be a 24-hour emergency call system and who would operate it? Mr. Klaver said it would be a 24 hour a day system and they would hire an outside monitoring system.

Member Bononi asked who provided the recreational activity services? Mr. Klaver noted we would have some involvement in the recreational activities and programs that are housed at the Civic Center. The meals on wheels would operate at the facility and the management company would be responsible for some of the activities. Mr. Davis said there was a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot multi purpose activity center with a kitchen facility to house the meals on wheels and nutritional lunch program. Member Bononi asked if the payment for those services were taken out of the facilities profits? Mr. Davis said they would be transferring the operations of the programs provided at the Civic Center to that location and discontinuing them at the Civic Center so the cost would be borne by the existing operations through the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Member Bononi questioned the age requirements. Mr. Davis explained that out of the two members of the residence one of them had to meet the 55 or 65 preference. One could be as young as 50 and if the older person passed away before the younger person attained the 55 years of age minimum requirement they would be allowed to stay within the facility. Member Bononi asked if they could stay regardless of income? Mr. Davis said regardless if they met the criteria at the time of application and initial move in. Member Bononi was concerned with some of the language being too restrictive. The language could mean the same but not be couched in such strident terms. She offered to give Mr. Davis the language she had. She was concerned about whose standards were being used and felt it should be spelled out with regard to how the units would be maintained.

Member Crawford stated that had already been investigated and the committee had done their due diligence in coming up with these issues. He felt Council was micro managing and Mr. Davis and the management company already said once this was in operation they would listen to a citizen’s council to make revisions.

Member DeRoche would not support the motion because he thought the language was more forceful than he wanted to be.

12. Schedule an Executive Session for 9/25/2000 to discuss pending litigation – Mayor Pro

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Consent Agenda items, which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

Member Bononi questioned whether every participant, City or other agency, paid the same rate, was the rate negotiated and what cost did the City incur for this last year? Mr. Lemmon had answered her questions and had more information to pass on to Council.

Mr. Lemmon, City Assessor, thought the cost last year was $28,500. Since Oakland County had held the rate with the City for two years at $12.29 he anticipated an increase. Therefore, he had asked for $32,000 and felt that at $12.74 per parcel he would come in close to the $32,000 budgeted. In addition to the $12.29 and $12.74 budgeted over the past couple of years was the cost of printing of forms, mailing, etc. which would come to an additional $1,500. He asked Dave Hieber, Oakland County Equalization, if the contract was negotiable. Mr. Hieber said everything was negotiable but after estimating this even if negotiated back to what it was last year a little less than a $1,000 would be saved. This would work out to be a 3.6% increase over last year and would be held for this year and 2002 for personal property.

Member Bononi asked what the highest and lowest was that other cities were paying?

Mr. Lemmon replied the highest was $14.00 per parcel for Novi Township and the lowest was $11.47 per parcel for Walled Lake. The number of parcels, the complexity of the parcels being audited, the number of out state audits, the SEV, commercial versus industrial personal property and other factors affected the rates.

Member Bononi commented this amount was for each of the two years. Mr. Lemmon replied $32,000 was for each year.

Member Bononi had concerns regarding adjacency, architectural issues, compatibility and neighborhoods, integral versus freestanding structures, numbers of structures, design concerns and automotive and other equipment warehousing.

Member Kramer asked where the ordinance came from? Member Bononi replied it came from the Planning Commission.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned, regarding the 9/6/00 memo from JCK, about the additional $700,000 it might take to complete this project. She wanted all grant possibilities to come before Council to decide which one best met the City’s needs before applying for grants. She also wanted proactive measure to control sedimentation problems in the future before dredging the lake. The report indicated that limited or permanent access would need to be available to the lake and she felt the neighborhood should be brought into this to see if it would be agreeable to them.

Member Bononi noted it was not a question of postponing the project but how to proceed. She had discussed this with Mr. Nowicki and there was more than one option and more than one funding vehicle. She hoped, with the formulation of the Storm Water and Management Committee, they would look at this. She did not want the lake adversely affected and was concerned about the cost accelerating. The Clean Michigan Initiative funding would pay 75% of the bill. She would support the motion because she wanted all these things sorted out and brought back with the best project possible.

Member DeRoche would not support the motion and noted that administration was working on this situation. He looked forward to this as an agenda item.

Mr. Helwig had asked Ms. Smith-Roy to re-circulate the grant application guidelines. He felt that grant applications should be authorized by City Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo commented the memo was brought forward because the information made one believe that JCK was going forward with a grant proposal to a particular committee. We should not ask for $100,000 when it might be possible to get 70% of the project with another grant and that was the purpose of the postponement.

Mayor Clark asked if this could come back at the next meeting? Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said that would be fine. Mayor Clark directed administration to make it clear to JCK that they are not to apply for grants until Council could look at all of the funding options. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo suggested disposing of the motion and directing administration to follow up on this issue. There was Council consensus to dispose of the motion and direct the administration to follow up on this issue.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo was concerned about the vandalism at Community Sports Park. She noted that staff would review the security and AON would be looking at it as part of risk management. She suggested a security monitoring device be place at the park and felt it might be cost effective.

Mayor Clark suggested directing staff to investigate security measures. Member Crawford commented the memo stated they would review security.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked where the drainage went from the channel. Mr. Nowicki said it went into the drainage ditch and then through the system into a storm drain.

Member Bononi asked for an update on this intersection. Mr. Nowicki commented earlier in the year the road commission indicated they would have the signal installed by the time school started. It had not been upgraded and he contacted the road commission and was advised it would be later on this month. There seemed to be a delay with getting Edison into that intersection and resetting some poles.

Test Results – Tornado Siren – Member Bononi

Member Bononi was concerned about the siren test results, test monitoring and the fact there were no volunteers. She asked what the projected cost was and what the alternatives were. Mr. Nowicki said there were 14-15 sirens within the community. Oakland Emergency Management historically secured volunteers to go out for the testing and observe the siren to be sure it was rotating. They did have an amateur radio group that volunteered to do the tests. Unfortunately, they have not been able to secure volunteers and have transferred the burden of monitoring these sirens over to the community. They are working with Ms. Malone to get volunteers to help with the monitoring. Until volunteers are found DPW crews were doing the monitoring and the estimated cost to monitor the sirens was $640 a month. Member Bononi noted that totaled $7,600 over a year, which was too much, and she felt the County should help with this.

Mr. Nowicki thought an alternative would be to conduct the test during regular work hours during the week when the DPW, Police, Fire and staff could do the monitoring. Mr. Helwig felt noon was a common time period to test these during the workday.

Ordinance Review – Mayor Clark

Mayor Clark requested, with Council consensus, that the Ordinance Review Committee look at the possibility of a noise ordinance to control electronically amplified noise levels.

To direct the Ordinance Review Committee to explore the possibility

1. Report from Glenn Lemmon, City Assessor, Re: Michigan Tax Tribunal Update.

2. Letter from Rob & Chris Czarnecki regarding vacating Elm Court.

3. Letter from Sarah Gray Re: SAD #149 – Eubank/LeMay, Maudlin Watermain

To adjourn the meeting at 11:26 PM

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

Transcribed by: ______________________________

Charlene Mc Lean

Date approved: September 25, 2000