REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2005 AT 7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS – NOVI CIVIC CENTER – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD

Mayor Csordas called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL: Mayor Csordas, Mayor Pro Tem Landry, Council Members Capello, Gatt, Lorenzo, Nagy* and Paul

ALSO PRESENT: Rick Helwig – City Manager

Craig Klaver – Chief Operating Officer

Clay Pearson – Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz – City Attorney

Benny McCusker – Public Works Director

Kathy Smith-Roy – Finance Director

Barb McBeth – Planning Director

Rob Hayes – City Engineer

CM-05-02-030 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Paul; to suspend rules for reconsideration under Matters for Council Action, Part I, Item 6, and request for reconsideration of the Toll Brothers Island Lake Fifth Amendment.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Schultz if that should be done now or wait until that portion of the agenda.

Mr. Schultz answered that it was appropriate to do it at the time the agenda was amended; he presumed that there would be consideration of a motion to suspend the rule that dealt with putting the item on for reconsideration. He said theoretically it was supposed to be in by one of the members who voted against the motion to approve by Wednesday. He presumed that was the rule Council was suspending, the timing of the reconsideration.

Member Lorenzo stated that was correct.

Mr. Schultz answered that he thought it was appropriate to do it at approval of the agenda.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry added to Mayor and Council Issues, Item 4, To inquire into the status of the weighmaster position; and Member Paul added Item 5, Westbrook Golf Course sign.

PRESENTATIONS – None

PUBLIC HEARING – None

1. SPECIAL/COMMITTEE – None

2. CITY MANAGER – None

3. DEPARTMENTAL – None

4. ATTORNEY – First Reading of Sign Ordinance Relating to Noncommercial Message Signs

Mr. Schultz stated that the City Manager had suggested that he bring up the first reading of sign ordinance relating to noncommercial message signs. He said to clarify, if Council decided it was interested in pursuing the ordinance in roughly the format that it was in the packet, they did take them, when they had the ability, to the Planning Commission for a public hearing so any public hearing requirements that someone might argue were covered under the zoning ordinance as well. He stated that last time he presented the issue to Council, he was directed to bring it there first, with the idea that if Council decided to go forward, it would be referred to the Planning Commission. He stated it was a kind of FYI.

Mayor Csordas asked, an ordinance being referred to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Schultz stated that obviously zoning ordinance amendments went through the Planning Commission which was required to hold a public hearing; the sign ordinance was not technically a zoning ordinance, but it did regulate by district, so they liked to cover the public hearing requirement even with a sign ordinance.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – None

Member Lorenzo removed Item E, Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for Nine Mile Road Water Main Extension between Kensington and Roberts Road to URS Corporation, and Item F, Approval to award contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the Garfield Road Water Main Extension to Anderson, Eckstein and Westrick, Inc.; Member Paul removed Item D, Approval to award contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the Beck Road Water Main Replacement project to Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., and Item G, Approval to award contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for Eleven Mile Road Rehabilitation and Culvert Replacement to URS Corporation; and Member Capello removed Item No. 42050 under Item J, Claims and Accounts.

CONSENT AGENDA: (Background information for Consent Agenda items is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office)

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. January 22, 2005 – Special meeting

2. January 24, 2005 – Regular meeting

B. Enter Executive Session immediately following the regular meeting of February 7, 2005 in the Council Annex for the purpose of discussing pending litigation.

C. Approval to change location of City of Novi Voting Precincts 9, 11 and 13.

H. Acceptance of water main and sanitary sewer as public utilities with corresponding 20-foot permanent easements for each utility from Americenters of Novi, LLC for the Executive Office Suites project for property located on Parcel 50-22-12-400-033, at 28175 Haggerty Road.

I. Approval to apply for an Emerald Ash Borer Tree Planting Grant, for a maximum grant award of $20,000. (City’s grant share is $32,000 to be funded from the tree fund).

1. Adoption of Resolution for 2005-2006 Short-Term and Long-Term Goals.

Member Lorenzo thanked the Mayor and Council members for incorporating the list that she presented with all of her short- and long-term goals and actually even incorporating some into the document. She had some questions, clarifications on some of the items; she stated she would start with the short-term goals. She asked under First Priority Cluster No. 2, better transportation for seniors – add Coordinator. She asked if Council was thinking of a full-time or part-time position.

Member Gatt stated that he was thinking of a full-time position after consulting with Cathy Crawford; she believed that was one of the most pressing needs of the senior community right now.

Member Lorenzo asked under the Second Priority Cluster, No. 7, build City’s own performing arts building – non-tax sources, what the non-tax sources were.

Member Capello stated sources that were not from tax revenue; he wanted to limit it to non-tax sources.

Mayor Csordas stated that Council didn’t actually discuss the how; what Council discussed was the what’s, so Council would have to discuss the hows on all of the things.

Member Capello stated that he just wanted to make it clear that when Council started to look at that, if they did choose that as a goal, that they wouldn’t look to tax revenues to provide that service to the community and would have to look elsewhere.

Member Lorenzo asked Fourth Priority Cluster, No. 12, embrace the 50’s Festival; she went through the Minutes and thought that item said without City funding. She stated that she would appreciate it if that proviso was on that No. 12.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that he indicated that the City didn’t directly contribute; he stated that the 50’s Festival didn’t directly cost, but they all knew if there was overtime for the police or something like that. He stated that he did not put that in there; he just talked about embracing the 50’s Festival. He stated that as the Minutes indicated, it was an event that was held in our City and it highlighted our City; the Festival did not request direct dollars from the City.

Member Lorenzo stated that it said something to the effect that it wouldn’t cost the City anything to do that embracing.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that he didn’t indicate that.

Member Lorenzo stated that she thought she read that in the Minutes.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that was not what he intended, not what he meant.

Member Lorenzo stated that she appreciated the clarification. Moving on to the long-term goals, Member Lorenzo stated, in Second Priority Cluster No. 4, aggressively pursue a plan for a new Library, she was looking for a definition of aggressively pursue.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that when Council all discussed that at the goal setting session, he indicated at that time that he thought the City needed a library way better than the one it had now. In fact, he thought he used the word "pathetic" for the building, obviously not the staff. He indicated that the City had a challenge grant, the Walker challenge grant, the Walker donation, and he indicated that the City needed to aggressively pursue a plan on how to get a new library; it was a long-term goal, not a short-term goal. He thought the City needed to get with the Library Board; he thought it needed to somehow find the money to build a new library. He said that was all he indicated; they should maybe look at some private donations; look at a combination of private donations and maybe a bond, whatever. He stated that his only point was that Council needed to talk about it, to put it on an action item to begin to work towards; if you don’t have a goal, you’ll never reach a goal. He didn’t get specific on committing any tax dollars or anything like that.

Member Lorenzo stated that she appreciated the clarification. On Second Priority Cluster, No. 6, establish and commit to minimum staffing levels in all departments. She stated that she didn’t have a problem establishing a minimum; she was concerned about the word "commit". Her only concern would be that some departments were not necessarily as essential as others, that was the best way she could put it at that point.

Mayor Csordas stated that by "minimum" he meant here’s the minimum amount; we’ll go below that, so what he was saying was that Council wanted to commit to a lean, efficient machine, not constantly adding people on that may not be necessary; of course, this Council’s policy was not to do that anyway. He said by stating "minimum", it wasn’t like saying here’s a minimum number of people and we’ll go above that; it was maybe a "maximum". He stated that the goal was to keep a small, efficient workforce, not overly staffed.

Member Lorenzo appreciated the clarification on that. With regard to the Third Priority Cluster, No. 8, build free standing senior center on City land. She had next to that one to identify funding.

Member Gatt stated that after discussing that with the seniors, they believed there was not enough space available for them to meet and have social activities; as far as funding, the way he understood it that Saturday morning when Council met was that they were not to discuss the how’s but the what’s. He said if they could find the how, that was a Third Priority Cluster goal.

Member Lorenzo thanked Member Gatt. Member Lorenzo asked about No. 9 in the Fourth Priority Cluster, set timetable for Beck Road improvement – 8 Mile to Grand River; she noted define "improvement".

Mayor Csordas stated that it was probably moving toward compliance with the Thoroughfare Master Plan where it looked at either a four-lane highway or a four-lane boulevard just to set the guidelines for the future and maybe walk our talk as it related to the Master Plan for Thoroughfares.

Member Lorenzo thanked Mayor Csordas. She stated that some of her observations, and perhaps some concerns as well, when she reviewed all of those; one that was conspicuous by its absence because through the other two times that Council had gone through that process, she didn’t see anything that said let’s maintain the same millage or no tax increases, however you wanted to phrase it. She didn’t see anything phrased in that way; that concerned her to some degree.

Member Lorenzo stated that the next thing that she observed was that there seemed to be some competing and conflicting goals, in terms of how you spend money or what you do, and the third thing was that a lot of those, especially that made it to the short-term second priority cluster, in her opinion, appeared to be more of a wish list of wants instead of necessities. She said her concern was that, and she understood that Council was not to worry about the how-to’s, it was just sort of putting a list down, was that the actual resolution for this evening talked about "whereas strategic goals prioritized by policy makers should be incorporated in the Novi budget and in policy documents. She said unless you had the funding, how did you do that. She said it seemed almost backward to her; it seemed like in order to incorporate the goals into the budget, the goals had to be more realistic and attainable goals. She stated that she didn’t see how it helped the Administration to come back with a budget that leaned toward what the City was looking to do without being realistic about it.

Member Lorenzo stated that she had some examples. She stated that Council wanted to upgrade the City’s information technology, but it also said on No. 4 a firearms range with the forfeiture funds. She said that all members received in their packets maybe six weeks ago information from the Chief that told Council that it could use that money in a number of different ways; one of the things was Council could put approximately 50 percent of what it needed for the IT, which was about $1-million from what they had been told so far, from the forfeiture funds. She said if Council did that and a firearms range was estimated at about $1-million; she said they couldn’t do both, so that was why she was saying they were conflicting. In other words what Council would have to do if IT was up there, then Council would either have to take away the firearms range or you would be looking at taking the whole $1-million out of the General Fund, instead of only half a million. She stated that the half million, in her opinion, could be better spent on other City services that were needed. So that was where she saw some conflicts there.

Member Lorenzo stated reinstating continuing education for staff and managers in the Second Priority Cluster, and in the Fourth Priority Cluster develop a strategy to deal with future reduction in State Shared Revenue. She stated that was again conflicting; what Council had been doing the last few years based on City Manager Helwig’s recommendation was to be slashing and cutting the staff’s seminars and conferences; so those two were in conflict. She said if you wanted to develop a strategy, you couldn’t be spending money somewhere else that was again unnecessary. She stated that those were some of the things that she saw were in direct conflict with one another.

Member Lorenzo stated investigate feasibility of a downtown development authority for Main Street and Grand River; for those that were not familiar with the downtown development authority, what that did in short was take future revenues from that area and instead of going into the General Fund for all of the taxpayers, it would bring it back to that specific area only to be used in that specific area. That seemed to her to be in conflict with things that Council looked to do. She didn’t see how Council could possibly afford to take any money away from the General Fund; to her, the City needed every single dollar now and in the future for City services.

Member Lorenzo stated that building the City’s own performing arts building sounded like a great idea, nontax sources, but she hadn’t heard any ideas of what those nontax sources were.

Member Lorenzo stated that if you looked at each of the goals in isolation, they all sounded wonderful and were noble and worthy things to try to attain, but in the scope of being practical and realistic and doing what was in the best interests and most fiscally responsible to all of the taxpayers, there were a number of those items that she just mentioned that she felt very strongly she couldn’t support on that document. Unfortunately, she would not be able to support the resolution this evening for the reasons that she had suggested. She stated that there were a lot of things on it that she strongly supported and would be supporting at budget time, which was develop a strategy to deal with future State Revenue Sharing decreases, developing a plan to control health benefits and pension liability, continuing with the neighborhood road program without any kind of a millage increase or a road bond; better transportation for seniors. She could support a part-time person there; in fact, that was the information Council had previously received from Mr. Auler was that it would cost a little over $11,000 for a part-time position. She stated that was another one; Mayor Csordas had just mentioned that he didn’t want to increase staffing levels. She stated that did that with benefits. She stated that Council wanted to control health benefits and pensions, and Council added a new person. She thought the best way to accomplish that would be a part-time person.

Member Lorenzo questioned the role of the City Council in taking a position on the Library, one way or another. She thought Council, since the Library was part of the City under the Charter and that Council basically set the millage for the Library up to the extent that it could; she also cautioned that Council needed to be careful because obviously in terms of endorsements or using public funds for endorsements, Council could get into some difficulty if it ever got on a ballot and was an actual election issue. She stated that from what she understood, basically when Council talked about planning a new Library, it was talking about some kind of tax increase, whether it was a bond or millage. She stated that she didn’t feel comfortable as a Councilmember saying as a Council that it would endorse a tax increase; she didn’t endorse tax increases for this Council. She said that was why she thought those kinds of statements were in the previous goals of not increasing taxes; she knew the Mayor had mentioned that many times, but it was not there and she was concerned about that. Again, she couldn’t support that statement for those reasons.

Member Capello stated that he had a point of order; he stated that what was on the agenda and what was before Council right now was whether or not the resolution in the packet were the short-term and long-term goals that were approved at the Saturday morning meeting. He stated that Council members were there; they discussed those goals and Administration had now put them in the form of a resolution, and Member Lorenzo was trying to open up the discussion Council had on the goals and what goals were approved or not. Unfortunately, Member Lorenzo couldn’t make that meeting; those issues had been discussed. He stated all that Council should be discussing was if those short-term and long-term goals that were before Council right now were the goals that were approved on Saturday, not to go back in and begin discussions and open up the issues of whether or not one member approved them or not; it had been approved by Council. Member Capello stated that he had been very patient sitting here; Council went through that for three and one-half hours on a Saturday morning, and he had been very patient letting Member Lorenzo discuss what she should have discussed that Saturday morning. He stated let’s vote on whether or not what was before Council was what was approved on that Saturday.

Mayor Csordas appreciated both Member Capello’s comments and Member Lorenzo’s comments; he stated that really what it was was probably a forecast of the discussion that would be held at the budget.

Member Lorenzo agreed and said that basically she was giving everyone a heads up; she didn’t expect anyone here this evening to change those goals, she was simply stating her opinion on them, which she had every right to do at this time.

Mayor Csordas stated that at the goal session they just said there were the goals and they stated that there would be no discussion because there were no good or bad ideas here, actually they were all good ideas. Whether Council could do any or one of them or none of them or all of them, who knew; it was just a forecast for budget stuff, so Council should probably cut the discussion short. He thought they all understood and agreed.

Member Lorenzo stated that she was also there to let the public understand why she couldn’t support the resolution; she wouldn’t want to not support the resolution and not have reasons why she didn’t on the record.

Mayor Csordas stated that he understood and thought that Council and the public had her point and asked her to wrap it up a little bit.

Member Lorenzo stated that she absolutely would; she was on the last part of long-term. She stated that the timetable for Beck Road improvements was very interesting because at this point in time she couldn’t be convinced other than anything already there the three lane road with a center turn lane, so she wouldn’t be able to support that statement on there; she was sure within the next several months there would be a big topic of discussion at this table and the City in general.

2. Approval to purchase one (1) 2005 Chevrolet Tahoe from Shaheen Chevrolet in the amount of $31,000 and one (1) 2005 Chevrolet Blazer from Buff Whelan Chevrolet in the amount of $24,000 through the Oakland County Joint Purchasing Program for the Fire Department.

Member Capello stated that the initial question he had was whether or not the City actually needed to purchase the Tahoe and Blazer, and he understood that the City did need the room in those vehicles to carry equipment; it wasn’t merely just transportation to and from building inspections.

3. Approval of resolution to authorize Budget Amendment #2005-7.

Member Paul stated that when she went through that information, she appreciated more information from the City Manager’s office about what the City currently had and some facts about what was happening in the Building Department; she still didn’t have a clear idea of what that person’s responsibilities were going to be. She said that sometimes while looking through the billings, she saw that someone was paid for the ZBA Minutes and it used to be done through the Building Department clerical. She asked what would happen now if the City got the position.

Mr. Helwig asked Mr. Saven, Building Director, to respond in detail to Member Paul’s questions.

Mr. Saven answered in regard to the issue of the Zoning Board of Appeals, they did have a court recorder that came in some time ago when there were legal problems in regard to the Minutes of the meeting; it helped tremendously in the Zoning Board of Appeals process. Based upon that particular reason, the typing of the Minutes and processing the ZBA cases, that person was dealing with the ZBA cases, setting up for the meeting and following through with the clients who came into the Building Department for establishing the cases.

Member Paul stated there would be no one recording the Minutes of the ZBA; the City would still be getting a court reporter for that.

Mr. Saven stated that was correct.

Member Paul asked what happened when there was someone that was required by our legal services maybe in something with the Building Department or violations, who would be taking Minutes to that discussion that went to court.

Mr. Saven answered that he assumed that it would be based upon the circumstance that happened at that time; he asked for a for instance to answer her question.

Member Paul stated for instance, if there was a violation of some sort, either with his department or Neighborhood Services, and our lawyer was present and they were taking information, would there be someone from your office with this clerical position that could take Minutes that it could go to court for our lawyer to use.

Mr. Saven stated that they would have the ability to utilize that Construction Board of Appeals person to take the Minutes at that time. He stated they would have somebody in-house to help in that particular instance; normally, it wasn’t for a long duration of time as what the ZBA was.

Member Paul asked about how many hours that person would be working.

Mr. Saven answered approximately 24 hours.

Member Paul asked if that person would have benefits.

Mr. Saven answered that person would not have benefits.

Mayor Csordas asked what the minimum hours of work that was required in the City to qualify for full-time benefits.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered that it was 40 hours.

Member Paul asked if they worked under 40 hours, if they only received part-time benefits; there was no health care, no pension.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered that if they worked over 24 hours, there was an issue with the Teamster contract where they had to consider the position a full-time position.

Member Lorenzo stated that she had had extensive conversations with Ms. Smith-Roy, and now she fully understood the movements and the positions and all of that complicated storyline to the request. She said her concern would be if the City had all three full-time positions filled and then the person in Planning came back, and the person that was taking that place right now needed another position, she would not want to either 1) create a new position somewhere else in the City so that the City wouldn’t have to eliminate that person taking the job out of the City. That would be her proviso that Council wouldn’t be creating a fourth position somewhere in the City to accommodate a person; that’s been told that that was not going to happen.

Mr. Helwig stated that was correct.

Member Lorenzo stated the concern she wanted to raise was that the last time Council discussed this, the Building Department was said to be self-supporting; when she specifically asked Ms. Smith-Roy about it, apparently at least from 6/30/04 the City was operating with a shortfall in the Building Department, approximately $35,000; that concerned her because it was supposed to be a self-supporting department. Now Council was taking approximately $25,000 from the General Fund and putting it in to make it a full-time position again for that third position. She asked how much more money was Council going to subsidize from the General Fund for the Building Department; did Council need to look at some point at increasing permit fees or doing something else to make sure it was self-sufficient. She wanted to do whatever Council needed to do to make sure it was self-sufficient.

Mr. Saven stated that the Building Department had provided information in regard to increasing the permit fees over a period of time. He stated that he was ready to present it for the next budget session, but he wanted to bring to Council’s attention a couple of things. He stated that this year residentially, the place would go crazy. He guaranteed probably that at the end of this month, out of one builder alone, he’ll probably have 60 home permits being provided to his department. He stated that there were three projects in the City that were litigated; they were watching them all very carefully right now and one in particular just had their three models picked up on last Friday, to which they would be supplying the department with a tremendous amount of plans by the end of February approximately 60 plans for single-family homes. He stated that he could only tell Council that they had about seven years of high intensity build out, in his mind in what he had seen over the years, it was going to be very heavy, very concentrated; it would be power-packed for this fiscal year. In terms of the fees, he believed they would be very self-supporting in that particular area and they would be very busy.

Member Lorenzo stated that she appreciated that and would count on that. She stated that she would be supporting the position; there was no doubt in her mind that obviously the department needed help. She just wanted to make those two provisos clear.

4. Approval of Ordinance No. 05-147-01., an ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances as amended, Chapter 2, Administration, Article VI, Purchase and Sale of Property, Section 2-201, Authorization for Expenditures, with regard to the amounts requiring Council approval and sealed bids. Second Reading

CM-05-02-036 Moved by Gatt, seconded by Landry; MOTION CARRIED: To approve Ordinance No. 05-147-01., an ordinance to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances as amended, Chapter 2, Administration, Article VI, Purchase and Sale of Property, Section 2-201, Authorization for Expenditures, with regard to the amounts requiring Council approval and sealed bids. Second Reading

Member Lorenzo stated that she wanted to go on record for the reasons that she couldn’t support that. She believed that between $3,000 and $15,000 was still a significant amount of money; she believed that elected officials should be accountable for the actual spending of those tax dollars and that, in that case, the spending of those tax dollars up to $15,000 would now be made by Administrators behind closed doors instead of here in front of the public. She believed that it allowed for an environment of favoritism, for those reasons she couldn’t support it.

Member Paul stated that she echoed a lot of those comments; she had been on record when it was previously discussed as not supporting it; she would not be supporting it this evening. She had also been asked by many people how Council would handle different purchases, and she looked at the warrants and the finances very closely; she would not be supporting this at this time.

Mayor Csordas stated that Council did have comparisons with surrounding cities, and what that really did was bring Novi to an equal level of purchasing authority that was accepted in business and municipalities surrounding Novi.

5. Reconsideration of request from G.F.G. Foods, Inc. for a City quota Class C license to be located at Honey Tree Restaurant, 41602 W. Ten Mile Road, in the Meadowbrook Ten Shopping Center.

Member Paul stated that after the last Council meeting, she had more than three phone calls from different people in the community that were very upset that two members on Council who had some financial interests with some people in the past with the restaurant still got to vote on the item; she wanted to bring that forward that the two members did disclose the information. Member Capello made a statement that there was a far-removed point of financial interest with this one client and also Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that if anyone had any problems, he would recuse himself. She wanted to make sure that both were aware that people in the community did have a problem with both of them voting on that. She wanted to bring that forward and ask both of them to recuse themselves this evening.

CM-05-02-037 Moved by Paul, seconded by Lorenzo; MOTION FAILED: That Mayor Pro Tem Landry and Member Capello recuse themselves from reconsideration of request from G.F.G. Foods, Inc. for a City quota Class C license to be located at Honey Tree Restaurant, 41602 W. Ten Mile Road, in the Meadowbrook Ten Shopping Center because of a conflict of interest.

Mayor Csordas stated that he watched the film of that and he read the Minutes and it seemed to him that our attorney gave an opinion on that, and in his opinion there was not a legal issue, even though those two gentlemen did have past relationships with the customer. He asked Mr. Schultz his opinion on that.

Mr. Schultz stated that there were a couple of procedural points first. The first was that before the item should be discussed at all, there really needed to be a reconsideration motion on the floor, which was not on the floor yet.

He said with regard to the conflict of interest issue, he did have a chance to look at that in light of the discussion. He said Council rules indicated pretty clearly what the basis for recusal or abstention were; they included a direct financial interest, was primarily all that was stated in the rules, or a different interest other than the public in general. He stated that both Council members indicated that they had a past relationship but that it was not a current relationship, so he didn’t think it met the concept in the rules or in Roberts Rules or general common law.

Mr. Schultz said the other thing that he thought was important to recognize was that, as Council people who had indicated on the record that they had the ability to be fair and objective, they actually had an obligation to vote and would need to be recused under the Council’s rules from voting by a unanimous vote of the remaining members. He stated that if Council had an issue as to whether or not there was an obligation to abstain, which there didn’t appear to be and actually a concern about whether or not they could abstain, even with an approval of the remaining unanimous members. He stated that if Member Paul’s motion ultimately were bright back after a motion for reconsideration, it really would have to pass unanimously. He stated that their original opinion stood from the other night.

Mayor Csordas stated that, based on that, Council would look for a motion for reconsideration then. He asked who could actually raise that.

Mr. Schultz answered that it would either be Member Gatt, Member Capello or Mayor Pro Tem Landry.

Member Capello asked for a point of clarification. He said that the issue had been brought up by Member Paul and it appeared that Mr. Schultz, as City Attorney, was not in agreement with her and, in fact, we have to vote, but he asked if they still had the right to vote on the motion for reconsideration. He said it seemed like if there was a conflict, there was a conflict going both ways, so he thought they would have to discuss the conflict before any motions were put on the floor.

Mr. Schultz stated that in order to revive the issue, he thought Council needed to have the reconsideration so that the substantive issue upon which there was at least a discussion about conflict of interest would need to be on the floor.

CM-05-02-038 Moved by Capello, seconded by Gatt; MOTION CARRIED: To reconsider the request from G.F.G. Foods, Inc. for a City quota Class C license to be located at Honey Tree Restaurant, 41602 W. Ten Mile Road, in the Meadowbrook Ten Shopping Center.

Member Lorenzo stated that she received a call either Tuesday or Wednesday of last week from a resident in the community who also stated that they objected to both Mayor Pro Tem Landry and Member Capello voting on that issue. They were actually also disappointed in her and those that didn’t raise any objections to Members Capello and Mayor Pro Tem Landry voting on it, so she felt obligated to bring that objection forward at this point based on that. She recalled that Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that if anyone had a problem, he would be happy to recuse himself. She had had past situations where she didn’t have to recuse herself from a legal standpoint, but when she stated that she would like to recuse herself, the Council obliged and she would expect that the same thing would be for Mayor Pro Tem Landry, if he chose to do that.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that he didn’t get any phone calls this week; he found that very curious. He asked how come nobody called him; he said that members of the community in the past hadn’t hesitated when they disagreed with him to call him, to email him, yet curiously no one had called him all week. He asked how come someone hadn’t called him if he was the center of all of that, how come no one had called him and to his face said they thought he was wrong; he hadn’t heard that.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that two weeks ago Member Capello and he were the ones that brought it up; no one else brought it up. Member Capello and he let the world know that in the past they had represented that establishment. He hadn’t represented them for three years; it was a minor matter, and he did not currently represent them. He said they asked for a legal opinion; he said the attorney gave the opinion that it was not a conflict of interest. They asked Members of Council if they felt it inappropriate; nobody objected. He said the only thing that had changed that he could see, was that they now had a full Council; they didn’t last time.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that he didn’t believe it was a conflict of interest; he said two weeks ago that he didn’t think it was a conflict of interest. He stated that if you checked his record on quota liquor licenses, he had been very consistent: He voted yes if it was a business that had been in the community; he voted no if it was a new business coming into the community. He stated that ever since the City got burned by Jake’s Fish House, his position, he had made it very plain, if you were a business that had been there, he voted yes. He voted yes on Moe’s on Ten; a business that was in here. He voted yes on Fox Run; a Novi business. He voted no on Happy Sushi; not a Novi business. He voted no on the Blue Martini; not a Novi business. He voted no on Bangkok Cuisine; not a Novi business.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that now they were presented with a Novi business; he didn’t think it took a rocket scientist to figure out how he would vote. He didn’t think it took a rocket scientist that it didn’t make any difference whether he represented somebody three years ago or not; he would vote consistent with the way he had been voting. He stated that they brought it up, they asked the City Attorney, and the City Attorney stated that it was not a conflict of interest. He asked Mr. Schultz to correct him if he was wrong that the decision on whether or not he voted was not his to make; it was the Council’s to make and he had to abide by whatever the Council voted unanimously.

Mr. Schultz stated not exactly; there was no ability on the part of the Council as a whole to confer on them some sort of conflict of interest, had there been that they hadn’t acknowledged. It was initially incumbent upon the individual Council member to raise the potential conflict of interest, seek the legal opinion which they gave; had there frankly been more discussion about whether or not it was a conflict of interest and an intention to recuse yourself, he probably would have been in a situation of having to say a) we needed a unanimous consent of the rest of the Council and b) they needed to say they could not render a fair and impartial decision. He stated absent those two things, they were to vote. He understood there was a motion on the floor and their position would be that if that motion passed even unanimously, probably that would be challengeable because it was initially incumbent upon the Council member, and there were definite rules they were under a fiduciary obligation to vote in every case where you did not have a conflict.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that if it was up to him to say whether he was partial or impartial, he said he was impartial. He said there was no way he was going to sit up there and say he was partial to any applicant that was before the board. He was happy to abide by Council Rule 6.7; Council can vote and if Council chooses that he should not vote, he would be more than happy to accommodate this Council and not vote; he would ask the Council to vote.

Member Gatt stated that he, like Mayor Pro Tem Landry, had not received any phone calls; he found it ironic that both members on either end of the table had received phone calls and he hadn’t, because the public hadn’t been very shy about calling him on his votes. He’s had hundreds of phone calls in the last year. He was a little bit stunned at what he was hearing tonight; he had to be honest. He was rather new to the position and he was rather stunned that Council had members of its own body accusing two members of voting biased votes when those two members stood up before this table and everybody watching on television and said that they could vote impartially. He didn’t like what he saw tonight; he thought there was some very dirty politics here, and it was very upsetting. He supported those two members, as he supported the two members on the end; he thought everybody at the table was elected, and everybody at this table were honest people. He said what he was hearing was an accusation that they were not; he didn’t like that.

Member Capello stated that as he understood it, his first obligation to the City when he took the position as a City Councilmember was to vote on all issues that came before the City; he was prepared to vote on the request for GFG Foods for their liquor license. He stated that GFG Foods was a Michigan corporation; he had never represented GFG Foods, and he had never represented the entity called The Honey Tree that did business at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook. He did realize that the two shareholders of GFG Foods happened to be minority partner interests in a real estate development in Northville that he represented the real estate development company, which was a Michigan limited liability company. He said there was no relationship between the Northville development company and the Michigan corporation that was before this Council asking for the City quota liquor license, but he still felt he should disclose that because two minority members in the company represented happened to be the shareholders of the corporation that was requesting the liquor license. He told Council that he had no financial interest in GFG Foods or the license that they were getting; he sought to receive no gain from issuance of that license to them and that he felt that he could impartially vote on that item on the agenda. He received no phone calls; he found it kind of odd on the evening when that was first before Council when the two members brought the issue up at this time assumed that they were going to win their vote had no problem. Now they were concerned that there was a majority and they might lose the vote, so now they’re trying an underhanded means to attempt to prevent a majority of Council to vote on that issue; he thought it was rather unjust and unfair. Lastly, he did have a problem, Mr. Schultz; Mayor Pro Tem Landry and he had disclosed two entirely different interests and now the maker of the motion, Member Paul, had combined both of their conflicts, even they’re totally different, into one motion. If anything at all, Council should have two separate motions. That was his first issue of procedure, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Schultz stated that he agreed with Member Capello.

Mayor Csordas stated that he wanted to put his comment on the record, and that was that he had full trust and confidence of everyone on this Council; he was hearing from the two members in question that they believed they would be unbiased; he believed them at face value. He trusted everyone on this Council and appreciated all of their efforts, and he was also hearing from our counsel that they actually would be shirking their responsibility to vote on this if there wasn’t a unanimous vote.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that he had a legal question for Mr. Schultz. He asked if those were going to be separate motions, was it appropriate for him to vote on whether Member Capello should be excused and was it appropriate for Member Capello to vote on whether he should be excused.

Mr. Schultz answered that if the motion was reframed; the motion was on the floor and could be voted on. If it didn’t pass unanimously, he thought that ended the issue and then move on to the substance.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that he wouldn’t vote on that motion because it involved him, correct?

Mr. Schultz answered that was correct; he would not vote on that and neither would Member Capello. If the motion was reframed to just include Mayor Pro Tem Landry or Member Capello, he thought they were obligated to vote on the motion that did not involve them.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry suggested that to make it cleaner just have one motion, unless Member Capello really wanted to, but he didn’t think he should be voting on it because he and Member Capello were sort of the subject of the same focus here.

Mayor Csordas asked the maker of the motion if she would like to reframe it to the first one on Member Capello and Mayor Pro Tem Landry.

Member Paul stated that she thought Mayor Pro Tem Landry was requesting that they actually have the motions together; she could tell by the way it was going that it was not going to be unanimous, so it was probably a moot point. She felt obligated by some people that contacted her; if they contacted them or not. She thought when Mayor Pro Tem Landry ran the meeting the last time, he remembered that she was quandering, he repeated the question and she felt uncomfortable at the time but she didn’t have anyone that had told her that they were uncomfortable with it. She thought Mayor Pro Tem Landry could clearly say, he looked over at her and he knew that she made a motion and was a little uncomfortable, he repeated the question and then Council went forward. She stated that she didn’t discuss anything at that time; she didn’t ever want to try to give anyone a hard time at this table. She stated that was not her main purpose; her main purpose was to bring up issues that people had in the community. She said that was truly how she felt; she had had conversations with people in the last week and she felt very badly that both members and Member Gatt were upset about that, but it was her responsibility to bring up what people had communicated to her. If Mayor Pro Tem Landry wanted to put this at one motion; they could vote on it. She could see that it wouldn’t be unanimous, Council could just proceed forward at that time.

Member Gatt stated that Member Paul just stated that he was upset; he was actually so happy he could dance. He stated that he wasn’t upset; he was stunned at the accusations levied against members of this Board by other members. He was not upset; he was surprised, shocked, stunned.

Member Lorenzo stated that neither she nor Member Paul were leveling any accusations; they were simply bringing forward an objection raised by a resident in the community. She felt it was her duty to bring that forward under the circumstance; they raised an objection. They thought she should raise an objection; they thought the other two members that voted a different way should have raised an objection. She said they were disappointed in each member for not raising an objection; therefore, she was bringing that objection forward. It had nothing to do with the way she felt about the issue. She stated that she didn’t raise an objection, because she didn’t have an objection at the time.

Mayor Csordas asked the Clerk to restate the motion and call the role.

Mr. Schultz stated that the only thing left on the table was a motion, if one was brought, on whether to grant the application or deny the application; there was a new level playing field on the original issue.

6. Discussion of the request of Toll Brothers for approval of the language for the fifth amendment to the Island Lake of Novi RUD agreement, which allowed for the addition of a 10-acre parcel along the north side of Ten Mile Road. (Consistent with the concept approved by the City Council on October 18, 2004).

Mayor Csordas stated that Member Lorenzo requested a suspension of Council Rules and request for reconsideration.

CM-05-02-41 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider the request of Toll Brothers for approval of the language for the fifth amendment to the Island Lake of Novi RUD agreement, which allowed for the addition of a 10-acre parcel along the north side of Ten Mile Road. (Consistent with the concept approved by the City Council on October 18, 2004).

CM-05-02-42 Moved by Capello, seconded by Landry; MOTION CARRIED: To approve the language for the fifth amendment to the Island Lake of Novi RUD agreement, which allowed for the addition of a 10-acre parcel along the north side of Ten Mile Road. (Consistent with the concept approved by the City Council on October 18, 2004).

Member Lorenzo stated that she would not be supporting the actual motion to approve tonight for the same reason she didn’t support it the first time around; she felt that there were too many units for the 10-acre parcel. She said if there had been 16 units on the parcel, she would have approved it, but she didn’t think that 22 units on 10 acres was appropriate given that it would be tantamount to a rezoning of two zoning classifications from an RA to basically between an R2 and R3 without any additional preservation or any additional amenities being given to the City of Novi.

Member Paul stated that when she was on Planning Commission, she worked with the previous owner of that development, the 10-acre parcel, and they had a very long discussion about preserving a third of that parcel, and they were going to put 16 homes on that parcel. She stated that when they sold it, it was rezoned then to R-2 and they sold it to Toll Brothers; Toll Brothers now comes in with 22 homes, quite a bit different than the 16 home. She would also not be supporting the motion because she wanted to keep consistent with where she was on Planning Commission and also with her current decision with Toll Brothers. She believed that Toll Brothers had done a very good job with many other areas in preservation, but they added that 10-acre parcel and now are not doing any land preservation at this time.

Member Paul stated that she really wanted to stay consistent with her vote, as Mayor Pro Tem Landry talked about his liquor licenses, she stayed very consistent with preservation of the land, and she also tried to decrease the City’s density wherever possible because every time the City increased its population it had to increase its services and they were trying to keep the taxpayer money down. She didn’t want to have more personnel that the City had to keep hiring to support the increased density. She said that every little bit counted, but she did not want to add to the density at this point.

Member Capello stated that he supported the concept plan and he made the motion to accept the language today; he said they were not just talking about 16 versus 22 homes. He stated that they were talking about the overall density at Island Lake, and from what he understood, they were still below the allowable density, so the difference between 16 and 22 homes on that particular parcel of land was only a small part of the entire picture. He looked at the entire project as one of Novi’s most successful projects in the City today; they’re staying below density, and he still appreciated that.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that tonight was not a night for talking about density on that issue; on October 18^th Council talked about density on that issue. He stated that on October 18, 2004, a majority of this Council agreed with that change in the RUD. Council talked about density; it was discussed, and it was passed. At that point, it was an obligation of the City to draft an RUD agreement commensurate and consistent with what this Council ruled. He said that was all that was before Council tonight; the only question was whether that document accurately reflected what this Council did on October 18^th. He stated that Council couldn’t pass an amendment and then refuse to draft the document; if Council did that, it would get sued. He said what they were talking about tonight was did you want the City to get sued or not; it was that simple. Density had already been talked about; Council passed it. If Council didn’t pass that tonight, it would get sued. Obviously, Council should pass it because it agreed with the density on October 18^th; it was a ministerial act of drafting the document that accurately reflected what Council did on October 18^th. He said that was all Council was here about tonight.

Member Gatt stated that he remembered his vote on October 18^th; he was for the issue at that point, and he saw no reason to change at this point. He agreed with the previous speaker’s comments.

Mayor Csordas stated that, as he looked over a letter from the attorney of Toll Brothers regarding Council’s October 18, 2004, actions where Council did approve this and requested them to come back with language in line with what the motion was.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – None

7. Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for Nine Mile Road Reconstruction – Meadowbrook Road to Novi Road and Roethel Drive Rehabilitation to Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Inc. (FTCH) for a not-to-exceed design fee of $86,962, and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 5.18% of construction cost (estimated to be $119,184) for a total of $206,146. FTCH submitted the highest-rated technical proposal for this project.

Mr. Helwig stated that all of the engineering awards were up for discussion tonight, but there was a rationale to those two being on Matters for Council Action so that Administration could add some comments and clarify some things.

Mr. Helwig stated that Nine Mile Road from Novi Road to Meadowbrook Road had been on the City Council’s capital improvement plan radar now, and the second proceeding east from Novi Road to Venture Drive Council appropriated $1.7-million this year in the current budget to redo that portion; that portion happened to be concrete. Council had in its plan for the upcoming fiscal year to do the portion east of Venture Drive to Meadowbrook, which happened to be asphalt; the estimated cost for that was $900,000. Council had not yet appropriated that money, but the plan was to bring that forward in this next budget cycle.

Mr. Helwig stated that once the City got underway in this current fiscal year, everyone knew all the road gridlock the City had going, and called timeout on Nine Mile Road; that section had not been undertaken in any way, and it was before Council tonight to start that process.

Mr. Helwig stated that Administration was strongly encouraging, even to the point of a bold note and stating it was their expectation; he wanted that to be very clear because he thought that Council had stated that in many ways, not in any formal motion but in many ways. He said they expect to undertake that approximate one-mile rehabilitation of Nine Mile Road from Novi to Meadowbrook all in asphalt, and they expect to come under the combined total of $2.6-million to do that. He stated that this was the first step to do the engineering for that entire length.

Mr. Helwig stated that the only other comment he wanted to add, and he certainly wanted to make sure that he wasn’t saying anything that was inappropriate in terms of the expectation of asphalt, the City certainly had many other major thoroughfares in town with asphalt. He said if you drove I-75 in Michigan going to the Ohio line, all of a sudden it changed from concrete, which was pretty rough, to smooth asphalt. He said there was nothing gospel about the roads being concrete; he thought Council had been so exasperated over that issue, and they were going to get to that next on neighborhood roads again this year.

Mr. Helwig stated that the only other point regarding that undertaking was that it was the only recommended engineering award tonight that was not the low price proposal; it was only some $1,165 higher than the lower one, but they had proposed three times the soil borings. He stated that for $1,165 Administration thought that was also consistent, not only with City Council policy of getting the best read possible of what the subsurface was but also what our City Engineer, Rob Hayes, would recommend. He stated those were points that Administration wanted to call out on the recommendation to you tonight.

Mayor Csordas stated that he had talked about the quickly deteriorating concrete roads in the City and was glad to see that Administration did decide to do that all in asphalt because it seemed to him logically that it would be a much better decision and a much better repair for less money. Hopefully, they were right here.

Member Paul asked if that was the contractor that Meadowbrook Road between Twelve and Eleven Mile.

Mr. Helwig asked if she was speaking of the engineering firm.

Member Paul answered yes.

Mr. Helwig answered yes.

Member Paul asked if the City was looking for a contractor at this point for this or just looking at the design and construction.

Mr. Helwig answered design and construction services, and then they would come back with a formal bid.

Member Paul stated that the one main concern she had was when the City was completing Ten Mile at the end of June, when was Administration proposing to start Nine Mile.

Mr. Helwig answered after completing Ten Mile.

Member Paul just wanted to make clear that the City not have another double road or triple road construction project. She stated that the City still had Beck Road interchange not up to snuff; she just didn’t’ want to live though another whole year of all the phone calls that they got when they had more than one road under construction. She thought everyone on this Board had heard many of those complaints, as well as our staff; she just wanted to make it crystal clear that the City finish Ten Mile and then move to this, even if it was delaying the project until the middle of July.

Mr. Helwig stated that the big difference here was that the City of Novi had control over Nine Mile Road; there was no mystery to this. He said there was a very unusual arrangement having a road commission responsible for certain roads and so on and so forth; Council had made some initiatives for winter maintenance to get more local control and emergencies, but in terms of road maintenance and improvements, there was no mystery here. He said that was why the City didn’t undertake what Council had appropriated this year, for the exact same reason that it would have added to the chaos, and the roads Council described were either under direction of the Road Commission or the State of Michigan. He thanked Council for understanding that.

Member Lorenzo stated that was exactly what she was going to say, that this project had actually been slated for last year, and then Administration determined that because of the multiple road closures that it would hold off until this year.

Member Capello asked if the City had actual contractual language prepared for each of those contracts.

Mr. Schultz answered that they did have some sort of form agreement for professional engineering services that his office put together and recently gave City Engineer Rob Hayes a copy. He looked at it and was generally okay with it. He said it was an insert fill-in the blank kind of form where the proposals were attached and had the Engineering Department check the scope of work, but it did have three or four pages of more stock language and would be a contract in the recognizable form instead of a purchase order.

Member Capello asked if the City had now prepared a consistent City of Novi construction contract.

Mr. Schultz answered that it was much more difficult; one of the reasons that it was more difficult was that the City now had more people bidding on the projects and they were all familiar with their own contracts. He said for years JCK had put together pretty much all of the books and that document was standard. He said the City now got contract books from the various consulting engineers and design engineers that it reviewed, but not in the kind of detail that it might if it were a perfect world; they were lengthy and substantial.

Member Capello thought that since Council was awarding so many of those contracts tonight, he thought Council needed to get a City of Novi construction contract; he thought it was too difficult both for Administration, whether it was Mr. Pearson, and the Engineering Department to understand the full scope of work of each construction contract on each of the different projects. He thought Orchard Hiltz came to mind where the scope of work had to be compared so the City wasn’t getting double-dipped. He really wanted to see, even if the City needed to modify it, let’s begin with our own City of Novi construction contract and require the engineers to utilize the City contract. He thought that was very important before the City started to spend. He knew Mr. Schultz couldn’t do that without direction but he thought Council needed to do that now and not eight contracts down the line. As he understood the not-to-exceed design fee, the City was paying the design fee on an hourly basis, based on the quality or the level of the engineer that was doing the work, was that correct.

Mr. Helwig answered that was usually the approach; they proposed certain individuals at certain prices, but the overall cost was pegged at a percentage of the construction cost, not to exceed that. He stated that was the ultimate cap.

Member Capello stated that both the design fee and the construction inspection fee were based on a percentage.

Mr. Helwig stated that was correct. He stated that the percentages now were included in the motion; Mayor Csordas made a reference to that.

Member Capello stated that was where he was confused. He asked why the City needed the hourly rates if it was going to be based on a percentage.

Mr. Helwig stated that he thought it was helpful to know if you were getting a bogus proposal who was going to be working on it; he thought that was part of the request for qualifications that the City got from all the firms early on, but now you’re actually looking at price. He said if you looked at the array of dollars and the percentage, the percentage was how those dollars were reached.

Member Capello asked if the City had a not-to-exceed on each, the design fee and the construction engineering fee.

Mr. Helwig stated that Administration had combined the totals; he asked Mr. Hayes to explain the math for Council.

Mr. Hayes stated that the way it was structured was that the design phase would be a not-to-exceed amount based on time and materials; they were not allowed to exceed that amount. He said there was a breakdown in their proposal of their estimated number of hours per task within the design phase. He said on the construction phase, they quoted a fixed percentage of construction just based on the budget estimate right now. He stated that was a moving target; they wouldn’t know that price until they got bids; once they got the bids and award a contract, then that 5.8 percent of whatever that amount was locked the consultant in, so his total would be his design fee plus 5.8 percent of what that number was.

Member Capello asked why the City would be paying them any overtime; it seemed like if they were going to design the project for us and they had a deadline to have the project done, any overtime should be at their expense.

Mr. Hayes stated that he didn’t understand what he meant by overtime.

Member Capello stated that he saw somewhere where the proposals were by the hour; at one point, the overtime 1.5 times the hourly rate and another place it was 1.3 times the hourly rate. He said in the same estimate where they showed us where they outlined what their hourly rate for the different divisions would be. He asked if it was his understanding that the City was paying overtime to their employees under the hourly rate for the design fee or not.

Mr. Hayes stated that it was his understanding that the City was not paying overtime; they had given a not-to-exceed price to do the design.

Member Capello stated that in the construction engineering fee that was based on a percentage but included in their percentage was certain estimated fees for testing, correct?

Mr. Hayes answered yes.

Member Capello stated that would be testing that they would pay to outsources, correct.

Mr. Hayes answered that if they didn’t have the technical expertise within their staff, then they would have to subcontract that out to another consultant. For example, if they didn’t have people on staff to do a survey, then they would have to have a subcontract with another firm to do survey work.

Member Capello stated that the surveying was getting to his next step. He said the City was going to do some asphalt or concrete testing or whatever the scope was there, right?

Mr. Hayes answered yes.

Member Capello stated that it would behoove them to do less testing because that was less money they would have to outsource, was that fair to say?

Mr. Hayes stated that was true; as part of their fee proposal, they had given the City an estimated number of soil borings, for example, and what that cost would be; so, the contract embodied not only the City’s request for proposal but also the consultant’s fee proposal and technical proposal.

Member Capello stated that if he had a contractor before him, it would be a lot easier to look at the scope of work and understand what the City was paying for, but not having that, it was difficult. Now, the survey; how specific was their proposal in regard to the surveying services that they were going to provide.

Mr. Hayes stated that in their request for proposal, they required each consultant to give us their fee to do a full right-of-way topographic survey.

Member Capello asked what about any staking, or was that going to be found in the construction contract.

Mr. Hayes stated that would be part of the construction services; they would provide staking services.

Member Capello stated the engineer would provide staking services.

Mr. Hayes answered yes.

Member Capello asked what Mr. Hayes’ feeling if the City just had one construction contract that the City dealt with and we knew what was included in there and what was not. He asked if that would make Mr. Hayes’ job any easier when he was trying to oversee what those particular engineers were doing.

Mr. Hayes answered that his preference was to have one engineer responsible for as much of the engineering as possible.

Member Capello stated that he was talking about the contract. Rather than having different proposals from each of the engineering firms and trying to compare their scope of work to the scope of work under the construction contract.

Mayor Csordas asked Mr. Hayes if he would prefer that the City generate a one-contract that all engineering services firms would sign.

Mr. Hayes asked on a per project basis?

Mayor Csordas answered yes.

Member Capello stated all projects; so you had only one engineering contract to look at that all engineers were going to sign, rather than having to look at each of their individual contracts.

Mr. Hayes answered that he would prefer to have a boilerplate contract that the City could include in an RFP and transmit to each one of the City’s bidding firms so they knew what the rules were up front and then use that as part of the City’s contract for engineering services.

Member Capello stated the City was going to have a percentage of the construction costs for the construction engineering; he asked if the City could also put in there a not-to-exceed fee and have a dollar amount in there to at least somewhat control the extent of the construction engineering costs.

Mr. Hayes answered that was kind of what the City had communicated here, assuming that the estimate turned out to be the contract award amount, in this case, the $119,000; that would also be a not-to-exceed amount.

Member Capello asked that the City would eventually have a not-to-exceed amount in the construction engineering aspect of that also.

Mr. Helwig answered no. Council’s control point was when it received the recommended award of contract for construction; if Council felt it was inappropriate because the engineering fee would be pegged on a 5.18 percent basis of that. If Council felt that construction cost was inappropriate, that was where Council pulled the trigger and the City didn’t proceed any further.

Member Capello stated that the City still didn’t have any protection of the construction engineering fee increasing beyond that.

Mr. Helwig answered that was correct; hence the South Lake Drive issue which was still unresolved because one group read it as a maximum dollar amount and the firm read it as is standard in the industry as a percent of the final actual construction costs.

Member Capello stated that all he was trying to do was head that off from this date forward.

Mr. Helwig stated that the City was so far ahead of where it had been. If Council looked at the competition here; the firm that was being recommended had the lowest not-to-exceed dollar design fee of all seven firms. They also had a slightly higher percentage of the construction fee, but based on our estimate, you put those two together and they were right there with a superior geotechnical proposal. He stated competition was working for our government.

Member Capello stated that he wasn’t specifically having any fault with that; he thought it was a good idea to pay the little bit more in percentage because the City was getting more services. He stated that all he was trying to do was, in theory, he wouldn’t bring up the same questions in every contract tonight, tie all of that down as much as the City could once and for all, especially since there were this many coming through us at the same time.

Mr. Helwig stated that he didn’t think Council could have it both ways; you couldn’t get them to tie down on a percentage and compete. He said you could see the ranges here; there was one 8 percent, and they were at 5.18 percent. He said the City had uncertainty; they had uncertainty. Again, the control point was when Council awarded the contract.

Member Capello stated that he was not using this as a bad example, but Taft Road; no matter how many soil borings the City took, it wasn’t going to find that hole in the poor soils in there, but the additional costs for those poor soils and another 5.18 percent of that he didn’t think was justified. If the City was going to pay that to the engineering company just to go out there for that large change order and the amount of work they had to do was minimal, he didn’t think was a fair tradeoff. That’s what he was trying to look at, something like that, because every change order you approve the City was also going to pay the engineering fee on top of that. He said that was what he was looking at, to try to cut the City’s exposure at that point.

Mr. Helwig stated that he was amazed at the percentages they were seeing tonight. There was one up there, but most of those were way below what was pretty standard; he thought that was a positive of competition. He stated that it was worth locking in on that, even though there may be some unknowns in what we find out there in the field; that was the cost of doing business.

Member Capello asked if it wouldn’t be reasonable to cut them off at the estimated or fixed contract price without change orders.

Mr. Helwig answered no. He thought next time around the City would not have seven firms really competing for its business.

Member Paul wanted to compliment the Engineering Department and staff for doing the design and construction together as one bid. She had asked about that in the past and was very happy to see that the City had put both together and had a fixed rate so that the City could keep its overruns intact; she thought that was a point that all had been talking about.

Member Paul stated that the reason she asked about Meadowbrook Road was that she thought that construction was so quick and expedient; it really didn’t hamper the ability to travel. She was complimenting that job and hoping the City could reward them with another bid; that was well done. Also, she stated that the small amount of money you were getting for increased geotechnical services, which was, to the public, soil boring tests so that the City had a real good look at what was underneath the roads so that it didn’t have more problems. She thought it was very important, because obviously in this area the City was having some problems on Nine Mile. She appreciated all three of those points and wanted to thank them for their work. She thought the new engineer was doing a very good job.

8. Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the 2005 Neighborhood Rehabilitation/Repaving Program to Professional Engineering Associates (PEA) for a not-to-exceed design fee of $66,000 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 4.60% of construction cost (estimated to be $64,400) for a total of $130,400. PEA submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

CM-05-02-044 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Paul; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the 2005 Neighborhood Rehabilitation/Repaving Program to Professional Engineering Associates (PEA) for a not-to-exceed design fee of $66,000 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 4.60% of construction cost (estimated to be $64,400) for a total of $130,400. PEA submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

Member Capello wanted to ask on the last one and this one, too, if he could have a copy of the actual contracts so Council could look at them. He asked if there was any thought from Administration as to whether the City would work forward on a single construction contract that the City would have all of the outside engineers work on.

Mr. Helwig stated that he thought it was a real plus; sometimes it got a little different moving from water to roads or something like that, but then they could usually be handled with addendums or what have you, so let Administration meet and confer on that. He thought it was an excellent suggestion; just part of our maturing as a city and the way it does business.

Mr. Helwig wanted to emphasize that it was neighborhood repaving, the fifth and final year of the enhanced program that was authorized by the voters and set before them by City Council in November 2000. He said it covered asphalt neighborhood streets. He stated that the City would have PASER 3, which happened to be the lowest ones still out there and they all happen to be asphalt with the exception of one little Burton Court which was concrete. Administration would have for Council in its March 31 administrative budget recommendation another allocation for additional work on neighborhood concrete streets, which this Council authorized significant additional work this past summer on neighborhood concrete. He stated it couldn’t be framed yet until they looked at all the budget issues, but he wanted to assure Council that it wasn’t the last chapter of what Administration was recommending for neighborhood enhanced repaving this summer; that was the asphalt portion, and he knew the Council had been hearing about Center Street and other areas out there that they wanted to try to accomplish this year, so that would be coming to Council for neighborhood concrete streets. There would be another allocation in the budget for that; they didn’t know how much or how extensive, but they were going to work very hard to give Council something. It wouldn’t be as grand as last summer but hopefully it would be significant.

9. Approval to amend Novi Code of Ordinance No. 05-100.34 to amend Chapter 28, "Signs", relating to non-commercial message signs (Election and Political Signs). First Reading

CM-05-02-045 Moved by Capello, seconded by Gatt; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve to amend Novi Code of Ordinance No. 05-100.34 to amend Chapter 28, "Signs", relating to non-commercial message signs (Election and Political Signs). First Reading

Member Paul stated that when she was on the Planning Commission, there was a subcommittee, Implementation, and one that she thought would be beneficial for this ordinance to go through. She stated that election and political signs were just a small portion of the sign ordinance, but something that was very important for long-term viability of the sign ordinance in its whole. She would hope that when Council sent this to Planning Commission that the Implementation could have one session to actually look at the ordinance and then bring it to the public hearing and then bring it back to Council for second reading. She really respected several of the members who were on the implementation committee, and in regard to detail orientation, chairman Kocan was probably the most detail-oriented person she had ever worked with. She would really like and appreciate if she could look at this and the entire committee as a whole, there were many very good members on there, but hopefully that could be arranged. She didn’t know if that was something that Mr. Schultz was planning on when he discussed it with the Planning Commission.

Mr. Schultz stated that they had prepared two ordinances at the same time; the other one which did not deal with election signs, they didn’t trouble the Council with. He said there was an amendment that was going to track with this one at the Planning Commission, if Council still chose to send this back, which was really a number of cleanups that had been requested by the Neighborhood Services Department. He didn’t know it, Member Paul was talking about a much larger look at the sign ordinance as a whole; he thought that might be a long-term project that the Planning Commission wanted to address, but they were going to put it in front of the Planning Commission in pretty short order because they wanted to make sure they hit the election season. That one and the cleanup, which had maybe a half dozen or a dozen changes to Town Center, so they would have an opportunity if they wanted to review the substance of this and that; he assumed that it could go to their implementation committee right up front, and they would let them know that it had to go on a fast track because they were trying to get the substance back before the Council.

Member Paul stated that was her understanding; she thought it would be very beneficial for all of Council. She was hopeful that that was his plan; she knew that he had suggested that Council send it back to public hearing for its official reading, which was something she supported. She hoped that Council would have a good long-term viability of the political sign ordinance.

Mayor Csordas asked when Mr. Schultz expected to have that back at Council.

Mr. Schultz stated that after tonight’s meeting, he would talk with Barb McBeth, Planning Director, to find out what the Planning Commission schedules were for Implementation and then the whole Commission; Council could certainly indicate that it would like it to go right to Planning Commission. He stated that they would get it on the next available Implementation, then right away to the Commission and then back here as soon as possible.

Mayor Csordas asked how soon.

Mr. Schultz answered as long as the meetings worked out, it could be back at the end of March.

Mayor Pro Tem Landry asked with respect to size of noncommercial signs; it was six square feet in subdivision and local streets; 16 square feet on major thoroughfares. He asked what was a major thoroughfare.

Mr. Schultz answered that was defined in the zoning ordinance and in the Master Plan, so the terms were used from those documents; they were anything that wasn’t a collector street: Twelve Mile, Nine Mile, Novi Road, the major streets. He stated the only reason they proposed that was because they did have those other large temporary signs that they were trying to be consistent.

Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Schultz if he believed that it satisfactorily addressed all of the issues that were brought to Council’s attention last summer.

Mr. Schultz answered that they believed that it was a reasonable response to the correspondence sent to the City from the ACLU and, in light of really all of the events of the summer in litigation in the various federal courts, if you were looking for a guarantee that this was a bulletproof ordinance, he couldn’t give that because the issue of political signs was just a difficult issue. He said they thought it was a very reasonable attempt; as he said in the letter, the City hopefully would probably fall off the list of initial targets with that.

10. Approval to award the contract for Design & Construction Engineering Services for the Novi Road/Post Office Signalization Project to Anderson, Eckstein and Westrick, Inc. (AEW) for a not-to-exceed fee amount of $26,400. AEW submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

Member Capello stated that it appeared from the packet that this was just a temporary signal and when the City redid the road, the permanent signalization would be included in that cost. He asked if there was something Council could do now because it had an idea how big the road was going to be to have a permanent signal put in.

Mr. Helwig answered that was a great question. As Council could see, Administration had been trying to reaffirm what Member Capello had just now stated as an assumption; Administration was getting all sorts of fuzzy signals about whether or not it was fine for the City of Novi to do that for an interim two or three years but whether or not there would be a permanent replacement signal in the end when the road was widened. He stated that the City was strictly on its own between now and then, whenever then was. It was on the books the Novi Road length for 2006 construction; the City had already been notified that there might be one year slippage based on property acquisition and just available funds, although it was in the Master Plan. It was the last project in the Master Plan. He stated that it would add to the cost; the project now was billed and the City finally had a good solid estimate, $147,000 including the engineering award if Council awarded it tonight. It was basically $120,000 per construction. He stated that included the 175 foot approaches, north and south, on Novi Road that the Road Commission was insisting that the City widen so that the signal could properly function. He said the City was not putting up much of a signal; it would not do us proud in terms of the other signals that they had seen on Novi Road. He stated it was not lighting and the state-of-the-art stanchions; those were expensive in and of themselves, and those would be included in the final project.

Member Capello stated that answered his question; he thought that was what they were doing, the typical signs that the City did over on Main Street.

Mr. Helwig stated that it had taken a while to get to this point; he wished it could have been faster but again the City didn’t have total control over being able to get to this point.

Member Gatt stated that it was an issue that was very dear to him, and he wanted to thank City Manager Helwig and his staff. He thought the Novi Post Office was one of the finest post offices in Oakland County, and he had been to many of them. He said the only problem with the Novi Post Office was that it was very dangerous getting out of it; he thought that the light, temporary as it was, was going to go a long way toward making its citizens and people who used that facility much safer.

Member Paul concurred with Member Gatt; she really didn’t want to see Novi waiting for the Road Commission for their land acquisition, which could be two years, three years, five years depending on the costs, and in that timeframe someone could be killed or hurt when going northbound on Novi Road. She stated that if it saved just one person from getting in an accident, that was more than what it would actually cost Novi. She really appreciated Administration’s efforts; she knew it had been about a year ago that Council had discussed that. She appreciated Administration’s trying to pin down the Road Commission, but it was really an important issue and she appreciated it.

Member Lorenzo stated ditto.

11. Approval of Resolution authorizing participation in the Road Commission for Oakland County’s 2005 Tri-Party Program for Road Improvements Program: Novi Road Link between Ten Mile Road and Grand River Avenue.

CM-05-02-047 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Capello; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Resolution authorizing participation in the Road Commission for Oakland County’s 2005 Tri-Party Program for Road Improvements Program: Novi Road Link between Ten Mile Road and Grand River Avenue.

D. Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the Beck Road Water Main Replacement project to Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. (FTCH) for a not-to-exceed design fee of $49,218 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 3.80% of construction cost (estimated to be $36,480) for a total of $85,698. FTCH submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

Member Paul stated for those at home, they were looking at a water main that was going to be replaced coming down Beck Road; they were looking to replace a 16 inch water main with a 24 inch water main. She asked Mr. Hayes which areas it would serve with the City’s current residents.

Mr. Hayes answered that it was to serve or to address a problem of a general nature. He said the pipe there was so old and deteriorated that the City had high frictional head loss; the pressure was extremely low downstream of that pipe, so it was affecting areas to the south and also to the west of Beck Road where the City had relatively low pressure. He stated that the entire southwest quadrant of the City had been experiencing relatively low pressure.

Member Paul stated that she had heard that from several residents on Beck Road, and she was happy to hear that it was coming forward. She just wanted to have clarification that the City currently owned that land so it wouldn’t have to have land acquisition that the City would incur, because the City had the 16 inch main, correct.

Mr. Hayes stated that was correct. He stated that they anticipated that no additional easements would have to be procured and that the City would be able to use the room that was available. He stated that they told the engineers to give the City their proposal, to be creative and perhaps they could use a method called pipe bursting where they could expand the size of the existing pipe. He said that, of course, would require bypass piping in the interim.

Member Paul asked what that meant.

Mr. Hayes answered that it was a technique where a tool was pulled through a section of pipe and it physically exploded the pipe to create a larger diameter pipe if need be and then the correctly sized pipe was moved in. He stated that they used that as a possible example of how the engineer could be creative in the design. He stated that there were other methods available as well; they thought there was enough room to lay a 24 inch pipe alongside that existing 16 inch one so they didn’t have to take anything out of operation.

Member Paul asked which side of Beck Road it would this be placed.

Mr. Hayes answered it would be the east side.

Member Paul asked from where to where on Beck Road.

Mr. Hayes answered from Grand River to Eleven Mile.

Member Paul asked if there was a sidewalk all along that east side.

Mr. Hayes answered that he didn’t believe so.

Mayor Csordas stated that there wasn’t sidewalk anywhere there.

Member Paul stated that she was just curious because if any time the City had land acquisition and it could actually do two projects at once, it would be beneficial. She didn’t know if that was anything that anyone was interested in, but she just wanted to bring that point up. She appreciated the explanation, and she thought the people in that area would really benefit from the increased water pressure.

CM-05-02-048 Moved by Paul, seconded by Lorenzo; MOTION CARRIED: To award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the Beck Road Water Main Replacement project to Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. (FTCH) for a not-to-exceed design fee of $49,218 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 3.80% of construction cost (estimated to be $36,480) for a total of $85,698. FTCH submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

E. Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for Nine Mile Road Water Main Extension between Kensington and Roberts Road to URS Corporation for a not-to-exceed design fee of $65,561 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 3.50% of construction cost (estimated to be $56,000) for a total of $121,561. URS submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

Member Lorenzo stated that basically she had the same concerns with Items E and F, which were that this proposed to take a certain amount of money, $1.6-million in the case of D and $250,000 in F. The concern that she had with this was how the City would recoup the money eventually. When she asked Mr. Hayes today, she basically asked him how many water taps would be necessary to pay the City back in full; right now he didn’t know. She would only feel comfortable knowing how many taps the City needed to repay the debt and also how many taps the City estimated were out there in the vicinity, not only through projects that were either existing or coming on board but also through the Master Plan in terms of how many the City would anticipate for those. At that point, then she would feel more comfortable approving the project. She said it was her suggestion tonight to postpone Items E and F so that the staff could prepare that information and come back with it at the next meeting.

Mayor Csordas asked Ms. Smith-Roy what enterprise fund would the funds come out of for this project.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered that it would come from the Water and Sewer Fund.

Mayor Csordas asked how much money was in that fund.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered in excess of $35-million.

Mayor Csordas asked what the purpose was for those funds.

Ms. Smith-Roy stated that Administration had presented a couple of different proposals to Council over the last couple of years. One was to set aside a minimum of $10-million for reserve for any major improvements that might be required; a portion was intended to be set aside to pay off some debt that the Water and Sewer Fund had coming up next July, and the City was saving capital charges to do that, and then the remainder was to be used for the capital projects as they came forward.

Mayor Csordas appreciated the spirit and intent of the motion and the second on it. He just wanted the Council to know that those funds were there; it was an extremely large well funded fund; in his opinion, it was the prime purpose for having those monies there. He said what the City was doing was being proactive in the build out of the community and the taps would come as they came, but the City currently had the money to fund this. In his opinion, it was part of the City’s responsibility to make sure the infrastructure could support future projects; that was why he couldn’t support the motion.

Member Paul stated that she understood what he was saying and she could agree. She also read that and had them pulled before Member Lorenzo did; she was going to do the same. She wanted to look at there was no easement cost here; there was also, the areas exactly where it would serve, and if there were some areas of need that maybe future development would come, the City could do an SAD process, but she didn’t want to take a $1.6-million project and maybe only recoup a portion of that because what she wanted to do was when there needed to be improvements to existing lines like we’re doing on Beck Road that the City in fact could pay for that. She said there were people on the west side of Novi’s border that did not have water service at this time and they were on well water. She stated that she had been on a well herself in this City, and that moratorium was lifted and they had to pay for the taps themselves. She wanted to make crystal clear before Council passed it that the City had the finances to recoup that. She stated that the City had a finite amount of resources, and she didn’t want to take them and put them where they couldn’t be recouped. She respected his opinion and agreed that she wanted to put infrastructure in place for people that would be using it, but she wanted to make perfectly sure how much the easements were going to be, because as she sat on Council for a year she had found out that the easement costs for any one of our projects usually were more than the actual construction charge; so if that was $1.6-million, what would the easement cost be and how would the City recoup this was very important to her from the taxpayers’ perspective . She stated that she would be looking for that information and hopefully at that time Council would have a more definite answer on how it would recoup that money, then she would be able to support it at that time.

Member Capello asked Ms. Smith-Roy how the City was determining allocation and, if it was any different between the Nine Mile Road and the Garfield, let him know, but he was going to ask the questions with them together. He asked how the City was determining the tap fee; was the City doing it as it would do in a SAD.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered no; those projects, based on discussions with Engineering and based on the design and what they were servicing, were general water projects, so they would not qualify, she didn’t believe, for an SAD. She stated that she would defer to the Engineering Department and legal, but she didn’t think they would qualify for an SAD. The City charged a tap-in fee which was intended to cover those types of improvements.

Member Capello stated that maybe she misunderstood his question; that was what he was asking, when the City did an SAD it figured how many residential units, water or whatever, were going to be serviced by that line within that district, take its cost and then allocate it out. For a 10-acre parcel they might determine there would be 15 users, so the City allocated that out; that was how normally similar to that it did an SAD. He asked if the City was recouping the actual costs with the tap-in fees in the same manner so that it was sure to get all the money back.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered that how the tap fees were determined, it had been done some time ago in the mid-‘90’s. The City took 14 projects with the help of JCK and evaluated what the cost of those projects was and estimated how many users would be benefiting from that and divided out the amount to determine the tap fee. She said with the sewer fee, the City had an incremental annual increase; with the water fee, the City did not. She stated that the City would be looking at the tap charges again in the near future, but for right now they felt pretty comfortable that the tap charges did cover those types of improvements.

Member Capello asked if the report that JCK prepared was in 1990?

Ms. Smith-Roy answered 1995, she believed.

Member Capello stated even 1995, how could the City use estimated construction costs from 1995 in the year 2005; couldn’t the City just figure out whatever the construction cost was there and then back the tap-in fee into it based upon the potential users?

Ms. Smith-Roy answered that the problem with doing that was Administration was trying to look at a more universal approach for the portions; she said that was only a small portion that benefited a large area, so there wasn’t a way to incrementally go back and charge people who were already receiving some benefit from this. She stated that they were trying to standardize the tap fee that it was charging and make it as simple as possible for collection and also for homeowners to know and anticipate what those charges would be when they tapped in. She said there could be an inequity in charging and calculating a small portion for a small area; that one area might be $500, another area might be $10,000, depending on what the costs were for right-of-way, so forth and so on. Administration felt it best to standardize those tap charges for the general portion. She stated that only SAD’s were calculated on the specific because it could be specific; it was servicing a very small specific area. She stated that this would service a great portion of the City besides the people who were directly connected to it.

Member Capello stated, take the Nine Mile water line, that would accommodate more than just the existing residential lots, whether they be one acre, 10 acre, correct?

Mr. Hayes answered that was correct.

Member Capello stated that he saw that it stopped at the first easterly drive of Park Place; he asked if that water line would service the new subdivision at the northeast corner of Napier and Nine Mile Road?

Mr. Hayes answered that it was designed to provide water service, water distribution to that area.

Member Capello asked, including Park Place?

Mr. Hayes answered that was correct.

Member Capello asked about coming down Napier Road to the park; was the Nine Mile Road line going to go down to the park?

Mr. Hayes answered that it was not anticipated to extend at this point, but the City could certainly tie in.

Member Capello asked why it stopped at Roberts Drive instead of going all the way down to Napier?

Mr. Hayes answered that was because the City just brought it to the first entrance of Park Place along Nine Mile Road.

Mr. Pearson stated he could add on that since it was something dating back; when that came up in the budget last year, the best way to service the sports complex was the extension of Eight Mile, not this Nine Mile line, so it wouldn’t be directly off of that line.

Member Capello asked if Tuscany and Maybury were going to be served by some other water line?

Mr. Pearson answered that the private developments off Eight Mile, meaning Maybury, Tuscan Reserve, those private developments were extending their lines sequentially as they developed to the west. He said the point was that they were bringing them basically as far as Garfield. He stated that Legacy Parc, the Singh development off Ten Mile, and then the Preserves were going to be privately extending their lines through their developments. He stated that the Nine Mile project was listed in the Master Plan study last year was an area-wide system-wide improvement that closed the loop. He stated that Council knew why that was so important, for water main reliability, fire protection, redundancy to close the loop. He stated that loop would not be closed but for a system improvement project like Administration was recommending here. To put it another way what Ms. Smith-Roy said, the City had already collected the tap fees in large part because there were developments and every resident in addition to a specific fee, if it was applicable, also paid a system capital charge for projects exactly like that. That was why it wouldn’t happen but for the system improvement; the City had already collected the money and, as Ms. Smith-Roy had certified, there was money in the fund to do those kinds of things. He stated that there might be future tap fees incidental; so we may happen to abut on Nine Mile, now water was available, that was a very limited number, but the fact was that it connected the north and the south and provided that looping and redundancy that the City needed in the entire area.

Member Capello asked that the line that was going to service Maybury and Tuscany was it going to be only a line adequate for the homes that were going in there or would that line be large enough to extend all the way to Garfield?

Mr. Pearson stated that it had been required to be sized for any further development to the west and to connect into the system loop that Administration was suggesting as a second item on with Garfield.

Member Capello stated that Tuscany would tie into Garfield.

Mr. Hayes answered that was correct. He said it actually was being oversized; it would be a12 inch line that would extend from Beck Road to the west to Garfield.

Member Capello asked Mr. Helwig why they were coming in as two different projects; they seemed so tied in.

Mr. Helwig responded that as part of an overview, if Council could think back to March 15, 2004, that was when Council formally adopted the water distribution study and Master Plan. He said that was the accompanying map; it was yellow for Beck Road that Council had just approved, starting the engineering for that. Mr. Pearson just described that that the City needed to think of that as one utility, and anything that can be done to enhance fire flow or looping or reliability, eliminate dead ends was all to the benefit in times of emergency keeping costs down for distribution and reliability. He stated that some day he hoped to get lower than six as Novi continued to mature as a city. He stated that the City was down to six, the ISO rating for insurance; he said it just consolidated into one rating, which was great, the nonfire hydrant areas and the fire hydrant areas. He stated that was the type of thing that helped.

Mr. Helwig stated that the $1.6-million was not debt; it was cash, system enhancement that the users had paid for and had nothing to do with the City’s General Fund. He understood philosophical differences about if there would have been a chance to get this paid for private, Administration would have pursued that; that was what all the research was done leading up to the Master Plan that Council adopted last year. He said that now the City was to the point of implementing and working the Master Plan. He stated that was why it was before Council now.

Mr. Helwig stated that the Garfield Road was the first of the annual looping enhancements. Because it was so closely tied, once they started investigating that to the improvement in the area, it made sense to bring that forward now; there was an account in the Master Plan for $250,000 a year looping, and Garfield was the first one up to bat.

Member Capello stated that Mr. Helwig had answered a lot of his questions. He just had one more comment. He asked coming down Nine Mile, why didn’t the City bring it all the way down to Napier; he thought the City of Detroit had a Master Plan, which they’ll probably never see, but at least the easements were in place. He said an easement all the way down Napier down to Beck, extending it from Roberts Drive down to Napier Road, the costs could still be built in, he believed, to the tap fees that the Preserve was going to pay; that would get City water closer to its ballparks, which he thought in the long run the City needed to consider. He asked if there was anything wrong with carrying it from Roberts Road all the way to Napier at this time.

Mr. Hayes answered not that he was aware of but he didn’t know the specific history.

Mr. Pearson said it was certainly something that somebody could look at with the design and feasibility of the south route, as described last year in the budget, or what Member Capello just described as trying to get over to Napier. He stated that there still was a chunk, as he recalled from the bike path discussion, to get down to the sports complex, so it was something that could certainly be looked at.

Member Capello stated that there was, but at least if we get it to Napier, we’re on the right track. Otherwise, the City was leaving that gap there, and he didn’t think that the City would ever fill that gap; that would be one of the things that would be there forever.

Mr. Pearson stated that he remembered that; that was an issue that there was so much undeveloped land in between. He wanted to add to Member Paul’s comment. He said some other questions were asked; for the recommended design fee, the City would have a much better grasp of any land cost easements on Nine Mile. He said Administration was not anticipating any acquisitions, but really need to design, as Council knew, it was a natural beauty road and the City was trying to stay very tight and it winds. He said they really needed some help. He didn’t know if they could answer much of her questions. He said the City wasn’t intending to acquire any easements; it might need some construction easements, but the City wouldn’t know until it could move forward at least with the designs, we’ll have those and be able to answer more specifics at that time.

Member Capello asked if it would be more cost effective if Council awarded the Nine Mile Road and the Garfield as one project; if the prices were going to be within a couple thousand dollars by awarding it separately, but couldn’t the City maximize the benefit if it awarded it all to one engineering firm.

Mr. Hayes answered that Administration took a look at that and, because of the potential funding situation where it might not be possible to get Garfield built this year and because the City had conflicting scores in the evaluations of the two projects, they had URS as the top proposal for this project and Anderson, Eckstein as by far the top proposing fee for the Garfield Road project, Administration decided to keep them separate.

Member Capello stated that he looked at it and if either one were combined, if the City gave Anderson both of them, they were $180,000; if you combined both of the URS, they were at $176,000. He stated that he overall dollars weren’t that great of a savings, he didn’t think.

Mr. Hayes answered that was correct. He stated that Administration also included the consultants’ proposed approach and schedule and their understanding of project requirements; that all fit into the evaluation.

Member Capello stated that he was fine with that but he wanted to see the Nine Mile Road water main go all the way down to Napier Road; he guessed they would have to go back and ask for an additional fee proposal from whomever the City would award the contract to, not to send it out to bid to everybody again, but just to see what that extended amount would be.

Member Lorenzo stated that she wanted to reiterate that she was not at all questioning the necessity of the projects; what she was questioning was that Ms. Smith-Roy said that the tap fees were intended to cover the costs. Unfortunately, Council didn’t have a straight answer as to whether or not the tap fees for that area were going to cover the costs. She said that was what she was looking for in postponing that; she wanted a better feel for whether or not they’re going to cover the costs. She said if they were not going to cover the costs, she thought Council had an option of increasing the tap fees. Council needed to know how many tap fees or what the cost would take to recoup that money. She thought the Mayor made a very good point; $35-million seemed like a lot of money. Ms. Smith-Roy explained where that money was; it was not all money that the City could use for those type of projects. She stated that at some point in the future our older infrastructure that had been in there close to 30 years would have to be replaced also; the City certainly did not want to get into a position like Detroit or other cities where they were scrounging for the money to replace the infrastructure. She said that was why Council needed to make sure that the City recouped that money; until she got the information she needed in order to feel comfortable Council would do that, she wouldn’t be able to support those projects.

Member Nagy arrived at 9:08 p.m.

Member Capello stated that he thought Ms. Smith-Roy stated was that dollar-for-dollar for that particular line it wouldn’t balance out, but when they looked at the whole scheme of things that JCK prepared, it would balance out. She just averaged it out over all of the projects, was what she said, so he was convinced that in the long run the City would get its money back. He said his only issue was to get it all the way down to Napier Road.

F. Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for the Garfield Road Water Main Extension to Anderson, Eckstein and Westrick, Inc. for a not-to-exceed design fee of $17,300 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 8.55% of construction cost (estimated to be $18,810) for a total of $36,110. AEW submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

Roll Call Vote on CM-05-02-051 Yeas: Capello, Gatt, Csordas,

G. Approval to award a contract for Design and Construction Engineering Services for Eleven Mile Road Rehabilitation and Culvert Replacement to URS Corporation for a not-to-exceed design fee of $30,942 and a construction engineering fee equal to a fixed 8.50% of construction cost (estimated to be $25,500) for a total of $56,442. URS submitted the lowest fee proposal for this project.

Member Paul asked Mr. Hayes when construction would begin on the culvert on Eleven Mile.

Mr. Hayes stated that construction was slated to begin in July, and the consultant estimated it to be a two-month duration; so it would wrap up sometime in August.

Member Paul asked, where the culvert was on Eleven Mile, would you be able to pass over Eleven Mile at that point, or was it going to be a detour.

Mr. Hayes answered that the City would likely have to detour, because it was a double-barrel culvert that extended the full width of the roadway obviously; it would be an extensive amount of work getting the culvert replaced or whatever the consultant came up with for the design fix.

Member Paul asked if that was coming out of the Water and Sewer Fund also or was it coming out of Road?

Mr. Hayes answered that it was coming out of the Major Street Fund.

Member Paul asked about the quality control testing; was it a pretty low dollar amount for URS and was he comfortable with quality control testing that the company was going to be offering.

Mr. Hayes answered yes; for that particular project, they had substantial amount of geotechnical testing and other types of quality control testing that would be done during construction to assure the City of a good product when it was completed.

Member Paul asked if he was talking about a two-month time of construction on Eleven Mile that the City would have to detour, and exactly where was the detour going to be.

Mr. Hayes stated that the actual detour won’t be necessary for the entire two-month process; that was just their estimate of what it would take to do the roadwork as well as the culvert work.

Member Paul stated that, again, looking at Ten Mile, Nine Mile and Eleven Mile all being thoroughfares that the City would have under construction.

Mr. Helwig stated that it was a project that Council had appropriated this fiscal year, 2004-05, it was in the current year budget; he said Administration peeled it off from the Meadowbrook stem and didn’t do it this year for exactly the reason she was describing, so it would be staged accordingly. It would be staged to make sure that that corridor was not creating the problems that it would have had the City done it this past summer.

Member Paul thanked them for their explanations; she was just looking at the ease of traffic and safety of the residents.

J. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 690

Member Capello stated that he pulled the $42,792.25 warrant to Orchard Hiltz and asked if that was South Lake Drive still.

Mr. Helwig stated that they were not involved in South Lake Drive.

Ms. Smith-Roy answered that they were the traffic consultants, so a good portion of that payment was for the traffic fees; a portion was for the Liberty Park Phase I, as part of our agreement.

Member Capello thanked Ms. Smith-Roy.

1. Ordinance amendment to newly adopted Financial Guarantee Ordinance to require an additional bond in those situations where any permit is requested on property which is contiguous to a public street, utilities owned by the city which could be damaged through the construction process – Member Capello

Member Capello stated that this came to mind after Council discussions regarding Park Place and acceptance of streets and roads. It seemed to him to make sense that on any roads that the City owned, whether it was an internal subdivision or on Taft Road or Ten Mile, any road that the City owned that when either a residential building permit or any commercial building permit was pulled, that the City require the builder to post an additional financial guarantee to secure any repairs for damages that might be done to the road or utilities that were owned by the City during the construction period.

Member Capello stated his thought was that the City, with the advice of counsel, include within that financial guarantee provision that they post the additional financial guarantee, $20,000, $30,000, whatever the engineer would determine to be adequate, that there was a rebuttable presumption that any damage that was done to the roads or the utilities or the curbs within the portion of the street that abutted the boundary of the property that abutted the street, that would require the builder to monitor any damage to the road, monitor his subcontractors and employees that might be performing work on the site and, if there was damage, then he would come to the City and explain who did the damage so that he was not responsible for the repair work. The City might require a digital or video from the builder at the time that he pulled the building permit and posted the financial guarantee to show the condition of the road before the construction began.

Member Capello thought that would give the City an additional protection that he thought it needed to protect the roads so that taxpayers were not suffering the financial burden of repairing damage that was done by builders.

Member Capello stated that he didn’t know how many times you do see this in a subdivision and usually what it was doing was before the final coat of asphalt was put down, you saw bulldozers going across the street and over the curbs and over the asphalt; that was one way the City could protect itself.

Member Capello stated that he was asking for Council to direct the City Attorney to come back to Council with an amendment to the Financial Guarantee to include that additional financial guarantee at the time the building permit was pulled.

Mayor Csordas asked if Council had a consensus on that or if it needed to take a vote.

Member Lorenzo asked if it would be cumbersome in going after a second or third party; that would be her only concern.

Member Capello stated that he was putting the burden on the builder to monitor his own subcontractors, and if he couldn’t show to the City that someone else was at fault, then it was his responsibility. He stated that was what a rebuttable presumption was; if it was done in front, it was your fault unless you could prove otherwise.

Member Lorenzo stated that she didn’t want to get the City in the middle of that debate, between the contractor and a sub that the contractor thought was responsible. She didn’t want the City to get into a situation where it was paying its legal counsel to try to get in the middle of the dispute.

Member Capello stated that his thought was that if the builder’s sub did it, it was his fault; if a builder down the street did it, that would be the City’s responsibility. If he could prove that a builder down the street did it unrelated to his project, then it was the City’s responsibility anyway. If one of his subcontractors did it, it was his responsibility to repair the road. He stated that the City was not getting between the builder and the subcontractor.

Member Lorenzo stated that the City would be getting in the middle, though, if in between to the contractor himself. She stated that right now the contractor was responsible.

Member Capello stated that was not true. The City didn’t have that protection; that was what he was trying to create for the City.

Mr. Schultz stated that as he understood it, he was talking about once the streets were accepted and were public.

Member Capello answered yes.

Mr. Schultz stated that at that point he thought Member Capello was right that the City didn’t have a specific or at least not a substantive dollar amount, bond or financial guarantee that was posted by individual builders. He thought that if Council were interested in this, the City Attorney would probably meet with the City, Marina Neumaier, Aaron Staup, and all the people who did that on a day-to-day basis and then talk about whether there was in fact a workable solution to that, and they would come back and report to Council.

Member Lorenzo stated one that wouldn’t get the City "in the middle of any dispute".

Mr. Schultz answered that was certainly the understanding.

Member Lorenzo stated that she could agree to that then.

Mayor Csordas stated that was very interesting because there was a subdivision that was being built on Taft Road between Ten Mile and Eleven Mile on the east side of the road where he drove by there and wondered about that because he supposed all of the infrastructure was in underneath the ground, but there were trucks driving all over that street all the time, although the City couldn’t go back retroactively and protect itself there. He stated there was a lot of merit to that, especially in fact if it was not protected against that now.

Member Nagy stated that she liked that idea of finding some way to protect the City. She asked Member Capello who would keep the videotape.

Member Capello stated that the Building Department; that would be part of their permit application, whether it was a video or digital, whatever the Building Department thought would be most reliable.

Member Nagy stated that the builder would be required to make the videotape.

Member Capello answered yes.

Member Nagy stated that she supported that idea.

A consensus was reached to amend the Financial Guarantee that the City require the builder to post an additional financial guarantee to secure any repairs for damages that might be done to the road or utilities that were owned by the City during the construction period.

2. To Instruct the City Attorney to begin drafting a new ordinance relative to a modified approval process for upgrading existing, specified areas of the city. Basically, an Ordinance to contract for re-development – Member Capello

Member Capello stated that Council was so used to getting new developments and working with new developments; look at the corner of Ten Mile and Meadowbrook Road, look at the northwest corner of Grand River and Novi Road, that shopping center. He said for an older shopping center to upgrade itself, it was physically impossible because they couldn’t meet the current standards of the City ordinances, especially at the Northwest corner of Meadowbrook and Ten Mile Road. He said what was happening was that some of the centers were staying in blight. He was thinking was if Council identified through Administration areas in the City that did need upgrading, some infill that our ordinance had that overlay and say that in those certain areas, you could come to City Council with a plan and City Council would have the ability to modify the current construction standards and building code and façade and architectural standards to allow them to redesign, rebuild or upgrade their center when the current standard of City ordinances could not be met. He said it was similar to what Council was doing in the planned rezoning, Council would do a planned redevelopment. He thought it would give incentive to some of those older areas in the City to come to Council and upgrade and improve what was existing there; whereas, otherwise they would not be able to do it.

Member Paul stated that she and Member Capello had a conversation about that when she was on the Planning Commission about Farmer Jack and that whole plaza; they had talked about how they didn’t meet the current conditions of storm runoff water and how the Commission would go about rectifying that. She said that one suggestion that was done in Ann Arbor was they had an area where the parking lot downgraded into an area that was essentially a rain garden, so it would be plant life that could sustain water and have wet feet, if you will; that way they could possibly meet the City’s ordinance in a difference capacity because they didn’t meet it by our parking setbacks, by the zoning codes, by the façade ordinance; there were so many areas that they didn’t meet it, but the storm water was one that was a concern that they were speaking of. She said if they could somehow meet that in a very easy way, maybe that would help the City in the long term.

Member Paul stated that she knew another that they looked at was Music Land Plaza; they waived all of the façade ordinance. They tried to come in the middle; they weren’t going to meet the Town Center ordinance but they would be closer to it, so they gave them a waiver in their façade ordinance at the Planning Commission for that very reason. The Commission knew that they couldn’t meet the complete ordinance but could definitely enhance it. She agreed with Member Capello’s comment that Council could help them along if there were some areas of interest. She knew that area could definitely use a big shot in the arm, so anything that Council could do to help them and help City beautification in the process would be beneficial. She wanted to support Member Capello’s comment and make that a point of record.

Member Nagy stated that she thought it was a very good idea that Member Capello brought forward; she would like to see it go to the Planning Commission implementation. She thought that being on the Planning Commission and working with our now Planning Director, Barb McBeth, when they looked for various other ordinances that they wanted to implement and bring forward to Council, she did an excellent job in researching what other cites had, which also gave them something to work from. She asked if Member Capello’s intent was to give it to the attorney?

Member Capello answered yes; it wasn’t that complicated of an ordinance. He thought that Mr. Schultz could get something together for Council in the next couple of days and get it back to us. He said it was more technical than it was planning; it would come back to Council.

Member Nagy thought it was a good idea only because of the fact that there were older buildings besides the plazas, not just strip malls. She supported that idea.

There was consensus to Instruct the City Attorney to begin drafting a new ordinance relative to a modified approval process for upgrading existing, specified areas of the city.

3. To bring to City Council an Ordinance to provide for larger setbacks from major roads and all intersections – Member Capello

Member Capello stated that he had been looking for that for three years, and he had not seen it yet. He asked what he needed to do to get that to Council; he understood that at the Planning Commission level they may have addressed that within certain other ordinances. He stated that the City’s development would continue and he wanted to see larger setbacks along its major roads; he wanted to see larger setbacks at its major intersections. He had seen it done in other communities; it really made for nicer intersections. He said they had talked about the entranceway to the City, and somebody said at Twelve Mile Road and Haggerty; that building was going to have a nice waterfall or something coming into the City. He stated they should have that at every one of the City’s intersections. He asked Mr. Helwig what he needed to do to get that to Council so it could be acted on.

Mr. Helwig stated that he should get a consensus from City Council.

Council consensus was to explore larger setbacks at major road intersections and consider placing waterfalls or something special at entrances to the City.

4. Status of the weighmaster – Mayor Pro Tem Landry

Mayor Pro Tem Landry stated that in the course of discussing Park Place and some of the other road issues, the hot topic seemed to be damage to our roads; it was time Council addressed those. He asked what happened to the weighmaster; he thought Council abolished the position.

Mr. Helwig stated that City Council authorized, took a public vote, to convert that to a police officer position. He said that had been absorbed; it had been transferred to the Police Department and when the former weighmaster resigned, Administration brought that action for Council because it was their recommendation that it should be the responsibility of the Police Department for enforcement.

Member Capello asked if that had actually been done. He asked if the police officers were out there with the equipment they needed.

Mr. Helwig answered yes.

5. Westbrook Golf Sign – Member Paul

Member Paul stated that as soon as she mentioned it, she had several responses from staff. She stated that Westbrook was closed; she asked if the City had to have the cardboard/particle board "closed" sign on Westbrook.

Mr. Helwig stated that Administration would be on it tomorrow; he remembered seeing it, and he thought it was gone.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION – None

There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Csordas adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. to go into Executive Session to discuss legal actions.

______________________________ _________________________

Lou Csordas, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_____________________________

Transcribed by Sue Troutman

Date approved: February 28, 2005