Mayor Landry called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Landry, Mayor Pro Tem Capello, Council Members Gatt, Margolis, Mutch, Nagy, Paul, absent

Member Paul arrived at 7:02 P.M.

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, Interim City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Barbara Mc Beth, Director of Planning

Rob Hayes, City Engineer

Randy Auler, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry

Benny McCusker, Director of the Department of Public Works

Mr. Pearson requested Item 12 be removed from the agenda to be reworked after receiving more information and ideas.

Member Mutch added under Mayor and Council Issues, Item 2, Napier Road.

Mayor Landry asked that the official record of the City of Novi include the passing of two long time residents of this community. Recently, retired Captain of the Novi Police Department Bob Starnes, who served for many, many years with distinction, passed away. Isabelle Collins a long time resident, former Planning Commissioner, activist and positive member of the community also passed away. Mayor Landry asked for a moment of silence for Bob Starnes and Isabelle Collins.

Mayor Landry said the Oakland County Fire Prevention Society recognizes an Inspector of the year, and for this year the Inspector of the Year is Novi Fire Captain Mike Evans. Mayor Landry congratulated Captain Evans, and said it is an absolute privilege whenever the City of Novi is recognized for any of our members and what they do. We are extremely proud of our Fire Department, which serves our residents 24-7, 365 days a year. We recognize it, and it is heart felt when other communities and departments also recognize excellence when they see it.

Chief Johnson of the Novi Fire Department thanked Council for the opportunity to acknowledge one of their own. He said Captain Evans has been with the department since 1990, and was promoted to Captain of Fire Prevention in 1996. Captain Evans has been instrumental in working with all the building officials, Planning Department, and making sure that all codes and fire prevention efforts are in line with where they need to be. Chief Johnson congratulated Captain Evans on behalf of all the men and women of the Novi Fire Department.

Lt. Bruce Johnson, President of the Oakland County Fire Prevention Society, and member of the Southfield Fire Department, stated that Captain Evans is very well respected amongst his peers in the fire prevention business. The City of Novi and the Novi Fire Department should be proud they have Fire Marshall Evans working for them. Captain Evans initiated an engine company inspection, which is a fire safety inspection program for existing buildings in Novi. He is also involved with the Building Department doing inspections on sprinkling systems, and fire alarms in all new construction. Captain Evans is also involved in Michigan State Fire Inspectors Society, as well as the Oakland County Fire Inspectors Society. Lt. Johnson said it gave him great pleasure as President of the Oakland County Fire Inspectors to be present to bestow this award to Fire Marshall Mike Evans.

David Denyer, President of the Novi Youth Council, said six members of the Council went to a youth symposium in Canton Township, which was a leadership workshop. They were the only new Council and attended classes on diversity, team building, and new Council to learn how to become more effective. There were about 100 people who attended representing about 25 Youth Councils. Mr. Denyer said he was proud that they were able to participate, and felt questions were asked that would help them be more effective. He was proud to say their Council seemed more organized than the others, as they had a constitution, and rules and regulations, and were focused on the community.

Mr. Denyer said Mrs. Walsh talked with Peter Dion, Superintendent of Novi Schools, because the Youth Council hoped they could talk to the elementary school students about the history of Novi and how the government runs, and hoped it would be a good witness for them to see high school students on Novi’s Council. He felt it might encourage them to become involved. They were also hoping to have a float in the Memorial Day Parade, and invite the elementary students to march so they can feel like they are participating in the City

Scott Czekaj, Vice Chairman, said over the past two weeks the Youth Council, Novi High School and Detroit Catholic Central have been working together to form the movie marathon to be held Thursday from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. He said they hoped to have 500

people at the show. It is $5.00 per person and the money is going to the local chapter of Habitat for Humanity, and to the Novi Library building fund. There will be seven new movies that have not been shown. The students will be expected to stay there all night and leave at 7 A.M. Supervision will be provided by school volunteers, but they are still looking for more volunteers and suggested Council might be fit for the job. Mr. Czekaj said they were hoping to raise $2,500 to $3,000. The local area businesses are bringing pizza, subs, etc., and Emagine has donated all you can eat popcorn and pop the whole night.

Member Nagy commented she was impressed with the Youth Council and what they are doing. She thought that Novi should be very proud to have these young people in our City. She thought they were terrific, and had a lot to offer the City.

Ms. Collins, S.W.O.C.C., opened with a video produced by Michigan members of the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors. She said the video was contributed from centers and cities across the State, but most of it was produced and edited by S.W.O.C.C. The video was about a community’s need for its own voice, access and means to express it and PEG TV provides that.

Ms. Collins said the video reflects the importance of PEG TV, which is now being threatened, as well as local enforcement of video franchising. The telephone companies want to enter the cable market, but on their own terms. She said they would like competition in our cities and have wanted it since signing a franchise in 1982. It is a non-exclusive franchise, and they have asked for competition from other cable and telephone companies. Now, the telephone companies are pressing Congress, the House and Senate, the Michigan State legislature, and the FCC. Nationally a House panel is working on a bill, and there is rumor that something is going to come soon. At the FCC level there has been a notice of proposed rule making. The S.W.O.C.C. cities of Farmington, Farmington Hills, and Novi filed, along with numerous other Michigan cities, in a filing prepared by Protec, which is a Michigan group to protect our rights of way. The FCC received more than 4,300 filings a couple weeks ago. At the State level there is now a big threat, as last week AT&T was instrumental in legislation introduced in Lansing. This legislation would stop control of cable franchising from local municipalities, it would exempt AT&T from pornography and obscenity laws, it would jeopardize Homeland Security, and allow the telephone companies to discriminate against neighborhoods. It would take away as much as $100 million annually from municipalities. The legislation, House Bill 5895 and Senate Bill 1157 would give citizens no way to deal with service problems, and would eliminate school, city, township, university, and public cable access channels. She said it would create a new costly and unwieldy State bureaucracy and would make it impossible for municipalities to attract new business on the basis of broadband availability.

Ms. Collins said communities across the State will be contacting their legislators to fight these anti consumer, anti competitive, and anti neighborhood laws. She said tomorrow there will be a press conference in Lansing in conjunction with the Michigan Municipal League, and locally elected officials from cities, villages, and townships across Michigan are going to invite AT&T and Verizon to provide more cable television service to their communities. The event will kick off a State wide effort to prevent the telephone companies from bypassing local franchise agreements, which have worked for 25 plus years.

S.W.O.C.C. and its member cities have been on top of this issue for several months, and there has been lobbying in Washington DC, Lansing and on the home front. Letters have also been sent from our elected officials, members of S.W.0.C.C., and the Mayor. A sample of a letter writing campaign is in Council packets with letters to sign and fax to Washington DC and Lansing. A volunteer has informed the public through a video he has produced through public access, as well as the video shown tonight, which will be cable cast State wide. Ms. Collins said each of the S.W.O.C.C. members have passed resolutions inviting the telephone companies in. Novi’s resolution was passed on October 24, 2005.

Mayor Landry said this legislation is threatening the cable channels as we know it, and is something that people should get involved in. It is a serious threat to the continuation of the current cable process.

Mr. Pearson said he had received confirmation of two recommended dates for Mayor’s Exchange Day in Portage. They are Wednesday, May 17^th for a visit to Portage, and Thursday, May 25th to host Portage officials in Novi. He said the idea was to have a City vehicle, or rent a vehicle, so that everyone could go together on the 17^th. They would spend the day in Portage looking at various facilities, and things they would like us to see, and then we would reciprocate on May 25^th. On the 25^th, if Council members just wanted to join them for lunch or dinner, and weren’t able to make it the whole day, that would be acceptable. Mr. Pearson said something would be in the packets regarding this.

Gary Rickard, 25348 Buckminster, said he had a couple of suggestions for Council. There are two berms between Oak Pointe and Island Lake that are dueling to see which can be taller than the other. They already have trees growing out of them and there is going to be a drain in between. Apparently, our ordinances require that both of these properties that adjoin each other have berms, and this doesn’t make sense. Mr. Rickard said it is unattractive, and would create a ditch in the middle. He asked that the ordinance be changed so that wouldn’t happen. Then, regarding the property at Ten Mile and Beck, previously owned by Max Sheldon, he wished the City would suggest to the current owner that they look very favorably on having an assisted living center there. It is a perfect site, with Providence Hospital down the street. He

Citizens and elderly family members doctors would be down the street. Across the street a pharmacy would be available to them, a kidney dialysis center and a health center that would support having an assisted living center across the street. He would not disturb the corner where the old homestead used to be. It would be a natural for a park with all the development behind it. The intersection would have an attractive park, and everything would be behind that.

Mayor Landry asked Ms. Mc Beth to make herself available to Mr. Rickard, and explain to him what is going on with the berms between Oak Point and Island Lake. He wanted her to give Mr. Rickard a history on what has been approved, and what the reasons were.

Member Nagy removed Item J and Item N.

Member Paul removed Item F and Item H.

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. March 6, 2006 – Regular Meeting

B. Approval of Traffic Control Orders 06-01 (westbound Argyle Street to yield at Whitehall Drive – south intersection) and 06-02 (eastbound Argyle Street to yield at Whitehall Drive) located in Autumn Park Subdivision – Phase III.

C. Approval of Traffic Control Order 06-03 (northbound West Lake Drive at North Haven).

D. Approval to apply for the 2006 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for the purchase of vehicle laptop computers and ability to establish a Wellness and Fitness Initiative.

E. Approval of proposal to extend the 2005 Chip Seal Program prices for the 2006 construction season to Highway Maintenance & Construction Company in the amount of $73,569.

G. Approval to apply for and accept a $2,000 traffic safety grant administered by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning.

I. Acceptance of water main as a public utility and approval of the storm drainage facility maintenance easement agreement for the Citizens Bank site located at 49125 Grand River Avenue.

K. Acceptance of water main and sanitary sewer as public utilities and approval of the Storm Drainage Facility Maintenance Agreement (Second Amendment) for Island Lake of Novi Site Condominiums Phase 4B-2.

L. Acceptance of Conservation Easement for the Stoneridge Office Park, located on the north side of Twelve Mile Road, west of Novi Road.

M. Approval to execute a sanitary sewer easement agreement for the construction, operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer that will serve the Keystone Medical Center site.

O. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 717

Charles Busse was present on behalf of the applicant. Also, present was President Richard Porhola, Vice President Burton Stillman and manager Carrie Grosser, of Whirly Ball. He said when they met last time there was a question or two raised about the particular use, its location, how it conformed with the Zoning, the layout, and how it might co-exist with Soccer Zone. There were also some other more use oriented questions regarding parking spaces, etc. As a result of Council’s concerns, he and his clients met with City staff, planning and building department officials, and the City Attorney to address some of these concerns, and to see if this project could be tailored to the community as reflected by Council’s concerns at the last session. Mr. Busse said, at the meeting, they were asked to discuss in much more detail the level of food concession that would be offered. There was a concern that the restaurant the food concession be essentially a competitor to the restaurant community established in Novi. There was concern that if this was a recreational facility that the notion of being a restaurant as well was inconsistent with the communities goals and this Council’s goals. They outlined the much more café like menu oriented use of this facility, and were able to elaborate more specifically. Some particulars about the food concession at the Whirly Ball for Council’s information were:

1) Patrons come to Whirly Ball by reservation only, and much more for the recreation, the food

is an incidental. Also, walk in street traffic and dining traffic is not encouraged, not

advertised, and is non-existent. They primarily take group reservations for the Whirly Ball

activity and offer light café dining as an ancillary offering. They said they are not a

restaurant.

2) Food is ordered based on reservation, so if there is a group of 20 coming they will then

place a light hors d’oeuvre food concession order to their caterer and vendor. He said

street traffic cannot be accommodated because they are not fine dining and that quantity of

food will not be on site to deal with walk-ins. All advertising they would do in this

community it would not be billed as a restaurant facility. They don’t seek that traffic, and

they make their living by the Whirly Ball recreational group opportunity.

3) Mr. Busse said they provided Council the revised café style menu that is reflective of

their historic uses, and is what they know best. It is a very limited meal offering.

Mr. Busse said there was also concern as to whether or not this use is permitted at all within the zoning classification. This property is zoned Light Industrial, and within that zoning the ordinance does permit some of the recreational activities and incidental to or accessory to some café offering, as well as liquor consumption on the premises. He said because the ordinance permits that there was another concern that this group business, even an older patron style use, was right in the same facility as Soccer Zone with open access so patrons could freely walk from Soccer Zone into Whirly Ball and back again. There were concerns about excited parents who have a beer or two during a Soccer game and the problems that might cause. He said they understood that and understood that this location was unique. As a result, when they met with the Planning and Building Departments, they dedicated the significant financial resources to close any access, whatsoever, between Soccer Zone and Whirly Ball. Those entrances are closed and a fire wall has been redesigned that would actually separate these two uses. The only way into Whirly Ball is from the parking lot. He said they respected that, and agreed it was the right answer for this use at this site. Finally, the Building and Planning Departments were concerned about the number of people on site and whether there would be sufficient parking. He said they worked with their architect and the City Building and Planning Departments, and their total needed use, parking space wise, is about 322 or so spaces, and there are 330 spaces available.

Mr. Busse said they noted that Council had concerns about how this use will progress and are willing to accommodate any conditions that Council wished to place on this use going forward. It is somewhat unique. They are interested in coming to this community because Novi is uniquely known as an entertainment center, its location accommodates that, and it is vibrant and diverse. He commented they wanted to be a positive business in this community, and they are very comfortable with the appropriate conditions Council might want to impose. They guaranteed Council that they mean what they say and did what they mean.

Member Gatt thanked Mr. Busse for all their work. He commented that he was in favor of this project last time with the reservation of separating the two buildings. He thought that what had been presented certainly satisfied that concern. Member Gatt asked Mr. Schultz if Council could put conditions on a liquor license transfer. Mr. Schultz said he wouldn’t look at it that way, and thought what they could do was make determinations that the representations that he has made are what’s leading to Council’s result, and get that clear on the record so if that turns out not to be true there is a record to point to.

Mayor Landry asked Mr. Schultz if Council needed a finding that this is an accessory use.

Mr. Schultz said it would be helpful to have in the motion.

Mayor Landry asked if the motion maker and seconder agreed to that, and Member Gatt and Mayor Pro Tem Capello did agree.

Member Margolis commented that she appreciated the applicant working with staff covering all the conditions. She stated she had used the facility in West Bloomfield and it is exactly as they have portrayed it. The food service and liquor service is accessory to the recreation. She was glad they could work out the details, and she would support the motion.

Member Nagy said she appreciated what they had said, but would not be supporting the motion. She said in reading the minutes from the previous Council meeting there was some question raised about children and alcohol. She said that wasn’t the issue for her, because she assumed that adults would be responsible when they are around children, case in point Chucky Cheese has a liquor license. However, her concern is the big picture, and whether or not this is a secondary use. Member Nagy did not think this was a secondary accessory use to this building. In reading what they had proposed it is not an accessory use, secondly she saw no hours of operation. She said Mr. Busse talked about the fact that this would be for corporate clients and special events, but there was nothing about hours of operation and what days of the week this would be open. She was thinking about the people who live in the condominium complex, and she wasn’t sure she would want to live there with a restaurant being operated in that area. Member Nagy was also concerned with the down the road big picture. While the Council would have some discretion with regard to further transferring of any license, she did not believe this met the ordinance requirements. She felt if Council did this they would get in trouble with anything that comes up in the future that is similar. She believed the project was nice, and understood what they were doing, but she also read the Consent Judgment, and saw nothing there that would allow Council to do this. This is zoned I-1, and she didn’t believe it was the proper use, nor was there anything that said Council had to do this per the Consent Judgment. She would not support the motion because it was not secondary or accessory use.

Member Paul noted she was torn with this project but appreciated the efforts the applicant had made. However, when she was there for a Soccer game on Sunday, there were already walls up, and it looked like there might be an emergency access to the Soccer Zone. She asked if there was a secondary access or was it just an exit for emergency purposes only. Mr. Busse said it was required by the Fire Marshall for emergency purposes only.

Member Paul had similar concerns to Member Nagy’s. When on the Planning Commission and looking at uses, Soccer Zone was out of its place already. She asked about the long term viability of his business, and how they would make people aware that they were going to be to the rear of the building. It is already hard to see Soccer Zone because it’s behind several different condominiums as well as Ray’s Electric to the eastern border, the restaurants are on the southern border, and the strip mall on Grand River. She asked where they would have signage to inform the public that they are back there.

Mr. Busse said it is Industrial, so the intensity of the use, and concerns about some of the neighboring uses needed to at least be reflective of the Zone. He said as far as advertising, they are not a bright lights kind of facility, and their use had been sustained by referral, e-mail, and a steady long term list of corporate clients. He said they believed that the corporate center of the metropolitan area is moving along the 96 corridor, and many of their clients are here so it is a natural movement for them, and is consistent with the increasing commerce in Novi. Member Paul asked if there would be any signage for their building. He said they had a plan for limited signage that is consistent with the zoning use, but nothing that expands beyond Soccer Zone significantly. She asked if it would be to the front or the rear of Soccer Zone.

Mr. Porhola said the only signage anticipated was just above their actual entrance from the parking lot. All their business is done by corporate clients, e-mail and existing clientele. He said they had been in business for 15 years, and were not reliant on drive by or walk in traffic. He commented they really don’t need the exposure, and that was why they were able to come into Soccer Zone in the first place, and utilize this facility. He said their location on Drake Road had always been a dead end location, and they never had anyone but local residents. He felt the location should not impact them whatsoever.

Member Paul said when she read their information there was some questions about this, but they were leaning toward it wouldn’t be a violation of the ordinance, zoning regulations or other applicable City ordinances that exist. Mr. Schultz said the Whirly Ball facility and recreational use is a permitted use in the I-1 District. The I-1 District applies because of the Consent Judgment. He said the question is the additional aspect of the use, in general, the food and drink issue. It can be permitted as long as it is an accessory and not a separate principle use. He said that issue came before Council last time. The reason it came up was that the menu and all the other information available about the restaurant use showed what appeared to be a pretty extensive and almost separate destination point. He said they have now submitted information, and going back to what they have at their previous location, showing something that looks, from a planning perspective, a lot less like a separate principle use and more like a customary incidental use. Franklin Racquet Club has a small bar area, which is not unusual to see. The only question before Council is the transfer of the liquor license. The only reason the use comes up is because one of the findings Council has to make is that the use for which they are seeking the license is permitted. He said there was a question last time, but didn’t think from the staff’s perception there was such a question this time. Ultimately, it’s Council’s determination whether this is accessory as it has now been described. Mr. Schultz said the last letter he submitted in this packet really dealt with an internal inquiry from the City staff regarding what happened if these representations turn out not to be true, and they tried to turn it into more of a destination point, or their use was more extensive. Mr. Schultz said they were just pointing out that there were other ways to deal with that in the future, if that was the case. There are a couple of different ways the City would be protected in the Zoning Ordinance, the Consent Judgment, and maybe with the revocation proceeding if the representations aren’t true. He said the second letter was to let Council know that if they relied on these representations there are some teeth to that.

Member Paul said when looking at this building it is basically divided into quarters, and this is a quarter of the building. So, in regards to accessory use she had mixed feelings. However, she felt that Soccer Zone was not thriving as much as it could be. She wanted to keep business in this area, and since there is not going to be any ability for bar or restaurant usage from Soccer Zone, she would support the motion for that reason alone. Member Paul said they listened to Council’s concerns, and it was not just about alcohol. There are parents who get upset in the stands and break out into fights. To add alcohol would make it even worse and that was her concern and still is. She would support it since there was no ability for children or parents to walk into the restaurant and bar from Soccer Zone. She thanked them for their efforts.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Busse about the hours of operation. Mr. Busse said the hours would be 9 A.M. to 2 A.M. consistent with the administrations of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. He said they would not operate beyond the limits of those hours, including whatever Sunday hours are consistent with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission rules.

Member Mutch commented he was concerned about the long term use and impact of the facility raised in part because of the size of the operation in terms of the food facilities and the menu presented. He said let’s say Whirly Ball decides they are not going to be a reservation kind of operation, and were going to move to a walk in traffic kind of use. What is the process to determine that has happened, and what would the City do to respond. Mr. Schultz said that change would not automatically be a violation of the liquor license. What would be a problem is a change in the use not the details of the use but the use itself. He said that is still a private recreation facility even if they do it a little differently. If the restaurant use changes and becomes something where there’s more food on site to be prepared, more advertising, and all those things they said they weren’t going to do, he thought the City would be within its rights to check, through the Planning Department and Code Enforcement that it hasn’t changed the intensity of the use. If it has there is the Zoning Ordinance mechanism for violations, and a separate license renewal objection or revocation hearing that could happen here at City Council. Council would explore the change with this proponent and then, depending on the outcome, could have an appeal through the LCC or beyond. If there is a fundamental change he thought there was time and a way for the City to look into it.

Member Mutch said the current language in the Consent Judgment allows I-1 uses, and the food use is secondary to the indoor recreation. He asked if the language was explicit enough to address keeping this operation as presented while precluding a full service kind of restaurant. Or, would it be to the City’s benefit to get that clearly written into the Consent Judgment so if there is a question down the road we can fall back on it. Member Mutch said he wanted as many safeguards as possible to hold the applicant to what they presented. Member Mutch said if a liquor license revocation is necessary, it is really out of our hands because Council could make a recommendation, but if the State decided not to move forward with it the Council would have no control over that. There is control with zoning but then we get into a litigation issue. Whereas, if it was clear in the Consent Judgment addressing this use, would it put the City in a better legal position than we are today. Mr. Schultz said in a perfect world if Council could go back, renegotiate, and put the language they wanted into the Consent Judgment with the actual underlining owner of the property that would be the best and safest thing to do. What the existence of the judgment does, is it allows us to treat a Zoning Ordinance violation, a change from accessory to something else for the food service aspect. To treat it not just as a District Court issue but a Circuit Injunction enforcement of the Consent Judgment issue which is a short, quicker process. But Member Mutch was right; they would still be relying on a constructed argument on the Zoning Ordinance instead of direct language. He said if they could get the owner to come to the table that would be best. Member Mutch said the applicant can’t make representations tonight about the Consent Judgment, whatever they ask their not the underlying owner. Mr. Schultz believed the tenant was present. Mr. Busse said they were, and certainly understood that the City had a powerful tool against them for any misrepresentations, and even more so than any sanctions the Liquor Control Commission might have.

Member Mutch said he would support this, but ideally they would have something in place through the Consent Judgment. But this applicant can’t make those kinds of guarantees. He asked that the City watch this closely. He had no reason to believe what is proposed is not what they would do, but was concerned that if the use expands beyond what they have proposed over time, it would raise problems for him.

Mayor Landry commented he was concerned about the mixing of alcohol, contact sports and youth, but they have taken care of that, and he appreciated that. He also appreciated the fact the restaurant use was scaled down to the extent that there is no walk in availability. He said that made it an accessory use, and he would support the motion.

Member Nagy said if the owner was not present how could they make an agreement with the tenant. Why don’t we have something from the owner? Mr. Schultz said all they are doing tonight is granting the liquor license, and the tenants are often the ones holding those subject to the lease with the underlying owner. The only reason this zoning issue keeps coming up is they need, as part of granting that license, to make sure that the use is permitted. He said it sounds like everyone has come to their own conclusion about that, but we don’t need the owner at the table to come to that conclusion. Member Nagy said she didn’t think this met the ordinance, and didn’t see anything in the Consent Judgment that would allow this, and she was concerned that if there was anything down the road the City would end up with legal fees.

Mr. Pearson said the Council has set aside money to facilitate the construction of a firing range and training center as an addition to our current law enforcement center. Step one is to have a needs assessment done to talk about feasibility, and different options. Also, talk with neighbors in the adjoining residential area, so they understand what is being talked about. Before Council is a proposal to complete the needs assessment. A team from purchasing, several levels of the police department, planning department, and administration looked at a number of proposals submitted. It was the conclusion of the group to recommend to Council the proposal from Wold and Associates. They have one principle who would work on this project that has experience with the Novi facility, and they offer a very competitive rate. He said they went back and talked with them to make sure they were getting all that was needed for this very low rate, and they said they were doing this hoping to get any future work that might be needed. They have made enough commitments to us that we are comfortable that they would do a first class job on this important first phase. The needs assessment is not

only the firing range, but also the training facility, and looking at the entire police facility as Novi moves toward build out and expansion. It would provide a plan that could be referred to and used as Novi grows.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the one additional item he would like to see reviewed by this firm is a drug education center for lecture purposes. He commented that he had the opportunity to go into our training facility, which is much less than was expected when approved. He said when the Chief, Deputy Chief, and Lieutenant promotions were appointed people were standing along the walls because there wasn’t enough space. He thought the City deserved more, and now was the time to do it.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he had talked with Judge MacKenzie, and this wasn’t something that would just be utilized by the City. Judge MacKenzie is involved in numerous programs and is renowned nationally for the work he has done in the drug area. Judge MacKenzie said there are several different purposes that the courts could use the facility for, including bringing in national speakers to speak not only to the City but to surrounding areas, drug enforcement officers, parents and children. The High School had a drug program for parents last week and almost 100 people there. He felt this should be done as a City and not just left up to the schools. If the Administration cannot convince them to do the work for the same price, he suggested a cap of $7,500.

Member Nagy thought an assessment analysis of the whole building was a great idea. She asked if the money would come from the forfeiture funds or the general fund. Mr. Pearson said it would come from the forfeiture funds. Member Nagy said she would support this.

Member Gatt agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Capello that the training center was not what was envisioned when first proposed. This City deserved and needed a world class training facility and drug education center, and he thought now was the time to do it.

Member Mutch said he would support this. He said he has been on record as not supporting the construction of a firearms range, and would still stay with that position. However, the assessment that has been proposed would look at all the police department building space to evaluate the future needs of our community as build out is reached. He thought it would be worthwhile to look at the entire facility, identify those areas that need to be addressed not only from space utilization standpoint, but also from maintenance, replacement, and build out of the facility. He wanted people to be clear that if there is a recommendation for a gun range as part of an expansion, he would not support it, but had no problem moving forward with the rest of the program at this time.

Member Margolis said she would support the motion. She said she wanted it put on the record so the community knew that the reason there is an opportunity to do this, and to look at a better facility was because of the hard work of our Police Department, and the fact that we have drug forfeiture funds. We should be very proud of their continued hard work.

Member Paul said she was very happy to hear that Wold Architects and Engineers was taking the $5,800, and would like to stick with that number, and hear what the number would be if it came back. If Council goes up to $7,500 that just gives license to have that number immediately go up. She would also like to look at the building assessment as a whole. We have been told the windows in the front were damaged from a tornado, and she would like some attention brought to that. She understood that it was $50,000 to have those repaired previously, but thought it was really necessary to avoid maintenance from water damage. There are also problems with the back door and it locking, or the safety of it, which is something she would want in the building assessment also. She didn’t want any unknown access into the police department, and didn’t want anyone to be hurt. She felt the Police Department could be a target to people not happy with being arrested in the past. Member Paul said she is not supportive of a gun range. Since $1 million has been allocated to pay down the rest of the debt she would support this portion of the motion. If any other money came forward regarding the firing range, she would be looking at whatever that is as a match to pay down the debt for the citizens of this community; that is most important to her. She didn’t want anyone to pay for something the City had the ability to pay for, and get rid of the debt.

Mayor Landry stated he was supportive of this. A million dollars had already been appropriated for a firearms range, and he was in support of that. He also supports paying down the debt and hoped and expected there would be enough money to do both. He would also like to echo the comments of Mayor Pro Tem Capello and Member Gatt. The training facility is not sufficient. Any time he had been there to take part in an awards ceremony on behalf of the City there were police officers standing along the back wall,

3. Approval of a Planned Rezoning Overlay Agreement, SP 05-53, with Schafer Development, in conjunction with Zoning Map Amendment 18.647, for property south of Grand River Avenue, on the east side of Wixom Road. The subject property is 37.75 acres, and 146 dwelling units are consistent with the approved concept plan.

Matthew Quinn was present on behalf of Schafer Development. At the meeting in December he was not present, and Mr. Schafer put the proposal to have the terms of a proposed PRO overlay agreement in front of Council. At that meeting there was much discussion at the Council table. Member Paul had said she would be flexible, Member Margolis said she would not give much wiggle room regarding the density, Member Gatt and Mayor Pro Tem Capello said no, Member Nagy said she would be flexible and approve units between 146 and 172. He said Mayor Landry and Member Mutch were absent.

Mr. Quinn said when this project was brought forward it was Master Planned for 4.8 units per acre, which was compatible with the RT or Duplex Zoning District, and that was how it was proposed. By that zoning he could have applied and obtained permission for 176 units. Mr. Schafer started out asking for 172, already below the maximum density allowed by the ordinance. When Mr. Schafer appeared before Council in December regarding the terms of the PRO he was talking about a flexibility of plans from 146 units up to 158 units. He said the number of units wasn’t finalized because he was not certain of the cost of the PRO public benefits that were going to be proposed. Mr. Quinn thought Council did a great job getting him to volunteer many public benefits. Those benefits are the installation of a sidewalk along Wixom Road from the Wizinsky/Boynton parcel on their north all the way along Wixom across the school property hooking up to where the sidewalk is at the school property along Wixom Road. Additionally, he agreed to go from his easterly boundary through the ITC overhead easement and connect a sidewalk to the Providence Hospital sidewalk that will go around their access road. He said that is over 250 linear feet of sidewalk outside of his boundary. He also agreed to construct an 8 ft. asphalt pathway from the southerly edge of his condominiums to the parking lot of the adjacent schools, and to build two signs. One sign for Wildlife Wood Park at the boundary line of his condominiums, and another at the parking lot of the school so that as people enter the recreation area they know what particular park their in. In addition, he agreed to top soil and seed both of the soccer fields in the area, and to install underground irrigation systems on those fields, and he’d be responsible for hooking those irrigation systems up to the City’s well that is there at Wildlife Wood Park. He agreed to install three eight foot benches along that walkway through the park so people could rest. He also was required to install, at time of site plan, all the road improvements that might be necessary based on the traffic studies along Wixom Road.

Mr. Quinn said that was all on top of what he was doing for the City in the purchase of this property. He would be removing an unsightly and small area of pollution on the property. This heavy industrial use, the steel company that has been there, all agreed it needed to be moved, as it was not in the right spot anymore being close to the residential community, and the school district immediately to the south. Besides purchasing the property he agreed to work with the City about the future parklands in this area.

Mr. Quinn said Mr. Schafer thought what he was doing in December was trying to get approval of 158 units. Instead, Member Margolis made the motion for 146 units, and that passed 3 to 2. When Mr. Quinn talked with Mr. Schafer he was surprised that he got 146 when he thought he was getting the 158. Mr. Quinn said the reason they were present tonight was as part of Council’s motion they addressed the City Attorney to propose a contract, and he and Mr. Schultz had been working on that for about a month. Mr. Quinn said he agreed to all the terms of the contract, the PRO agreement, except Mr. Schafer’s proposal that instead of the reference to the 146 units it reference 158 units. He said that is still under the density allowed by the ordinance, and it’s an increase of 12 units. An increase of 12 units will have a positive impact on the City’s tax base, the Master Plan, the underlying zoning, utilities, and would have no significant impact on road traffic.

Mr. Quinn said they were asking tonight as part of the final approval of the PRO contract, which is the zoning for this piece of property that instead of the 146 units 158 units be approved. Council has been given plans for both the 146 and the 158 so there isn’t any question or concern about how the site would lay out. They thought this would make a nice project. These condominiums/duplexes are going to be listed in the upper $300,000 to the low $400,000. This area is going to make a nice buffer between the Target store to the north and the school district to the south, as well as a good adjacency to the Providence Park Campus. He said with the walkway connecting to Providence Park or Island Lake people could walk to Providence Hospital. He said they hoped Providence Hospital employees would want to buy in this location, because they could literally walk to work.

Mr. Quinn said they were seeking Council’s permission to change the PRO to 158, and would answer any questions Council had.

Mayor Landry said he wanted to make it abundantly clear that these wonderful amenities were volunteered by Mr. Quinn’s client; is that correct. Mr. Quinn said absolutely, they were all volunteered.

Ms. Mc Beth thanked Mr. Quinn and Mr. Schafer for meeting with the staff after the Council meeting in December. The Planning Department, the City Attorney, and Mr. Auler met with the applicant to discuss the specific terms of the Council’s motion, and went over some of the discussion that took place during the meeting. She said they were relying on the motion of Council in designing the terms of the PRO agreement, and noted that the applicant was now proposing 158 units when previously 146 were shown on the plans. She also noted two plans were provided in Council packets, one showed 146 and the other showed 158. In the event that Council decided to approve the agreement tonight, she would need to know which plan Council was approving. There’s one additional item they wanted to provide for the record, and that was whether, on the main road, an additional 27 feet could be taken since there is just a 33 foot statutory right of way on Wixom Road at this point. She asked the applicant if that could be confirmed.

Mr. Quinn said in the spirit of give and take they would make that commitment.

Member Nagy commented she liked this project.

Member Paul said when this was originally before Council it was hard to increase the density in that area, but the Planning Department overturned that by the Master Plan. The Master Plan called for this area to be rezoned, and Council has been working with this applicant to move forward. When they came in with less density than required it was very appealing to her, because there was the ability to put 171 units in that area, and they were proposing 158. She said since it was master planned to that density, and this is below that she was very much in favor of it. Member Paul said all the items they are contributing to the community are luxuries, and she appreciated them very much. She said when doing the sidewalk with the benches, if they could just extend a portion of concrete or asphalt out underneath the benches it would be helpful for safety and maintenance. Mr. Quinn said they would commit to that. Member Paul said they had agreed to the right of way, the final grade and the irrigation. She stated she would definitely be in support of the project, and she felt the extension they would put in to Providence Hospital would be well served. A lot of people travel between Target, Catholic Central, Providence Hospital and Kroger. She thought they would have to put in a boardwalk for a portion of the extension. Mr. Porhola said they would be able to avoid invading the wetlands.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he wouldn’t go into all the reasons he was opposed to this project. He said it was now going from 146 to 158 units, which he was totally opposed to. Also, in the agreement, it appears that the three acres where the house is located is getting rezoned to RT, but is not part of this agreement. So, basically it is being totally rezoned without any concessions or benefits to the City, and he was opposed to that. He thought that when the plans came back the concession was that they would leave the three acres with a single family house on it, and keep density down. So now they are attempting to jump from 146 to 158, and by rezoning the three acres it would give another 15 units, so now it is up to 173 units. He said he could not support that. The house shouldn’t be in this rezoning. If the house was taken out, it should be either part of the project with one dwelling unit on it, or it should not be part of the project, and not be rezoned.

Member Margolis said she would not support the motion as stated. If there was something that she was consistent about it was that she believed in working in good faith with each other. When the site plan came to Council the units were at 146, and there are many statements in the minutes to that effect. She said that was the decision she made at the time, and she would remain consistent. So, she would not support the increased units but would support the original motion for the 146

Member Gatt agreed with the previous speakers. He did not support this at 146 units, and was shocked to see it had gone up, and was still garnering support. He would not support it.

Member Mutch said the two or three acres, the house property, was excluded from the PRO plan but would be rezoned to RT, is that correct. Mr. Schultz said yes. He said they drafted the agreement the way the plan was presented to Council. He thought it would have been helpful, when drafting the agreement, to get a little more discussion of that item. However, reading everything and speaking to Mr. Quinn, ultimately what was before Council in December was rezone everything, approve the condominium development for the Schafer parcel, and then leave the Wizinsky/Boynton parcel as is but rezoned. He said that’s the way the agreement, drawings, and exhibits were set up. For clarification, he had noticed that it was not clear whether it was 2 or 3 acres, it was easy enough to identify from the drawings, but he didn’t know which was the typographical error. Member Mutch said in the motion being made, did they need to distinguish between the total property and the area covered by the PRO, or was that implicit in the PRO plan. Mr. Schultz said the agreement attempts to prove the development as part of the PRO and specifically to allow the rezoning on the Wizinsky parcel, but exempt it from the development. Mr. Schultz said that was their intent, and if the motion passed it could be made clearer in the document. Member Mutch said in terms of the exclusion, none of the provisions of the PRO will apply to those two acres. Mr. Schultz said other than the developer, Mr. Schafer’s agreement to put the sidewalk across the property, and acknowledge that the City’s expectation had always been that the extra right of way would be dedicated, as it normally would in one of these discretionary option type agreements. Member Mutch said in the legal sense the sidewalk across the Wizinsky/Boynton property would actually be an off site improvement. Mr. Schultz said that’s correct. There are no limitations on the development the Wizinsky property contemplated in this agreement. Member Mutch said the density calculations for the Schafer proposal at 172 was always based on the 35 acres excluding the house.

Ms. McBeth said the 172 would be the maximum allowed on 35.7 acres. Member Mutch said 2 or 3 acres at 4.8 units, probably 9 to 15 units, if those two acres were included then that would be added on top of the 172 for the permissible density. Ms. Mc Beth agreed.

Member Mutch said the entrance to Island Lake on the west side of the road is essentially an intersection. Ms. McBeth agreed. He said he would like to see the intersection looked at in terms of providing a direct access across Wixom Road, that’s about the half mile point. He said Mr. Quinn’s point that hopefully people will use the streets to access the park and Providence would probably be the case. People would come from Island Lake to use it versus crossing at Wixom and Eleven Mile. He wanted that use accommodated. Member Mutch said he now understood that the two acres were never included, regarding density, but based on that understanding his feeling was that the point that the Planning Commission approved the Master Plan change, and Council agreed to move forward with RT zoning on this property, was when the density issue was addressed. He said 172 or anything less was really the number Council was dealing with. He said he had to look at this realistically. There was nothing to stop Mr. Schafer from walking away from this PRO agreement and coming back to the City with a straight RT zoning, and getting 158 or higher with none of the public benefits outlined. They might think it’s not worth the trouble, and that’s the chance Council would be taking. He thought Council had already made the commitment to the higher density, we’d have no legal justification to not allow the RT zoning, because it’s in the Master Plan. If the City went to a judge and said we didn’t want RT zoning in the area, looking at the surrounding land uses, Council would be hard pressed to uphold that. He didn’t think the proposal was unreasonable. Ideally, he would like to see the Wizinsky/Boynton property retained long term as a single family use, but it was not factored into the density calculations in the proposed plan. So in the sense that it was excluded and the City isn’t getting a benefit from it, it was never a part of the proposal in the first place. Member Mutch said Council had to deal with the plan presented to them, and he thought the plan was a good one.

Mayor Landry said he would support the motion. It was well integrated into the surrounding area, and the difference between 146 and 158 is not a big deal to him. He said it was a big deal that they were going to make improvements to Wildlife Woods Park with grading, top soil and irrigation. This would be a great benefit to the City; they volunteered it, and would volunteer it whether at 146 or 158. He said given the market conditions the developer has considered lowering the price of the condominiums from the $500,000 range to the $400,000 range. He said the economic realities are that to do that you have to make the money up somewhere or the project is not going to go. The last thing we want is for the project not to go. Mayor Landry said he preferred that the project be successful, and appreciated the amenities on behalf of the City, and would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the description of the Wizinsky parcel on Exhibit A, and the drawing of the accepted parcel on Exhibit B/C is not consistent. Mr. Schultz said the title work came in on this at the close of the agenda. They would straighten that out and go from there. Mr. Schultz asked if the intention was to have the right of way dedication a part of the motion.

Mayor Landry said yes. Member Nagy and Member Paul agreed it should be part of the motion.

Member Paul said the point most important to her was that Council had been trying to avoid lawsuits. If the Master Plan says 172 units are allowed and they are under that, there was no way the City would win. The Master Plan supports this, and every zoning code was met with amenities being offered to the public. Everything Council had asked of them they have done more, and given more amenities. She hoped this would be successful.

Mr. Galvin was present on behalf of the applicant. He asked Council to approve the agreement prepared by Mr. Schultz after consulting with City staff. The agreement presented to Council contained each of the items included in the approval that the Council gave to the project. He said this project will incorporate three parcels, which are difficult for development. There are a number of amenities including preservation of 54% of the core area woodlands and wetlands, conservation easement, the creation of additional storage for storm drainage, specifically more than 250,000 cubic feet of additional storage, which will not be used by this property. Also, the extension of sidewalks along Eleven Mile Road beyond the property line, and the creation of 3.5 acres of additional wet lands. Mr. Galvin said as a part of the amenities for the community they committed to provide to the City an extension of the walkway, pathway and easement either through their property or on the contiguous ITC corridor. He said they were talking about something that would run from Eleven Mile to the extent of their property line.

Mr. Galvin said they spoke with ITC and believed that their negotiations would be successful, although they do not have the ITC easement in hand tonight, which would allow a continuation along the ITC easement through to Delmont. He believed they could provide all of this to the City. The agreement tonight contains two alternatives, they would either provide the extension, or failing that the path would be brought by Providence Hospital, over Eleven Mile, and down through their property. It would be extended through all of their property. Mr. Galvin thought they had met those issues that were a part of previous discussions with the Council. The agreement they presented to Council reflected the vote at the last meeting concerning this subject, and based upon the fact that they presented to Council an agreement that conformed to Council’s prior vote and a little extra not here previously. Mr. Galvin asked that Council approve the agreement.

Mr. Pearson said what the applicant was proposing was to give the City the easements for our eventual construction, and did not involve the applicant building any of the work along the ITC corridor.

Member Margolis said she appreciated their working in good faith with Council, and following along with the original agreement. She thought this was an excellent development, and appreciated the assembly of the parcels.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello thanked the applicant for going beyond what Council asked them to do in acquiring the easement from Eleven Mile Road down to Ten Mile Road. He said it was a huge link to the trail system and would hook up with the Singh Trail.

Member Paul said going through this project initially; her understanding was that there were recommendations from the staff that this did not meet the ordinances. She appreciated the parcels coming together so that there was one grouping and one development, and not many curb cuts along Eleven Mile Road. Member Paul said other builders and developers have come forward with different proposals, but if it doesn’t meet the zoning ordinances, and doesn’t meet staff recommendations Council usually doesn’t support it. She said that was why she didn’t support it at the November 28, 2005 Council meeting. She believed the zoning ordinances were the laws and had to be upheld. In the last project we had everything that met the Master Plan and met all the zoning codes. Member Paul said this met the Master Plan but with the amount of wetlands and woodlands, it doesn’t meet the zoning ordinances. She would not support the motion, and she didn’t believe the amenities were equivalent to what the proposed density requirements entailed. Therefore, the developer helped the City get the easement, but the trail was not continuing through, and the City would have to pay for it. She said she didn’t know if the City would ever have the money to continue that project, and meet the requirements of what the City needed and what the community was looking for in amenities. She appreciated the assembly of the property, and their attempt to get the easement, but she was looking for a little more.

Member Mutch pointed out an error in the motion. It should be south of Eleven Mile and not North. He said the motion also included the Planned Rezoning Overlay Agreement. Mr. Galvin agreed.

Member Mutch asked if the City would own the easement through the ITC corridor that Singh’s pursuing. Mr. Pearson said they proposed that when it was available it would be brought to Council for consideration to accept, in our favor, just like any other easement. He said yes, it would be from ITC granting the City an easement.

Member Mutch commented he didn’t know what discussions the applicant had with ITC, but he would like to see it move in that direction. His understanding was that ITC allows communities to build trails in the ITC corridor, but obviously the trail builders, which will be the City, have to own the easement. If Singh controls that easement it wouldn’t do the City any good down the road for construction. Member Mutch said he didn’t support this when it first came through.

He thought this project and the previous project were illustrative of the approach he has with these PRO’s. This project is maximizing the Master Plan density as compared to the previous project. It does have some nice environmental protections but he didn’t think any of them were above and beyond what they would get with a traditional residential development in this area. The proposal to construct additional wetlands, as he noted at the last meeting, would take some upland areas and convert them to wetlands with no direct benefit to the City. He said the upland areas work in combination with the wetlands and both are needed. He said he’s always supportive of protecting existing wetlands, but didn’t feel they always needed to build additional wetlands; he didn’t see it as a direct public benefit to the City. Member Mutch said the sidewalk extensions were comparable to the previous project, and that was good. However, he was not seeing the mix of amenities that directly benefit the public that Council was looking for from PRO agreements. He said as other developers come forward for PRO’s, he thought Council would want to insure that they saw the direct public benefit, and ideally not maximizing the density on site that we are seeing with this. Member Mutch said he would support this agreement going forward. They have met the needs and he appreciated seeing the ITC Corridor come forward, and would encourage the City Administration to look at the entire ITC Corridor as a potential pathway. We have three City parks along this western corridor, Community Sports Park, the Singh Trail properties, and Wildlife Woods. He would like to see this not only in the Ten/Eleven Mile stretch, but the entire ITC Corridor to future pathway construction when the funds are available.

Member Nagy said she would support this project. She agreed with Member Mutch regarding

PRO’s having a direct public benefit, and she would have liked to have seen a little bit more in terms of pathway. She said in Section One of the actual Planned Zoning Overlay Agreement, which is the 3^rd page under D, it says "the streets and the development shall be private", why not use the word "will" as it sounds more enforceable. Member Nagy said she lives in a condo, and she wanted to make sure the word was stronger, and that future Councils would not accept the streets. She apologized for missing some of the discussion and asked if there had been any discussion regarding the trail system. Mayor Landry said he believed what the applicant indicated was that they had a favorable response from ITC to allow the trail to go all the way from Eleven Mile to Ten Mile, but they don’t have a guarantee in hand. Therefore, they are proposing in the PRO alternate language that if they can’t obtain the easement to go the ITC route, they would guarantee Council they would provide an extension of the trail through their property. Mr. Galvin agreed. Member Nagy asked if they would be supplying the finances to build the trail. Mayor Landry said no, that was never a part of the deal. In fact the City Manager pointed that out. Member Nagy said she would support the motion.

Mr. Quinn was present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Neugebohr, who are unavailable this evening. This is a relatively simple matter. It has been through the public hearing process, a positive recommendation by the Planning Commission to rezone this 1.575 acres along Grand

River Avenue. It is divided approximately in half by the Rouge River and to the east is Baby and Kids Furniture. This property is on the corner of the future Crescent Boulevard extension and Grand River. This is compatible with all of the Town Center zoning that exists on this part of the downtown area, and they were asking to be part of the Town Center zoning. The applicants believe this area will end up in a relatively small, 5,000 sq. ft., office building and/or retail building that will be marketed, even with the Rouge River coming through it. They expect this summer Planning might say something about this. The whole property is in the flood plain, but a new flood plain map was coming out that took the majority of the property out of the flood plain. He said they expect a report from the Planning Department late this summer. Mr. Quinn said nothing would happen on this property until the revised flood plain came out and it becomes a buildable area. This was the first step and they would come back in the future for a site plan.

Mr. Pearson pointed out that the Planning Commission, after a public hearing, recommended approval to Council, and staff also recommended approval of TC as requested.

Member Paul added to the motion that this meets the staff’s recommendations as well as the Planning Commission’s recommendations and was in compliance with the Master Plan. Member Paul said the roadway has been expanded in this area of Grand River and coming along quite nicely. To see a nice project like this come forward was really beneficial to the downtown area, as well as the appearance and the aesthetics of the community as it develops. She was sure offices would be flourishing when Providence continues. She hoped the office would be proposed more than the commercial, because the commercial was so saturated in that area. She looked forward to the project.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Quinn if his clients considered TC-1. Mr. Quinn said they did look at all the possibilities, and there are some set back differences, but because it is a corner parcel, for safety purposes, they thought the building should be set back a little farther. Also, the retention system would have probably been in the building set back area with the building behind it. They had discussions with Bill Bowman, who listed the property, and the clients thought for this small parcel the Town Center would work the best. Member Mutch said if his client was looking for TC and it was consistent with the Master Plan, he would be willing to support it. However, his preference would be for TC-1. He thought people familiar with that northwest corner knew there have been several projects built there. The Fidelity building is on the corner, the blind shop at the entrance to the old Expo Center, Baby and Kids Furniture, and he thought the best building was the TC-1 building, and that was the Fidelity building. It looks better closer to the road, which was what the TC-1 zoning accomplished. The TC zoning would require the building to be set back from Grand River, but he would not be surprised if

they came back in with a site plan that had problems because of that, the restrictions on the site, and the potential of a future road to the west of the property. Member Mutch said Council should look at that entire quadrant for TC-1. It made more sense to see redevelopment in that area in the TC-1 style. The existing buildings in the TC zonings are not very attractive, and are not a good use for the property. However, he would support the rezoning, but if the applicant found it doesn’t work and comes back, he would support a TC-1.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he agreed with Member Mutch and would support the motion.

Council recessed at 9:00 P.M.

Council reconvened at 9:15 P.M.

Mr. Pearson said they had a business retention visit with a local company, Novi Energy, and as a follow up they brought to him the idea of pursuing this grant program through the State of Michigan. We are honored to have Mr. & Mrs. Gangadharan, principles of Novi Energy, with us this evening. Mr. Pearson said they had put a presentation together and would like to go through it with Council. The idea is to pursue a grant through the State that would provide 90% of the construction of providing solar panels on top of the Civic Center roof, up to $50,000. Mr. Pearson said there was a rough budget for grant purposes, and this would be flushed out quite a bit if the City received the grant and proceeded. Mr. Pearson said they were looking for an expression of interest on the part of the Council as to whether this grant opportunity should be pursued or not. The timing couldn’t be better with all the talk about alternative energy.

Anand Gangadharan, of Novi Energy, said they provide energy management service, energy consulting, and energy construction and development. He said they build power plants, steam plants, sub stations, etc., and provide consulting to some of the world’s largest consumers of energy. The smallest customer of theirs spends over $100 million a year on energy, a medium customer spends from $300 to $500 million. He said they help them define how best to establish strategy, how to procure and use their energy, and how to use it wiser by moving to different choices, selecting technology, and getting it implemented at their facilities.

Mayor Landry asked where their world headquarters was, and he replied Novi, Michigan.

Member Paul said she was very excited about this proposal, because anything to cut costs would be wonderful, and with the interest of being "green smart" in regards to conservation of our environmental resources, she would support this completely. She was thrilled that Mr. Gangadharan was in Novi.

Member Margolis was also thrilled with this. She suggested they staff part of what they are looking at in economic development. What a great opportunity for us to really showcase that Novi is a center of technology and alternative fuels. She thought there were wonderful opportunities to highlight the City’s strength. She thanked Mr. Gangadharan for coming forward and for moving here.

Member Mutch said at this point there’s no budget expenditure; it’s just a grant application. Mr. Pearson said he was correct. There would be some City participation, and in addition to putting together the grant application expertise, Novi Energy has also offered to put up to $25,000 of their money for this project. Member Mutch said this is a tremendous win, win, and win all around.

Member Nagy said she could not commend or thank them enough for coming forward to do this for the City of Novi when no one even asked for their assistance.

Mayor Landry stated he was glad there was a company called Novi Energy, and that it was a wonderful name.

Gary Wood, Representative of Hummer of Novi, said they were before Council last June regarding getting entrance signs that would specifically identify the dealership. At that time it was tabled, and they were returning now that they have completed their C of O. They are requesting the signs primarily because of issues with the location of the entrances on Grand River and Meadowbrook. In the evening both entrances are quite dark, and the building stands out more than the entrances do. On Grand River he felt, because of the speed of drivers, they needed to give them time to brake instead of looking at the building. Also, the Grand River side has 450 ft. of frontage where the Meadowbrook side has over 600 ft. of frontage. He said there was very little signage on Meadowbrook Road for the south bound traffic. Mr. Wood said people would have to go to the intersection before knowing how to go into the dealership, and darkness was a problem there as well. He said the primarily reason for the signs was, to a degree, because of the Gateway Ordinance in which they pulled the building right up on top of the corner. When driving on the road it presented a large figure and it was difficult to figure out where the entrances were in addition to the walls and landscaping they have created.

Mr. Wood said in June there was an issue about the size of the signs. He said they decided they should put the "mock" signs up, and that they looked small compared to the size of building, and hoped Council agreed.

Mr. Pearson said they have the full C of O, and the only reason this was before Council was because of the Gateway East agreement, etc. He said as a frame of reference they are allowed a 2 sq. ft. sign normally, but Council might want to discuss how big a sign if they decide to go with anything.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said when this company first came to town he had spent a lot of time with them to get the business going. However, when they appeared before Council last time he didn’t think they needed signs, and he still doesn’t. There is no doubt it is a Hummer dealership, because no one else would have 40 Hummers on their lot. He thought the signs were too big before and still does. He said when the new ordinance comes back to Council these pole signs are not going to be allowed. They are going to have to be monument signs so they didn’t have that raised type of a look to it. He had problems with the pole signs, the number of signs, illumination, and the size is too big. Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought they were going to ask for a little pointing entrance sign. He said he would not support the proposed amendment.

Member Nagy agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Capello. She said from a distance it is apparent it’s a Hummer dealership. She said in the evening the area was so well lit up that she didn’t understand how anyone would miss it. She thought they were just going to ask for small entrance signs for customers, but even at night the driveways are still visible. She didn’t think the size of the signs met the ordinance, and the ordinance was going to change anyhow.

Member Gatt said he struggled with this issue. He said a couple weeks ago Council discussed doing whatever they could to attract business, and give them every reasonable opportunity to succeed. He stated he didn’t find the mock up signs obtrusive at all. He said, from his experience on the Zoning Board of Appeals, there had to be a need to get a variance from the ordinance, and he just didn’t see the need in this case. Member Gatt commented that when he drives by there was no doubt that it was a Hummer dealership, and no doubt that he could find the entrance. Therefore, he would support the motion.

Member Margolis agreed with Member Gatt. She thought it was clear in the Council minutes of the last meeting that Council was concerned about the size of, and need for the signs. Member Margolis said she saw no change in that tonight. Council would like to work with them to make sure their business was successful, but they had to consider the needs of the community. She encouraged them to continue working with Council.

Member Paul said she understood that SUV sales are decreasing, and they would like to bring as many people as possible into the dealership. Many businesses think the more signs the better. She didn’t know if there was a different way to show off those entrances to and from their building, and suggested illumination on the sidewalk with little can lights might help. The whole point of the ordinance in the Gateway District was for some very specific requirements, and these signs are what Council was trying to avoid. She commented that Council was trying to get it as attractive as possible. If it was a monument sign it would be illuminated from the ground. She understood their needs, and wanted to see their business succeed, but with the economy and sales of cars as it was, she was concerned for their business and their long term viability. She said if they could come up with something different she would look at it. She hoped they would look at that, and appreciated their completing their TC of O requirements. It was something they really wanted to see completed as it helped Council complete all the requirements for the agreement.

Mayor Landry said he would support the motion, and suggested they look at the new sign ordinance. He said Council was looking at it section by section, and the Ordinance Review Committee would be bringing it back to Council. So, when it was passed they might want to take a look at it.

Mr. Schultz said there is a standard incorporated in the ordinance for departures or variances, and the requested departure had to be designed to achieve the objectives of the ordinance. He said as he understood it, there was no need. Member Nagy said she stated it didn’t meet the ordinance. Mr. Schultz said the language, since it is a denial of the ordinance and was not designed to achieve the objectives of the ordinance. Member Nagy added that to the motion, and the seconder agreed.

Mr. Pearson said they had two recommendations for engineering work on the sanitary sewer system, and Council received the Phase I of the large scale Master Plan for the Sanitary Sewer System. He said true to the process on quality based selection they have recommended the highest ranked firm, Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment on this project. He said Council would note they were not the low fee, and in fact, although it was a relatively small amount of money, it was twice as much as the low fee, which was put forth by URS who is the third ranked firm on qualifications. Mr. Pearson said this project is a little more complicated with the existing system, and they tried to explain some of the particulars of why that was. Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment was the firm that just completed the larger survey of the entire system over the last year and a half to two years. Mr. Pearson said for this more complicated system they are able to recommend Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment for this particular project. The next one was the lowest cost, highest rated firm, but Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment was not the lowest cost.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello was concerned that URS was half the price and ranked third. It seemed that quality comparison wise they were close. He asked if Mr. Pearson was telling Council they weren’t close in quality. Mr. Pearson said he couldn’t tell them what the difference between the 262 rating and the third ranked firm. URS was the second lowest of the four firms, and he couldn’t tell Council each of the review scores, as they are completed by four engineer’s review of the qualifications independently, and then coming to this scoring mechanism. He said there are different firms. Orchard, Hiltz, & McCliment was recommended for this one and a different firm for the other, so he thought they were being true to the process in looking at each of these projects independently. He said they didn’t have a huge problem with any of the firms; it’s just that this particular firm had the most knowledge of the system.

Member Mutch said the questions he has focus more on the proposal. He said in the details of the proposal the department looked at two potential alternatives. One, which involved rehabbing the pump station, and the other looked at but not pursued was to eliminate the lift station and create a connection to the Livonia gravity feed sewer system. This would eliminate the cost and operation of a lift station because it would just be a sewer connection. Member Mutch said the lifespan of the lift station is 20 to 25 years and he had asked for the operational costs over that time, and whether that would be higher than just eliminating it with a direct connection to Livonia. He asked if that would be the case. Mr. Hayes said OHM, who did the Phase I study for Capacity Management Operation and Maintenance, CMOM, looked at this station in detail. They’re probably guilty of knowing too much, and that was why their fee was high. They know it inside and out and are intimately familiar with our sewage collection system City wide by doing the CMOM report. They did a cursory review of keeping the station versus abandoning it, and they looked at discharging that sewage to the south either to the North Huron Valley/Rouge Valley system in Northville Township or other downstream townships, as well as Livonia. Mr. Hayes said he believed their analysis stopped when they decided that the physical capital costs that would be required to make that connection to the south far exceeded what it would cost to upgrade the station, and included an analysis of the operating costs. He said going to Livonia through their system was not an option because they are near capacity as far as what they can handle for treatment in their system.

Member Mutch asked if there were any other alternatives to do a direct connection; is Northville Township feasible. Mr. Hayes said technically it is feasible, but the cost of it makes it prohibitive. Member Mutch said the cost of the pipe or capacity. Mr. Hayes said we would have to purchase capacity as well as do the physical connection to the south. Member Mutch commented he was asking because of discussions Council had based on CMOM and the need to purchase capacity. He said if we are going to purchase capacity either way, he wasn’t sure how that factored into the decision, is it the timeline. Mr. Hayes said it would be the actual distance, and type of pipe that would have to go into the ground and cross Eight Mile Road to whatever manhole was to the south. Member Mutch said he was looking at what those potential alternatives would cost because he had concerns. He said he had asked Mr. Hayes about the potential to replace the 2,500 feet of force main, and there was some indication in the report that it was an unknown cost. Maybe there was no need, but if that force main was replaced, Mr. Hayes said it could cost $100,000 to $250,000. Mr. Hayes said that was a rough cost range based on the options that would be available. He didn’t know if it would be possible to reline that force main. They might have to do an open cut or they might be able to bore it, and that was why there was such a large variance. Member Mutch asked if any of the lift or pump stations have operational maintenance costs. There had to be electricity to run the station, a phone line for when someone was out there to maintain it, chemicals for the operation of the system, and it makes the system that much more physically complex. He said if power was lost there had to be an emergency generator. If that was out of the system, then there was the potential to have lower costs overall. Obviously, the question was the upfront costs to do the physical connection, and a payoff might not be seen for 10, 15 years or never. Mr. Hayes said correct, and by implementing the upgrades that OHM recommended in their preliminary study, the O and M would decrease over time because the station would be a lot more efficient. Member Mutch asked if they could find out the condition of the force main or a cost comparison of the two alternatives. Mr. Hayes said if OHM was selected that would be one of the design tasks they would perform. It would be the actual televising of that force main. Member Mutch said so they might come back to Council, and say there’s a big capital cost before Council would go to the point of actually spending money on rehabbing the lift station. Mr. Hayes said it is possible, but it is more of an investigation to make sure that the force main is viable before making this particular upgrade. Member Mutch said as long as that’s in place he was comfortable with moving forward. He just didn’t want to miss an opportunity to save ourselves money down the road or get into a project where suddenly the cost of the overall project was doubling because of something Council didn’t know up front, and maybe couldn’t know.

Member Nagy commented that it was her understanding that all the City’s engineers are pre-qualified. Mr. Hayes said she was correct. Member Nagy said if they are pre-qualified then why was there a ranking system; because with the ranking system it seemed that the department was choosing the engineering firm for Council. She said they had a proposal wherein they went through this whole math calculation of the fixed percentage of construction costs. She said this one was 13.1%. If the math was done on some proposals and not on others, Council was being inconsistent. She also thought that if pre-qualified, to be consistent, the bid from the lowest bidder would be taken. Member Nagy commented she was not thrilled about how this was being done, and was not sure it was fair and consistent. Also, she understood Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment did the study, and they would do cost comparisons after they get the contract. She didn’t understand why they would do it afterwards. If they are bidding on this they should have an idea of what it would cost. Mr. Hayes said they did everything except televise the force main so they had no idea what condition the force main was in. Mr. Hayes said there was a difference between bidding and proposing. Bidding was putting a price forward for a commodity. These are services and they are intangible and every firms understanding of services was different, and that’s why we go through the QBS process. He said they looked at 35 firms in December 2004 for selection of firms for utilities and transportation or road projects. He said that list of 35 was cut down to 7, and they pre-qualified those seven firms because every project was different and every firm had different capabilities based on what the project was. He said they asked for their technical proposal and reviewed that as well as looking at the fee. Member Nagy understood and agreed, but she said Mr. Hayes did not have the same criteria in another matter. She said that bothered her because it was her same argument to Mr. Hayes. Instead Council has this big math lesson on the fixed percentage of construction, and this was the highest fixed percentage of construction, and that bothered her. She understood that there are different firms for different things, but the same argument Mr. Hayes was using now is something he used before. She didn’t want to get to the point where it looked like Council was manipulating the process. Mr. Hayes said the fee was one of six criterions looked at. It was important and the most heavily weighted criteria, but there are five other things it competes against. She understood but still didn’t think it was a fair process, and it doesn’t look consistent.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello stated he understood Member Nagy’s concerns and thought she was right. He said a few months ago Council had a problem with the way things were being ranked, and they didn’t think it was consistent throughout. He understood what Mr. Hayes was saying because one engineering firm couldn’t do a job better in certain areas than another, and he understood that Mr. Hayes wanted to communicate that to Council. However, he thought they had gotten rid of this ranking system, and they were going to have the chosen top seven, they would submit bids, and Council would make a determination, and ranking was out. He was not in favor of the ranking. However, what he did want to see from Mr. Hayes and Administration was firms or staff that had expertise in an area whether in or out of the City. He thought that was important when looking at price. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didn’t want to see ranking anymore, because he thought they had gotten away from that when the top seven were chosen. Mr. Hayes said they do look at that, and one of the criteria was how the firm planned on staffing a project. He said they look at local resources and who they have available. There are some firms that we pre-qualified in December of 2004 that have had significant turn over, and they don’t have the horse power to complete the projects. They might be able to perform quite well on the smaller projects, but on larger ones you can look at their proposals and tell they missed the boat as far as the approach, staffing and their actual work plan. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he understood that and it was Mr. Hayes’ job to tell them that, but he was hoping that ranking wasn’t how they were going to do it. Mr. Hayes said that was the way it had been presented in the past, and they have done it this way since December 2004. It was the best way he knew of to make sure that the Engineering Department staff doesn’t have to do excessive hand holding with the firms. Mr. Hayes said projects have to be done on time, under budget, and he was charged with doing that. If the firm doesn’t do it then his staff ends up doing it, and they don’t have the staff to do that. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said Council was trying to get away from all the subjective decisions that staff was making.

Member Paul said she understood what the speakers were discussing, and she also appreciated engineering’s input. She said she was looking at the proposal and the next item, which is Greenwood Oaks sanitary sewage pump. In the past, they would try to group things together, because if two things at once can be done the cost for a company to be in one city is a lot less. She didn’t know if he had thought about that on this project. There are two pumping stations, and she was sure they had different problems. Her concern was whether they could save money if they had a firm that would do both instead of just one. She was looking at Fishbeck, on this proposal, as being not to exceed the design fee of $14,000, and the total estimated fee was $23,734, and they are also ranked very high and that was who we were picking in the next item. She was having a hard time with the amount of money for Orchard, Hiltz, McCliment, because it was $3,000 more. Member Paul said there was a $13,000 and $17,400 from Anderson Eckstein. She asked why they were picking the highest bidder. Mr. Hayes said there is an economy of scale if you have projects that are similar in scope. At the last Council meeting we awarded two lift stations together, Country Place and Stonehenge, and recommended the same firm perform both of those. These scopes are a little different. Greenwood Oaks was the abandonment of a station, and converting it over from a lift station to a gravity sewer with some intricacies involved. Mr. Hayes said they decided to split this one up to take advantage of the value that the City would get by virtue of OHM having intimate knowledge of this particular pump station. They know it inside and out. Member Nagy said since Fishbeck was doing the others why wouldn’t they have the knowledge of the report we just had from Orchard, Hiltz, McCliment, and they could use it and do this. Mr. Hayes said the information that Fishbeck gleaned from the report they would have to transfer to the plans and specifications. The same engineers that did the detailed evaluation of the Hudson Station from OHM will be the same engineers that do the plans and specs for this project. He said that data transfer was a lot more seamless than it would be for Fishbeck.

Member Margolis asked if the qualifications based selection process was used throughout the State. Mr. Hayes said it originated with the Federal Government with their solicitation and award of contracts to architects and engineers; they have used that process for at least 20 years. The State of Michigan has used it for at least 10 years. He said the Department of

Transportation, Management and Budget, DNR and DEQ all use the same process for procuring any type of service whether an architect, engineer or an attorney. It was a well established set of procedures. Member Margolis asked if, in his opinion, it was the best practice. Mr. Hayes said it was the best process he had seen as a professional engineer for 25 years. Otherwise, it devolves into a process of low bid, and you get what you pay for and wind up with problem projects. Member Margolis said Mr. Hayes mentioned he had five engineers that look at the proposals and rank them separately. They don’t work together on this but actually go off on their own, use their professional expertise, and give certain scores to different criteria. Mr. Hayes said they have a team of four engineers, three licensed engineers and a construction engineer. They independently evaluate each proposal and have a matrix based on our criteria and how those criteria are weighted. Then the firms are ranked; in this case one to four, with the high score winning. He said a weighted criterion was multiplied by the rank and you come up with a number. Member Margolis said the cost was weighed heavier than other criteria. He agreed. She said then when a firm gets a high score and their bid was higher it meant they were scored higher in other areas, which made up for the higher fee. Mr. Hayes said in this case, OHM had the worst score for fee, and the best score for project approach, staffing, schedule, and the other criteria used. Member Margolis said she wanted to get that on the record because when we start talking about not taking low bid the community gets very nervous, but as someone who both contracts for services and provides services it is not apples to apples. Even though a company can be excellent at one service in the same area they might not have the expertise in the other area. She thought it was important for everyone to understand that what they are trying to do here was really maximize our resources, get the best services, and maximize staff time. She thought that Council often forgot that, in the long run, staff time costs money too. She appreciated Mr. Hayes’ explanation and would support this bid.

Member Gatt said, for the record, the proposed ranking system used, a lot of it is still very subjective. He commented that a couple weeks ago Council awarded a contract to someone who was not the low bidder, and it was a subjective call on Mr. Hayes’ and his department’s part. Although, Mr. Hayes was the expert and Member Gatt was not, sometimes it just cries out common sense was lacking, and that was what he thought a couple of weeks ago. Member Gatt said several members of Council want the ranking system eliminated, and just say Council would use this firm because of this or that, instead of putting them in a rank. Member Gatt said he would be in favor of something like that.

Mayor Landry said when Council went to the qualification based selection system, and culled the engineering firms from 30 down to 7, he did not interpret that as meaning all seven were absolutely equal for any proposal. He didn’t think it was a matter of saying that seven were pre-approved so it’s a matter of whoever was the lowest. Mayor Landry said you have to look at the proposal. It was not about just looking at the dollars; Council has to look at how the applicant proposes to get the job done, and see if it makes sense or not. He didn’t think they could ever get away from the subjectivity of it. He wished they could but didn’t see it as possible, because there can be seven wonderful engineering firms, who have different things on their plate at any given time, they have a limited number of human beings to apply to each job, and depending on what they are doing and what the job is, they are going to give their approach on how to get the job done. He said that might differ from job to job and from season to season or year to year. They are all wonderfully fine firms, but he didn’t see how they could ever get away from how the applicant proposed to get the job done, and thought they had to analyze that. Mayor Landry said you have to ask yourself if how they are proposing to get the job done made sense. He thought that was the basis of the qualification based selection system, and obviously cost was a factor, but he didn’t think it was the determining factor. Mayor Landry said he had no problems with the qualification based selection system.

Member Paul said when these are connected you will get rid of the pumping station, which is a smart move on our part, because of the long term costs of replacing the pumping station and parts are very costly. She asked what the long term cost savings would be in connecting this. Mr. Hayes said he had not calculated that, but thought the DPW quoted a typical pump station was $2,000 to $2,500 in operating costs. She asked if that was annually. Mr. McCusker said daily basis maintenance charges for a driver and a vehicle was about $90.00 an hour. He said they visit each station, on average, about twice a week. Hilton was one that was visited all the time, and a lot of times on weekends and nights because it’s in pretty bad shape. Greenwood Oaks Station was a little different because it was put in specifically for that neighborhood, and was always intended to connect down Beck Road when the sewer system was improved going to Beck. It’s a single small pumping station specifically for that, and was always intended to go into a gravity sewer, and because of the bad ground between Greenwood Oaks and the Windmill development it took some time to get into the CIP. Mr. McCusker said there is typically a savings of up to $200 or $300 twice a week. The electrical costs at most of the pump stations are about $200 a month, the phone bills from $25 to $50 a month, and there are associated chemical costs up to $100 a month. He said a motor was replaced at Country Place last week with a pump set up it was $4,200 to replace a motor, at one of our deep stations it was more like $20,000. Mr. McCusker said these pumping stations are in an area where there are elevation problems, and some were put specifically in areas where there was bad ground and they have to pump up to a gravity sewer and flow back down, and that’s why these stations are in some of the areas they are in. Member Paul asked how often a motor had to be replaced. Mr. McCusker said they can typically last 10 or 15 years. Unfortunately, in some area in town, there have been some massive power outages on and off, and those types of activities cavitate the motors and pumps and we lose them. There are safety features on them, but if there are four or five power outages in a summer it makes it tough. Member Paul thanked Mr. Hayes and Mr. McCusker and said she would support the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said at the end of Greenwood 3 and 4, a sidewalk ends before Kirkway, and south of Kirkway there is a complete small portion. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked if Administration would look into it, because they haven’t built the boardwalk yet, and it is more than 50% under construction. Mr. Pearson said he would look into it.

10. Consideration of Ordinance No. 06-82.05 of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances revising Chapter 29, "Soil", to insure that all revisions and updates required within the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s Part 91 and Rules are incorporated. Second Reading

Second Reading

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he didn’t see Mike Fellows’ actual letter, but did see the paraphrase of the letter and City’s response. He said the City’s response gave him more concern than the letter itself. He wasn’t happy with the responses, and if that was going to be the position of the City in response to these issues, he felt they needed to look at the ordinance, and fix it before it’s approved. He asked what Neighborhood Services had to do with reviewing the soil ordinance. Mr. Pearson said, once approved, they are primarily charged with the day to day enforcement. Mayor Pro Tem Capello asked who that person was, and Mr. Pearson said C.J. Killebrew was one of the Code Compliance Officers and has that responsibility, Cindy Uglow was also Part 91 qualified, and there are a couple of people in Public Works. Mayor Pro Tem Capello thought Spalding DeDecker was going to handle those inspections. Mr. Pearson said they handle the day to day, weekly required inspections, but if there was a foul up the Code Compliance Officers could write the tickets, court action, show cause hearing if necessary, and recordkeeping. He said someone on staff had to be managing their work, receiving their reports and seeing that they were doing what they were supposed to do. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said he was not satisfied with the condition of this ordinance, and was not ready to approve it tonight. Mr. Pearson said he would be happy to get answers that were provided, and to get him the original letter. He said it’s finally been reviewed by the State, and the time span to change this was very narrow. He thought they could tweak some words, but substantive changes would require that we start over again. We really need to get an ordinance adopted soon. We have had to suspend some of our inspections, because we are not current with the State in terms of the ordinance. We need to have the bulk of this in place so we can get after some of the older projects. Mayor Pro Tem Capello realized they had to approve this quickly, but he didn’t think it was ready to approve tonight.

Member Mutch stated he wanted to see a date in consideration of the need to get this approved, and considering the minimal time Council has with the MDEQ to make changes. He was open to suggestion from the motion maker. Mayor Pro Tem Capello advised the next meeting would be fine.

Member Margolis commented she would also support this, as she also had concerns when she saw the number of concerns about this ordinance. She does not remember seeing this information when Council had the first reading on this ordinance. Mr. Pearson said this letter was received after they saw it last. Member Margolis stated she wanted to see some information because there seemed to be some very significant concerns about this ordinance. She asked how other municipalities are addressing the same concerns in this ordinance being demanded by the State.

Member Paul asked Mr. Schultz what could be tweaked on this. She said according to Mr. Pearson there was not going to be a whole lot of changes, and our wiggle room was very little because of the State mandated ordinance Council was required to have in place very quickly. Mr. Schultz said it was an unusually long and arduous process to get the letter out of the State approving the ordinance. The vast majority of the language was directly out of the Administrative rules. So, while it looks like a lot of red line and changing back and forth, much of what was done in this ordinance was pulled from those Administrative rules, which the statute says in a number of places, are the minimum amount of regulation that the City could impose, and put them in the format of our City ordinance. In addition, through experience over the years, the City’s had some peculiar issues to deal with such as change in owner, etc., and some language had been added to deal with that. All of that extra language had to be approved through the MDEQ, and the process was literally months and months long. He would be concerned with any kind of substantive change in a regulatory provision particularly one that could be found or related to the State rules. Mr. Schultz said he would be happy to bring a fuller response to some of the issues raised and tell Council whether the issues relate to State issues or City of Novi issues, but their concern was not just going back to the State process but that the Council doesn’t have an ordinance they are 100% comfortable taking into the spring when all the water starts to flow. So, it can be amended through the State process once it’s in place if there are things that are found to be inappropriate, too restrictive or not restrictive enough. He said if the motion passes they will take the opportunity and hopefully bring it right back with the issues addressed. He hoped they wouldn’t be substantive changes because those could present an issue. Mr. Pearson said this is very important, and we will give a fuller explanation and original letter. It was unfortunate the letter came in late, and it was the only one of several developers approached that took the time to respond. He said they would get this back as soon as possible.

Member Paul said last week there was lot of rain, the grounds thawing, and there’s nothing in place. She asked what would happen if there was another storm between now and the April 3^rd Council meeting. What happens if there are problems with soil erosion that gets into the wetland? Mr. Schultz said there was an ordinance in place, and nothing had been repealed. The changes to the State Law basically imposed the requirement that if there was a local ordinance it needed to be reviewed by the MDEQ. He said Novi, like other communities are still in that process. The MDEQ is probably inundated with all sorts of ordinances from communities that want to regulate locally as well as at the State and County levels. He said if need be tickets can be written under the existing ordinance, but this is the ordinance that we would prefer to take into the spring thaw. She asked if Council approved this, and there were any changes, could an amendment be made. Mr. Schultz said, as Mr. Pearson said, we can do a fuller job responding to the particular items by Council’s next meeting, and hopefully the items won’t turn out to be insurmountable. If they are, that would be an issue Council would have to look at an adoption and then further discussion. She asked if he was comfortable with waiting two weeks, and Mr. Schultz said that was Council’s pleasure, and they would live by what Council does. Member Paul said she likes to bend and help other Council members to postpone; but in this case she was very uncomfortable and would not support the motion to postpone. She believed there were not a lot of changes they could make because this was State mandated. Secondly, it’s the spring season, and if it was a month earlier she would be more comfortable.

Mayor Landry said he would support postponement until the next meeting out of deference to those Council members that wanted to look a little closer at this. Although, he didn’t think they would be in a position to do a whole lot of negotiating on this matter in light of the position the MDEQ had put them in. As currently stated, the ordinance has an effective date of 15 days after adoption; so if Council was to approve this tonight it would be two weeks anyway. He asked if it was possible to pass an ordinance to be effective immediately. Mr. Schultz replied Council would have to find that there was an emergency, and he was not sure that the requirements in the Charter for doing that would be met as an emergency ordinance. On the other hand, if there was something significant Council could always reconsider it at the next meeting. Mayor Landry asked if the shortest time by law for an ordinance to become effective was 15 days. Mr. Schultz said yes, by Charter.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Pearson how these costs compared to the contracts for the current year. Mr. Pearson believed that on a per item basis they were generally lower. He said that caused some concern and an extra look to be sure this bidder was qualified, and they were able to make a staff recommendation that they had the equipment and the means to fulfill it. This is the low bidder and we like to take the low bid whenever possible.

Member Nagy asked Mr. McCusker who the current contractor was, and what his experience was with them. Mr. McCusker said it was B & B. and they provided mid level service. She asked if he was familiar with this company at all, and he responded he was not, but they had done a lot of research into their current customers and who they serviced last year. He said they seemed to do a good job.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said fertilization and weed control seemed to be in specific areas. One area along Grand River Avenue, the new highway, there is an area between the sidewalk and the curb that was not being maintained by the property owners. The grass didn’t catch and it is all weeds. He said he would like to see weed control along there as Grand River is starting to look really nice. Mr. Pearson said there are a lot of areas, particularly the south side of Taft Road where the construction restoration never took hold. He was sure Mr. McCusker would be doing a drive around in a couple of weeks to look at those areas.

12. Consideration of recommendation to accept proposal in the amount of $32,500 from International Code Council to perform Building Department Operations Review for efficiency and process review and make recommendations.

Removed by Mr. Pearson for further review.

Member Mutch stated he would not support the budget amendment as brought forward. He noted Council was within a couple weeks of their budget meetings for the upcoming fiscal year. As he mentioned at the last meeting, the Council adopted a policy to address fiscal items, such as grants were included as appropriate for budget amendments, but some of these other items he was not ready to move forward on. Member Mutch said his biggest concern was the ICC audit, and since Council was not taking action on it, it would have to come out. But the building improvements related to the discussion with the Building Department, he knew there was conversation at the last meeting about that, but he didn’t think Council had come to consensus or given direction on how staffing would be handled. Member Mutch said before moving that program forward, he would like Council to have that discussion. He thought that discussion might have to happen within the budget discussion, but at a minimum Council needed to discuss what direction Council would take with building staffing, and take care of all of that at once versus doing this piecemeal approach. He commented he would not be supporting the budget amendments, but would support the grants related to Homeland Security because they are appropriate based on the policy. He would also support the Tree Fund change because he thought it was just an accounting change in prep for the next budget, but he would not support the other items.

Member Nagy agreed with Member Mutch and thought this was a lot of money, and she agreed no decision had been made on how they would employ the use of Fire Station #4. She was also wondering why they needed that Fire Station. She said they had never compared prices for leasing space or renovation. She would prefer to put this all under the budget, and would not support any motion towards this.

Mr. Pearson said on the building there was good lead time on several of these items, the sanitary sewer connections, the phone work, ordering the furniture, so if Council was willing to make the leap, and he thought that leap was discussed at the last meeting, that something needed to be done. The suggestion was to go forward and get some of these things in the works or ready to go. There was no doubt, and he had heard from the Building Department about how they are trying to keep up with everything. Providence Hospital is coming full bore, Taubman/Twelve Oaks has all that cleared out, and this building boom is on our doorstep. He said talking about the budget meetings, all they are talking about in two weeks was the first kick off budget meeting. He said that doesn’t mean Council would be making any decisions for weeks after that, and if Council wanted to make it a part of the adopted budget that wouldn’t be until the middle of May, which is another seven weeks out. Mr. Pearson said it is completely Council’s call, but his recollection was they talked about conceptually that something needed to be done. He said who was going to be there and how they were going to be there was still an open item. The only other item regarding Member Mutch’s point was that this would all be funded by the Building Department revenue that was already in the bank and here. He said the fund was self sustaining, and we don’t have complete latitude to use those monies for other kinds of purposes; so it’s not like we are taking from something else to do this.

Member Margolis said that was absolutely her recollection. When Council spoke last time about the Building Department, she had expressed concerns and wanted to see a full staffing plan. However, as a Council, they did approve to move ahead with the building portion, and to get building space ready once the staffing plan was determined. She agreed that the ICC Audit didn’t make sense, since that’s been drawn back, and another proposal might be looked at on that. Member Margolis suggested a friendly amendment to remove the ICC Audit from the motion. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Mayor Landry said at the last meeting Council did approve to move ahead with the alterations to the old Fire Station #4. He thought this was a technicality because Council did have the discussion and decided to get the physical building ready even though they would later decide how to populate it, and in what fashion. Mayor Landry said Mr. Pearson also correctly indicated that this was not General Fund money, and it couldn’t be spent on anything else, because it was fee money and not available for other purposes. It must be used for the purposes for which the applicants paid it. He would support the motion as amended.

Member Mutch said Council did have that discussion at the last meeting, but he didn’t leave that discussion with the understanding that they were proceeding immediately. He said he expected that having provided direction on that point that Council would get recommendations from Administration regarding staffing, and finalizing some of the costs associated with this. Member Mutch said he wanted to see both those components before he would sign off on either. There was not only the immediate cost for the building improvements, but also staffing costs, and the staffing decisions made would be long term costs. There would also be long term costs with the building as well, and he thought this had to be looked at in total and a decision made to move ahead in one direction or another on the total Building Department proposal. He didn’t want to look at this piecemeal. Member Mutch said whether those funds can be used for other purposes or not was not relevant to the discussion from his viewpoint. It’s the long term expenditures of this proposal that Council needed to understand the full scope of. He said that was what he would be looking for, and would not support the motion with the amendment.

Member Paul said she recollected discussion that if people were to be hired they would be part-time, full time or contractual. She said Council did agree that this would be the location for them because it was near the exit for the mall and near Providence Hospital. She said with that understanding she was willing to move forward. She was not prepared to move forward with the cost expenditures, because she wanted that discussion to cover everything at once, the expenditures of the building and employees. She recalled they did a DPW Department building and it was $50,000 for the building and engineering; this was a lot more, and she wasn’t prepared to spend that amount of money. She would not be able to support that portion of it.

Mr. Pearson said a substantial amount of in house work went into the DPW building to keep the cost down. He didn’t know if that was really the same type of project in scope.

Member Paul said, still it was an addition that was large, and Council was talking about just making some changes to the existing building. She said they weren’t expanding walls and were keeping the structure as found. She wanted to understand what they were going to do with the employees before moving forward on this portion.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they have to look at the quote. A majority of the money does not go into the building itself. The majority of the money goes into furniture, phone system, new computers and a lot of other items. He felt they couldn’t compare what’s being done at the Fire Station to what was done at the DPW. They had all of that in place at the DPW; it is not in place at the Fire Station, and that is why the costs are greater.

Member Nagy said yes, they talked about utilizing Fire Station #4, but she would have liked to have gotten comparisons on what the cost would be to lease the space for three years. She thought there would be a lot of leased cost here for equipment and sanitary sewer and water hook ups. She was also concerned about the staffing, and would have preferred a cost analysis of renting space and hiring someone part time. She stated she was not ready to move forward with this because it was not the understanding she walked away with at the last meeting.

Mayor Pro Tem Capello said the actual construction costs are $11,570, and there is nothing anywhere to lease in town for that amount for even one year let alone two years. He said they would have to spend that money on furniture, equipment, phone systems, computers and copiers anyway whether it was leased or not. So, the comparison is $11,570 to $50,000 in the DPW or probably $40,000 to lease a building. Mayor Pro Tem Capello said they were not making sense, and they were not looking through the budget that had been provided to them.

Mayor Landry asked if anyone wanted to entertain a motion, in the interest of the other items, without Item #2 in it and no motion was made.

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

Member Paul said there were discussions last year from several people who lived in this complex about the fertilization, and Council ended up issuing more fertilization to this property. She thought it was Mr. Czekaj who came forward asking if the fertilization was going to be included, and how many times compared to what was done last year. Mr. Pearson said yes, as far as number of times, it will be as needed. He said they did a lot of catch up with the last

program to get into shape, so they would be maintaining and building from that point. Mr. Auler said this included 2 to 3 fertilizations and additional if needed. The service was being provided by a different company, and they have done snow removal services for the City for the last two years. Last year it was a different landscape company, and we have been exceptionally pleased with this company and believed they would meet our quality standards. She asked if 2 would be sufficient or would 3 be better. Mr. Auler said the price included three. It was a variable price and the landscaping services have to be considered because the mowing was based on how much rain there is, the irrigation system and fertilization was a variable cost on an as needed basis. Member Paul asked if the landscape beds would be maintained by the contractor, and Mr. Auler said it would be done by his staff at Meadowbrook Commons. This contract is solely for mowing and fertilization. She asked if they would fertilize any trees or shrubbery. Mr. Auler said just the lawn. She asked if he planned to do any fertilization with the shrubbery or trees. Mr. Auler said he would have to check with the staff, but thought it would be on an as needed basis, as is done with the street trees and the parks. She said when Mr. Czekaj came forward last year he said the landscaping was in real need of some nutrients. Mr. Auler said some of the landscaping has been changed and some of the plant material was not the best for the type of soil or conditions there. Some of that has been replaced.

Member Paul said the City has had several different agreements with cell phone towers, and she understood there were three towers now, and Council was considering adding two more. She said the City would receive a $25,000 check for that lease, and asked if it was comparable to other communities. Mr. Pearson said Ms. Smith-Roy was instrumental in negotiating this and deserved the credit for it, and explained there are a lot of variations, and they even did some comparison with Canadian sites. It was not a whole separate tower it was just an additional co-location.

Ms. Smith-Roy responded that they had checked with the survey that was available and the rates are very broad. A lot of communities get the fees up front. We were unable to compare to sites done by the private sector. Some require deposits up front, some require a monthly lease and others require payment annually. She said they felt this was a fair lease agreement; they increased the amount for the first year from 30% minimum to 50% plus the $25,000 down.

Member Nagy said this is an additional $5,961 with regard to services associated with Chattman Drive. She said when talking about the reconstruction it also prompted an investigation of all drainage structures along Chattman and the replacement of a culvert. She

said they had PEA perform the services. She asked if in house engineering staff go out into the field themselves to save some of these costs. Mr. Hayes said he did, on a daily basis. He said there is one construction engineer dedicated to being in the field almost eight hours a day during the construction season. He said last year, he had 15 public projects ongoing and all the private development projects that were ongoing. Mr. Hayes said they require full time inspection of our engineering firms, and the items that they are requesting reimbursement for are unique owner directed changes that were out of scope.

Member Nagy asked why both phases weren’t being done at one time. Mr. Pearson said all they were doing was accepting the Phase I report, and a proposal for Phase II would be forthcoming, but that needed to be fully provided in terms of the scope, and would be provided to Council as soon as they receive it from OHM.

Mayor Landry said as it currently stands Council has scheduled two Council meetings to address the budget on April 8^th and April 29^th. He said a Council member was not able to make the April 29^th meeting so they needed to reschedule. Mayor Landry didn’t think they could reschedule on a Saturday because spring break encompasses the 15^th and the 22^nd. So, there are Council meetings on Monday, the 3^rd and Monday, the 17^th, and suggested that the first budget session be April 8^th, and the second session on Monday, April 24^th at 7 P.M. in Council Chambers. He said they could still do the table in the middle as it is much more conducive.

Member Nagy stated she wasn’t available for that as she had a deposition. Mayor Landry suggested Tuesday, April 25 at 7 P.M. Member Nagy said it was a bad week for her. Mayor Landry said the week of the 24^th was the only week open and asked Member Nagy if she would be available at all that week. Member Nagy said she would like to attend but that week would not work for her. Mayor Landry suggested Sunday, April 30^th at 10 A.M. and Council agreed.

Member Paul confirmed the meeting dates as being Saturday, April 8^th, Sunday, April 30^th and Saturday, May 6^th. Mayor Landry thanked Council for their cooperation.

Member Mutch said in reviewing the proposal for the chip seal program it occurred to him that the only significant dirt road left in town was Napier Road. He noted that this had not been addressed in the program because it is a county road. However, in light of the development going on not only on the Novi side of Napier, but also two or three major subdivisions are going in on the Lyon Township side, and that traffic will be accessing Napier Road, he thought Council should look at this. So he suggested giving City Administration direction to discuss this with Lyon Township and Oakland County to see if we can find a solution for that road beyond running the grader out there every week. He thought they might possibly be able to come to a cost sharing arrangement with them to do the chip seal. He said that road is going to get a lot of traffic, and would not hold up in its current dirt road configuration.

Mayor Landry asked if Council was in agreement on discussing cost sharing of chip seal for Napier Road with Lyon Township and Oakland County. There was consensus.

Mr. Pearson asked the Mayor if Council would expect this as part of the budget. Mayor Landry thought it was kind of heavy with the budget, and Member Mutch thought they should see what kind of response they get. Mayor Landry asked if June would be alright and Mr. Pearson said absolutely.

There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at

________________________________ _______________________________

David Landry, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk

_______________________________ Date approved: April 3, 2006

Transcribed by: Charlene Mc Lean