ROLL CALL: Mayor Gatt, Mayor Pro Tem Staudt, Council Members Casey, Fischer, Margolis, Mutch, Wrobel

ALSO PRESENT: Clay Pearson, City Manager

Victor Cardenas, Assistant City Manager

Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Brian Coburn, Engineering Manager

Barb McBeth, Deputy Community Development Director

1. Road Asset Management & Funding Analysis – Brian Coburn – Engineering Manager and Jim Stevens – Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment

Brian Coburn, Engineering Manager introduced Jim Stevens and Marcus McNamara, from the consulting firm of Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment to discuss pavement management and the strategy in the City of Novi. He began by giving a little background. The Engineering Department implemented asset management strategy since 2009. The strategy is to keep our good roads in good condition to avoid costly reconstruction later on. It is done by using lower cost maintenance to avoid numerous reconstructions. It maximizes the available funding to do more work. For an example, the City is able to do about 2.3 miles of rehabilitation under the pavement management strategy as opposed to 1 mile of reconstruction using the same funding level. In order to judge how they have been doing, they use a benchmark of the average PASER rating of the network. The PASER has decreased over past years from 6.57 in 2001 to the current rating of 6.25 in 2011. Seeing that decrease, the Engineering Department has started working with Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment and had them do an analysis to review our strategy to make sure the City is on the right path and to evaluate the current funding levels. The overall goal is to increase the average PASER rating.

Mr. Stevens highlighted some of the key actions in the State of Michigan with regards to roadway asset management. Those key actions were the 2002 Public Act for requiring reporting of programing road networks, the road software by the Local Technical Advisory Program created by the Federal Highway Administration to assist road agencies in developing an annual maintenance program, and the PASER methodology. He displayed the pavement deterioration curve that shows once the rating gets to a 4 or below, it can no longer be repaired. He also displayed the pavement life cycle with different cycles of repair. He said ongoing maintenance is critical. Mr. McNamara spoke about the road network condition evaluation process steps and the city road network status. He explained the preliminary analysis. He showed the City has 172 miles of city roads, of which there are 55 miles are in good to very good condition, approximately 100 miles of fair to moderately good, and 19 miles of road in poor condition. The Roadsoft analysis that they do is a model that uses parameters to select the appropriate maintenance and capital procedures with costs for alternatives, expected deterioration curves, budget and duration of a five or ten year plan. The ten year plan seems to be the most appropriate plan for road maintenance. Roadsoft does not pick specific segments but selects candidate sections for roads that have a certain rating and are available for treatment. It also does not consider other capital projects such as a possible water main project. He explained that the data has to be looked at several different ways to get a complete picture. The funding level of $5 million has a much greater impact. A balanced approach with $5 million funding level over the 10 years, 82% of the work that was done as preventative maintenance, 13% was rehabilitation, and 5% was reconstruction. Mr. Stevens noted the $3.2 is not sufficient and even with $4 million may not affect the rating but at $4.5 to $5 million is where the City would see the improvement with the PASER rating improving overall. The program is usually looked at annually and the data can be re-inputted into Roadsoft each year.

Member Mutch asked about the rating in the early 2000’s and what factors contributed to the decline in PASER ratings. Engineering Director Coburn noted with the 2000 road bond, the overall rating increased after the approval. Also, as the road network expands the age of the roads is a factor and the Act 51 funding cannot completely handle all improvements. Member Mutch noted the majority of 1, 2 or 3 roads are gravel and asked if the county roads were included in the calculations. Engineering Director Coburn answered that they were excluded and that any county or trunk line roads were also excluded. Member Mutch mentioned when Grand River gets repaved, which is a 2 or 1, the two mile stretch will not have an impact on the numbers. When looking at a dirt road, in order to have any impact on PASER it would have to have a full repaving. Engineering Director Coburn said that there were different ratings for chip seal. Gravel roads have no rating due to the constant change. Local chip seal roads have been in the maintenance schedule. Member Mutch asked if the 70% of local roads are just neighborhood subdivision streets or if it included, for example, 11 Mile Road. Engineering Director Coburn said that 11 Mile Road is major under ACT 51, not local. Member Mutch confirmed that 70% of our roads are subdivision streets. He thought that was important to note that a huge part of our road network is the taxpayer’s subdivision streets. A majority of the funding is going to neighborhood streets. He also asked about the .77 levy of municipal street fund monies and what it would take to get to the $4 million mark. He mentioned that 1.39 mills was the response but about 1.7394 for getting to $5 million. We would have to get voter approval for an additional mill. An additional item was a Headlee rollback from .77 to 1 mill and it would generate about $600,000 and bring us to about $3.8 million. He asked what our PASER ratings would be with that amount. Mr. McNamara noted they could run an additional slide but it was mostly a linear relationship. Member Mutch said it has changed in the six years he had been on Council and watched the evolution from a focus on completely rebuilding new streets to today. He wondered what if the PASER would have been rated if we’d had rehabilitated the worst streets; however, the message from residents in surveys that roads are associated with quality of life in this community. There are additional things associated with roads such as streetlights, but the City has grown as a community so the obligations are numerous and the funding resources haven’t kept pace. The road millage was passed in the late 70’s when a lot of the roads were still dirt roads. The City has relied on the 1 mill when money coming back from the State has declined and property values have declined. If the City wants to have neighborhood streets in good condition, we have to have the money to do that. He said that the program for the preventive maintenance approach looks like it would be better long term for the City. It is clearly better if they put more money towards it. He noted that this was something Council will have to ask the voters for additional tax dollars. He said he saw the benefit of the investment in the road infrastructure. As a Council, they will have to come to a decision as to how much to ask for. The City cannot continue the current funding and find a way to educate the residents on the need for more money.

Member Margolis asked if this was the same optimization software we have been using for a couple of years. Mr. McNamara agreed. She noted the deterioration curve was standard and not specific to Novi. Mr. McNamara noted there were some tweaks because the City had records going back to 2001. They are standard but can model it for your community. She asked about how the software learns. Mr. McNamara noted the software can predict conditions for the future. Member Margolis noted that even at higher levels of funding, the poor roads were increasing. She confirmed that it was looking to optimizing roads and asked if there was consensus on what to use for the best measure. Mr. McNamara noted it was average. The reason was that at a certain funding level you want to spend as much money as possible and still have service life above that threshold because as soon as they fall into the reconstruction category, it is expensive; about 15:1. Member Margolis asked if it was possible for our staff to do this or does there have to be a study each time there is new data. Mr. Coburn said yes, but not for this initial report. Member Margolis said she appreciated all the work that goes into this. It helps us to make appropriate policy decisions to go along with the information provided. She noted it was important for people to understand that the City has reduced the debt in the City so much; we’ve gone out formula on a lot of our millage rates and because it is divided among funds and each have caps instituted by Headlee, our ability to levy in areas that are important has also been reduced along with it. She said one of the things they struggle with is to not necessarily increase our total tax rate but put it into funds where it can be put to good use.

City Manager Pearson thanked the staff and Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment for their hard work. He said it was an important discussion and if Council had other questions to direct them to Administration. He said this will be something Council has to deal with as a policy matter and decide what direction they will want to go in. One of the options that have been presented was to put a Headlee rollback on the August ballot, which would be available for 2013-2014 fiscal year. The road bond in 2000 was done for $1.5 million per year and pledged for no new road bond for 5 years. It’s been 12 years and we have not done a road bond, but have kept up with the road maintenance. The Headlee rollback could be done and rebalance to keep the total millage rate as well, if Council chooses. He said Council would have to make a decision in May if that is the way they want to proceed. Mayor Gatt asked if the topic would warrant a special meeting. Mr. Pearson responded that it would be an option and probably a good idea to have a special meeting. Member Mutch asked if staff had enough information to give a projection for the next three or four years with different scenarios. He said those are the details the voters need to know. City Manager Pearson said he wanted to be cautious about making promises because things could change. He said Administration could provide some longer term scenarios.

1. MANAGER/STAFF - None

2. ATTORNEY - None

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. February 21, 2012 – Regular meeting

B. Approval of transfer of ownership 2011 Class C licensed business, located at 50395 W. Ten Mile, Novi, MI 48374, Oakland County from D & W Enterprises, Inc. to Links of Novi Singh, LLC.

C. Approval of recommendation from the Consultant Review Committee to award a contract for Benefit Plan Consulting and Agent Services to Gallagher Benefit Services for a three-year contract with the option of two one-year renewals effective March 13, 2012.

D. Approval of Resolution No. 4 for Special Assessment District No. 176 (Woodham Road Water Main Extension) confirming receipt of the proposed special assessment roll and setting the public hearing for April 9, 2012.

E. Acceptance of Willowbrook Farms No. 4 Subdivision streets and adoption of Act 51 New Street Resolution accepting Amanda Lane and Camborne Place as public, adding 1,286 linear feet or 0.24 miles of roadway to the City's street system.

F. Approval to award an amendment to the engineering services agreement to Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment for additional design engineering services related to the Brookfarm Park Streambank Stabilization Project in the amount of $9,784 for the design of a pathway connecting Ripple Creek with Village Oaks Elementary and additional grading in the park.

G. Approval of resolution recognizing Novi Youth Baseball League (NYBL) as a non-profit organization.

H. Approval of Amended Resolution Approving Application of TBON, LLC for Commercial Rehabilitation Exemption Certificate for a Hotel attached to a convention and Trade Center, located at 46100 Grand River, for the purpose of adding information requested for clarification by the State Tax Commission.

I. Approval of Claims and Warrants – Warrant No. 863A and 863.

J. Approval of (1) a Resolution Concerning Acquisition and Approving Declaration of Necessity and Taking and authorization of Offer to Purchase; (2) a Declaration of Taking; and, (3) an Agreement of Sale and Offer to Purchase Easements over Real Property in the amount of $1,050 for a permanent pathway easement and a temporary grading permit on the Ban property (parcel 50-22-16-451-033) for the purpose of constructing a pedestrian safety path on the west side of Taft Road between Grand River Avenue and Eleven Mile.

K. Approval to award an amendment to the engineering services agreement to Spalding DeDecker for additional construction inspection services related to the 2010 Neighborhood Road--Concrete project in the amount of $20,295 for additional crew days awarded to the contractor through contract change orders (which is offset by the $1,230 charged to the construction contractor for exceeding the number of crew days that were authorized in construction contract).

L. Approval of an agreement with the Sheraton Detroit Novi to host the 2013 Evening of Appreciation, an annual event honoring Boards, Commissions, Committees and Employees for their dedication to Novi, on January 4, 2013 for the estimated amount of $14,000.

M. Approval of an agreement with the Baronette Renaissance to host the 2013 State of the City Address & Luncheon on January 17, 2013 for the estimated amount of $4,250.

N. Approval to schedule a public hearing for March 26, 2012 for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) Grant Application Proposal for 13 Mile and Old Novi Road (formerly Landings Park) Phase 3.

O. Approval to schedule a public hearing for March 26, 2012 for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) Grant Application Proposal for ITC Connector Trail and Trailhead.

1. Approval of the recommendation from Consultant Review Committee to award a contract for General Counsel Legal Services to Johnson, Rosati, Schultz and Joppich, PC for a nine month contract and one year-renewal option and adoption of associated fees and charges, effective March 13, 2012.

2. Park Naming Options for 13 Mile and Old Novi Road (Landings).

City Manager Pearson explained that it was a policy discussion for Council. There was a process of naming the park. The Committee designated has presented three and a half names for consideration.

Mayor Pro Tem Staudt looked at the name options. He supported the name of Pavilion Shore Park. He said the property has some unique characteristics and suggested Council use some of the other suggestions. He thought there were some really good suggestions. There is nothing to stop them from using the names throughout the park. The other names could be used to identify areas of the parks.

Mayor Gatt read the recommended names of Casino Point (or Casino Shores) Park, Potawatomi Park, and Pavilion Shore Park. There were an additional 80 names listed.

Member Wrobel appreciated all the names submitted. He prefers Casino Shores Park as the name for the park. He said from two perspectives: One, because the original dance hall was named Casino Shore and two, because of the historic sentiment of the name.

Justin Fischer preferred Casino Shores but there could be a negative connotation of the reference to casino gambling aspect. He felt that the historic name should be shared with future generations.

Member Margolis prefers Pavilion Shore Park because it is also an historic name. She doesn’t feel it is necessary to educate every time they go there with the name of Casino Shores. Maybe an area of the park could be reference the name. She didn’t want people getting off I-96 thinking they are coming to a casino.

Member Casey said she would support Pavilion Shore Park. She would have liked Potawatomi Park but possibly name an area within the park because it is difficult to say.

Member Mutch said he is going to split his vote. He was concerned because Lakeshore Park may be confused with a name with shore in it. The Native American presence goes back a long time. We don’t have anything in the City that references the early history of the 1800’s. The name Walled Lake is connected to the early settlers. Any of the names are fine. His first preference was Potawatomi Park. Any of the names would be fine just and better than what we have today. Hopefully, the name will be unique enough that residents can identify it.

Mayor Gatt felt the naming of the park as Casino Shores would be confusing because the meaning of the word casino has changed. He mentioned Member Mutch’s concern of the confusion of the two parks. He liked Mayor Pro Tem Staudt’s suggestion of naming different areas of the Park. He leans toward the name of Pavilion Shore Park. It captured the history of the Pavilion on Walled Lake.

3. Consideration of the request of Cunningham Limp for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval for a proposed Hyatt Place Hotel. The subject property is located north of Grand River Avenue and west of Taft Road at the existing Suburban Collection Showplace site, in Section 16 of the City. The property totals 48.23 acres and the applicant is proposing a 6-story, 128 room hotel.

Blair Bowman, representing TBON, LLC/applicant, said it had been five years since they proposed a hotel at the Showplace. The hotel will bring a full service convention center. Even though it will be a small hotel it was the last piece of the puzzle. It will be a high quality hotel. They believe that the hotel will provide an addition to the economic impact to the community. Organizations are already showing an interest in the hotel. He introduced Packard Hospitality Group, who will manage the hotel as is required by Hyatt.

Deputy Community Development Director McBeth gave a presentation. The proposed Hyatt Place Hotel’s location was discussed. There will be a loss of 221 parking places. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and was concerned for the shortage of parking. They requested a shared parking study to be done. The applicant has done that. The traffic consultant has reviewed it. She summed it up by saying that two shows were studied at the Suburban Collection Show Place and gave recommended calculations. They determined even with the busy shows there will not be a shortage of parking spaces. They were concerned about a traffic circulation safety concern. There was a small area of concern and it was agreed to make the modification. Another concern was the landscape approval; with the variance recommended by the Planning Commission, the plan was approved. The façade review indicated that a section 9 waiver was required. There was a façade board presented for viewing at Council. She presented what looking at the east side of the parking lot would look like and the various views to give a feel for the proposed project.

Member Mutch had questions related to traffic and shared parking study for Mr. Arroyo. He questioned the access points on Grand River and confirmed that there wouldn’t be any improvements. He asked how the traffic would flow going to the Hotel. Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant, explained that coming from the east they would use the east entrance. Coming from the west they would use the west entrance and it depends how they are controlling the traffic internally. There may be variations to that. He said most traffic will be coming for a show event anyway and won’t anticipate a substantial change in traffic because the hotel guest would already be at the hotel prior to the shows. He answered Member Mutch’s question about where the new handicap spaces would be. There would be six additional barrier free spaces based on our ordinance requirements. Member Mutch had concerns with the location and the amount of spaces. The majority of spots would be by the meeting rooms and not by the actual lobby. He mentioned possibly shifting the spots closer to the lobby. It puts the spaces near the main driveway to the hotel, also. He would like additional review of that. Member Mutch said Mr. Arroyo was conservative with his numbers of traffic. Mr. Arroyo said there would be a sizable surplus of parking with most shows. Some shows may be stressed for parking but overall should have an adequate capacity. Member Mutch pointed out that there is an overflow in a gravel spot and was it counted in his numbers. Mr. Arroyo said it was not considered in his estimates of capacity. Member Mutch supports the project going forward.

Member Fischer asked if the current east entrance would remain intact. Mr. Bowman said the south face will have a new vestibule entrance created to act as the main entrance, where the barrier free parking and main landing point. That will be the focal point. The parking we are going to use the most is the north-east lot for the hotel. He had no problem working with the staff to identify an appropriate amount of additional or relocating some of the barrier free spots. He agreed with Member Mutch on that. There will be two distinct points of entry; a hotel at the hospitality tower entry and the new meeting and expansion of the Diamond Center entry. The large parking area in the south-east area is for the event parking. To address the crossover of combined users of the facility, usually the exhibitors will be one and the same customer. Their vehicle would have been there anyways. The hotel customer doesn’t generate new traffic. They will come up with procedures for traffic management. Member Fischer said just as long as the secondary entrance or east entrance is accessible for emergency situations. He questioned Deputy Community Development Director McBeth about the ground signage and whether they can have additional signs for the hotel. She said directional signage may be allowed but a variance may be required for additional signage. It would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He didn’t see any issues on the preliminary site plan approval.

Member Wrobel was impressed with this project. It was a good use of space. He had a couple of questions about hotel parking and whether a section of parking will be reserved for hotel guests. Mr. Bowman said he will not guerdon off any parking for the hotel guests. He has a reservation system with the hotel business that will help them manage it. Member Wrobel said he has been there for big events and traffic backs up to Grand River and was there was a way to send people around so that they don’t have to wait to get into the parking lot. Mr. Bowman said they will have to park off site for exhibitors but it has improved. Lines are something we do not like to see and will try to do better by trying to form two lanes at the entrance. People would form a single lane and it is impossible to change it even though they have three ticket booths. He cannot guarantee it won’t happen again.

Member Margolis commended the applicant for working with the staff and making it go much smoother. She asked Deputy Community Development Director McBeth about the landscape and to explain how the extension of the island reduced the concerns. It seemed like a small thing to do to get an approval on the landscaping. McBeth explained that they didn’t have enough information of the quantity of landscaping. The information was provided afterwards to better quantify what was missing. The island helped with the landscape deficiency. There still was a part of the ordinance that states there should be a landscape island every fifteen parking spaces and we noted that the parking lot on the east side of the building was approved as included in the ordinance as an existing parking lot but the Planning Commission recommended in favor of continuing what we would expect for a new building. Those two aspects got a favorable recommendation. Member Margolis questioned that she did not recall approving the covenants and the restrictions for any other applicant and asked if it was because it was an EXO district. Attorney Schultz answered that she was correct. It was a draft right now and thought to include it for review.