The meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. with Mayor McLallen presiding.

ROLL CALL: Council Members Crawford (Present), Mason (Present), Mitzel (Present), Schmid (Present), Toth (Present), Mayor McLallen (Present)

(6) Present (0) Absent

-000-

ALSO PRESENT: Edward Kriewall - City Manager

Craig Klaver - Assistant City Manager

David Fried - City Attorney

Tonni Bartholomew - City Clerk

-000-

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilman Toth felt Item #8 should be tabled until the next Council meeting due to the fact that we have an election tomorrow and it probably would be best if any decision or details would be provided to the new Council at that time.

Mayor McLallen asked Ms. Bartholomew if a motion to table was in order at this time. Mayor McLallen said we should defer the discussion of the Feurst Property to the next appropriate meeting when a new Council is seated.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mason said the reason she would support that is because we are not having a meeting with the School Board until the 13th and that is not really our property yet.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they were doing all the Agenda approval right now, and Mayor McLallen said her question was in order to defer, did they have to act on it now or under the whole Agenda as she has never done this before and we always find something new.

Ms. Bartholomew said to pull it off, you could just make a statement to pull if off and that would be included in the motion to amend the Agenda or accept the Agenda.

Member Mitzel said Item #5 should also be Revised Wetlands Permit. Mayor McLallen said for Item #5, the request is for a Revised Preliminary Site Plan and a Revised Wetland Permit and there should be a request for two items under Main Street Village.

Mr. Kriewall said they do not need to act on Item #1 this evening, and this matter is here for Public Hearing only, so he would recommend that Council remove Item #1.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said as it relates to the Feurst Property, a motion to table is not to be discussed but was it to be a presentation or was there action by us or is there going to be someone here later in the evening to update us.

Councilman Toth said they were seeking direction.

Mayor McLallen said there was a request based on the time frame that we are operating under, that the lease that the City had entered into only runs through December and there has been a request by the people who were interested in the property to find out what the Council is doing.

Councilman Crawford said so we are not going to have any further information given to us tonight and we are just going to discuss that.

Mayor McLallen said at this point, it has been recommended that it be removed. Councilman Crawford said he was just trying to determine why it was on there in the first place and was it only for discussion. Mayor McLallen said it was requested to come back at this time. Councilman Crawford asked by us or the Committee and Mayor McLallen said by the Committee. Councilman Crawford asked if there was going to be someone here tonight to discuss it.

Mayor McLallen asked if Mr. Antosiak or Ms. Mutch was in the Audience that evening and Mayor McLallen said she just wanted to know if they were attending.

Councilman Crawford said he wouldn’t vote to pull it if someone is going to be here to provide us with some more information, and he guessed that is the reason it was on there.

Councilman Toth asked why don’t they provide the information to the entire Council at the time.

Mayor McLallen said a motion has been made to defer this to a later date.

Councilwoman Mason said she just wanted to explain to Councilman Crawford as to what he said before, and we don’t even know if we own the property and the school wants some of it for parking and we are supposed to meet with the School Board but we put it off until November 13th, so it doesn’t make sense to hear any presentation until we know if the school is going to do a change or wants to work with us on the property and it was a waste of time at this time and it could be done at the same time that we have the Joint Meeting with the School Board, once we know if we are going to own any of that property.

Mayor McLallen asked for any other additions or corrections or deletions to the agenda.

Mayor McLallen said the deletions at this point are the removal of Item #1, 1996 Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program and the Public Hearing will stand on that, but there would be no action taken; the deferring of the Feurst Property Discussion until the first appropriate meeting after the Joint School Board/City Council meeting on the 13th; and the correction of Item #5 which is a request for approval of the Revised Preliminary Site Plan and Revised Wetland Permit for the Main Street Village. She asked if there were any other comments or corrections.

Councilman Mitzel said then the Feurst Property will not be on the Agenda for the Joint Meeting and Mayor McLallen said that was correct as it was already a set Agenda.

Councilman Crawford thought that was a separate item to be tabled, so if he didn’t approve of pulling the first, he had to vote no on all the rest of the Agenda items. It was discussed and Ms. Bartholomew said it was wrapped into one motion and Councilman Crawford asked what happened to the motion to table which was seconded.

Ms. Bartholomew said the approval of the Agenda needs to come before that.

Mayor McLallen said the motion has been made to approve the Agenda with the following corrections and deletions and additions.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Crawford

MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor McLallen said at this point we have Special Presentations.

1. Memorial Resolution for Councilman Tim Pope.

Mayor McLallen introduced Sarah Pope and Andrew Pope and Abby Pope and said this is Councilman Timothy Pope’s family and what she would be presenting to Sarah is a Resolution on behalf of the community in Tim’s memory and at a later date, we’ll have some other items, but tonight the people of the City of Novi were immensely grieved to learn of the untimely death of Tim Pope, the City’s beloved Councilman on Sunday, October 22, 1995. Tim first took office on November 13th, and during the many years, he has demonstrated that the votes made a good choice in placing him in this important position. He proved to be a capable, honest, energetic, courteous and trustworthy official, devoting himself unselfishly to the duties of his office, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an official copy of those resolutions signed by the Council and Mayor shall be presented to the family of Tim Pope, signed and sealed this 25th day of October, 1995.

Sarah Pope indicated that Tim dearly loved the City of Novi and it was also a privilege for him to represents its citizens. We were very proud to share him with the City and we were also proud of the work that he did here and our family would like to thank the community for all the love and support that we received.

2. Proclamation to Matthew Robert Reichert, RE: Eagle Scout Award

Since Robert Reichert was not present, Mayor McLallen indicated she would put this item off until he could attend later. She indicated that Robert was the latest in a long line of Eagle Scouts that our community is most fortunate to have and he received his Eagle about a year ago in a ceremony at St. Paul’s so we congratulate this young man’s efforts.

3. Introduction of Public Information Director - Lou Martin

Mr. Kriewall indicated that Lou Martin recently came to us from the City of Dearborn Heights, where he was on the Cable Commission and he brought a great background and resume of experience to this community. He indicated that Mr. Martin was one of 137 applicants for the position of Public Information Director, and he went through a long and extensive screening and reviewing process to follow in Cindy Stewart’s position, who had left us to go to the City of Dearborn.

Mr. Kriewall indicated that Mr. Martin has been the Chairman of the Dearborn Heights Michigan Week Celebration and produced a talk show in Dearborn Heights and Westland, and he was the City of Dearborn Heights’ Co-Chairman of the Recycling Drop-off Project and he was involved in their Spirit Festival Committee and was on the Board of Directors of the Dearborn Heights Goodfellows, and was a Precinct Delegate in the Dearborn Heights Kiwanis Club of 1992 to present.

Mr. Kriewall indicated that Mr. Martin has received Associates and Bachelors Degrees from Northwood University and a dual major of marketing and management and graduated in 1987 and started with Novi a few weeks ago. He said Novi was real excited about Mr. Martin’s enthusiasm for the position, and he has a tough act to follow with Cindy Stewart, but we are confident that he is going to drop right into this position.

Mr. Kriewall indicated Mr. Martin was busy working on the Community Calendar and Community Report, which will be circulated around Christmas time to the Community and we are excited about what he will be bringing to this position. He then said to Mr. Martin that since he was the Public Information Director, he has to keep them informed and he could introduce his girlfriend to everyone.

Mr. Martin introduced his girlfriend/fiancee, Cheryl, to everyone. Mr. Martin indicated that as Mr. Kriewall has indicated, he knows he has real big shoes to fill following Cindy Stewart, but Ms. Stewart has spent quite a bit of time with him and everyone has been very supportive, and he was really looking forward to working for the people of Novi and he has received some real good direction from Ms. Stewart and also from Mr. Kriewall and Mr. Klaver and he was very excited about the job.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Dan Davis was present and stated he would give a brief overview of what the 1996 Community Development Block Grant Program is proposing and then there would be an opportunity for residents to respond and also City Council.

Mr. Davis said he also had extra copies of the proposal when they are available.

Mr. Davis said to bring everyone up to speed, the Community Development Block Grant Program is a federally funded program administered through the Federal Government and Housing and Community Development Division. He said they participate on a County-wide basis through Oakland County with approximately 50 other cities and townships providing this activity. He said each year the funding level is dictated by a target area, eligible income area, and population.

Mr. Davis said they were anticipating receiving approximately $112,000 for 1996 and this is exactly the same funding level that was available to us in 1995 and right now that number could get adjusted as the Federal Government finalizes their Budget and that will be dictated to us at a later time as we go through the process.

Mr. Davis said the Federal Funded Program provides for the opportunity to provide activities to the City for a variety of things and these could include public facility improvements such as sidewalks, safety path programs, senior citizen activities, senior vehicle operations, working with individual homeowners on home rehabilitation programs and then also planning management activities. He explained the HCD Committee is comprised of three citizens at large, one Council Member and himself as Administrator for the program. He said they have been meeting over the last couple of months, reviewing potential funding programs and activities, along with monitoring the existing Budget and proposing a recommendation on Reprogram and Funds.

Mr. Davis said tonight, what we are going to do is present two facets of the Program and the first one is going to be our 1996 Program, Final Proposal, and then also reprogramming of existing funds for projects that we are considering.

Mr. Davis said in the Council packet, he has included the existing balances for each program area that we currently have on our books, and those include Administration accounts, contingency accounts, public services, property acquisition, safety paths, housing and rehabilitation and recreation facilities. He said they have gone through again and have monitored those and with the recommendations we are proposing, are based on the recommendations that the committee has formulated and are presenting to them that night.

Mr. Davis said the first item he would like to go over is the proposed Budget for 1996 and again, that was available on that blue sheet that he passed out. He said the first item under Public Services, we are proposing $34,000 and we are mandated to only spend a maximum of 40% of their total Budget allocation for this function. He said they were well below that at $34,000 funding level and that is composed of four funding areas.

Mr. Davis said the first one is for $13,000 to fund the Senior Citizen Center Manager position that is functional out of this facility. He said this is a continuing funding for a position we have had on board that is jointly funded through Oakland Livingston Human Services and the City of Novi. He said the portion is about 2/3 of the funding for the position that is made up of this $13,000.

Mr. Davis said the second item is the Senior Citizen Bank Van Program and again this is a dual function of joint funding through the general fund of the City of Novi, Parks & Recreation Department and the CDBG Program. He said this is proposed to be funded at $13,000 also.

Mr. Davis said Item C is funding for Novi Youth Assistance to provide camp scholarships and specialized counseling services for eligible income families. He said this was a program that we started last year and we found that it worked very successfully for the Novi Youth Assistance Program and we have proposed funding at $4,000 this year and so that is where we are at, and again we found that the program is very successful and we received great feedback from that activity.

Mr. Davis said Item D under Public Services is funding for the Haven and the Haven provides specialized services, counseling for domestic violence, child abuse and neglect and it was administered here in Oakland County and again last year, was the first year that we provided funding support and they have passed a law and correspondence to him that they serviced 308 individuals through that program during 1995 year to date.

Mr. Davis said they asked for $3,000, and we have had communications with them that we see that number growing and so the Committee has recommended $4,000 for an increase in the service level that we anticipate within that funding area.

Mr. Davis said again that concludes the Public Services area.

Mr. Davis said Item #2 is funding for safety paths. He said last year we brought forward to City Council and to the City of Novi, recommendations to build a safety path along East Lake and South Lake Drives in the Northern Novi Area, which is considered their targeted area. He said we had proposals to build those two sections of the safety path that basically was a mile and a half in linear feet along those major thoroughfares. He said it was going to be a five foot safety path and they had set aside some funding last year, and we knew that we were going to need additional funding this year.

Mr. Davis said we have allocated $78,000 and what we are also going to be proposing to do is to work cooperatively through our Public Services Department with the use of the Road Program monies. He indicated that Mr. Nowicki is coordinating extending a safety path along the frontage of the City-owned property along 13 Mile Road and Novi Road and what we want to see happen is a joint effort to do all of this building up in that area under one bid umbrella and obviously we are looking to save on the economy scale so that we don’t have three bids going out, three different construction periods, and so forth so they could formulate it into one package and get the best value for the dollar. He said so they were going to be very close to that number as far as finishing out the allocation to complete the project.

Mr. Davis said finally Item #3 is Administration and we have funding recommended at $859.00 and that is basically just to cover administrative costs for his position to administer the program and we have some existing dollars that were outlined in the previous documents that were talked about that the council has, and they spent approximately $2,500-$3,000 annually for the time he is involved in administrative programs throughout the course of the year.

Mr. Davis said that concludes the recommendation for the 1996 Proposed Budget and again that funding level is $112,859.

Mr. Davis said the second component is reprogramming of existing funds and this year we are proposing two areas of reprogramming to complement the programs that he just previously described. He said the first one was dealing with contingency monies from 1994 and the County, through the Federal Government, has requested that all contingency monies be programmed to a specific account. He said in the past, we could, on an annual basis, program a contingency amount to cover any unextended funding for any of the items that we had planned for within our program year.

Mr. Davis said traditionally, we have put $1,000 - $1,500 - $2,000 in contingency to take care of those unforeseen contingencies that would be a necessity of running those activities. He said this year they have said don’t do that and program all of your money and if you have old money, get that programmed into a specific account, and there are some things that are going on in the Federal level and they updated their computer system and they don’t have an account in their computer system for contingency and they want us to program it.

Mr. Davis said what we are recommending is to take the $3,419 that was available under contingency in 1994 and program it to the safety path account and work with that program as we build out the safety path along East Lake and South Lake Drives.

Mr. Davis said the second component of reprogramming is two-fold. He said first was under Recreational Facility Improvements and we had money programmed the previous years to do a variety of recreational facility improvements up in our targeted area and we have completed a lot of the projects and this money that is left over is some of the money that has been left over from those projects. He said between building a picnic shelter, doing some sidewalk improvements, some beach area improvements, and so forth, we still had some money that we had available that was not spent and that was in 1992 Fiscal year of $18,756 and then in 1993, $9,744. He said what is being recommended by the Housing Community Development Committee is to take the 1992 funds of $18,756 and reprogram that to Property Acquisition.

Mr. Davis said we want to get that money allocated to a funding account that we are going to spend immediately and we have that provision and Council, he believed, was aware that the County has what they refer to as a recapture provision. He said if it was not a contract and obligated, they want them to spend it right away. He said they have the contract for the Gaisor property acquisition that Council approved last year and we are under contract with it, and all this would do would be to augment and get it spent out in a faster way. He said he summarized in backup material for Council, that summary of the five-year land contract for the Gaisor property and they could see how it lays out.

Mr. Davis indicated we are staying with our recommendation to fund approximately $139,000 from the Federal CDBG monies for that Gaisor property purchase and the balance of that money $61,000, is being funded through the 1993 recreation bond funds. He said that is what we had laid out previously through some adjustments and we have had to come back and make this reprogramming at this time to get money spent.

Mr. Davis said the second component that he talked about was in 1993, funds from Recreational Facilities of $9,744. He indicated the recommendation is to reprogram that money to Housing and Rehab and we have seen a very large increase in the last six months in the request for home repair requests, which right now he administrates three current ones as we speak today.

Mr. Davis said they have re-roof projects, there have been some furnace replacements, and also a project that we are coordinating with the County was a home rehab that includes windows, roof and some cement work. He said they were running very tight on that item right now, and he would feel very comfortable in getting that allocation up to the $10,000 to cover us through next year. He said typically in the past years, we have looked at anywhere between $6,000 and $10,000 to adequately provide funding for that category and by reprogramming the $9,744, we feel very comfortable that we are going to be able to move through next year with that funding level based on that reprogramming.

Mr. Davis said so those are the two reprogramming areas that we are recommending for 1996. He said we are doing projects as rapidly as we can and we have spent a lot of money during the last year and getting reimbursements back, and some of the other things that we have done includes the purchase of a senior citizen vehicle that is currently in operation and we have also done some property acquisition, and we are looking at doing some planning and management activities up at the north end of the property, and playground equipment purchase for Lakeshore Park to name a few.

Mr. Davis said with that, this is a public hearing and we would like to hear public comment about this and where we go after this point based upon the input we have received from the public that evening and the Committee may reconvene or we will just take the recommendation and bring it back to the Council for approval of a resolution at a future Council meeting here this month.

Mayor McLallen indicated this was a public hearing on the 1996 Community Development Block Grant Program, and Mr. Davis has laid out where the committee has recommended the public money be spent and on which projects. She said at this time, any member of the Audience who wishes to participate in the public hearing, may approach the podium and state their views on the Community Development Block Grant Program.

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS

Mr. John Smith of East Lake Drive was present and the gentleman had mentioned East Lake Drive just remotely and the presentation of safety paths. He said when he looked at the materials proposal, it specifically says South Lake Drive from 13 Mile to Lakeshore Park, so he asked is there any plans for the East Lake Drive area.

Mr. Davis explained the safety path proposal includes two sections, South Lake Drive which goes from 13 Mile to Lakeshore Park, which runs to the west and it would stop at that point. He said along East Lake Drive, it would go from 14 Mile down to 13 Mile and as Council is aware, the Road Program is proposing funding in next year’s account to take in the Landing property/the lake property, that the City currently owns that fronts along 13 Mile Road, so it would be a continuous pathway from 14 Mile all the way up through that area to Lakeshore Park.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Smith if he heard all of that information, that it will go from 14 Mile in a five foot wide segment all the way down to 13 Mile, and Mr. Smith replied he did.

Mr. Davis also pointed out that he did have plans available for anyone that would like to see those plans.

There was no further Audience Participation and Mayor McLallen closed the Public Hearing and said the Council will take up the issue of the grant and the resolution for the grant at a later meeting.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Ruyle was present and said Council has already approved their Agenda and he didn’t know how they would go about doing what he would propose that night, but he said the Council has had the honor of serving with Councilman Tim Pope, and the new Council that will be elected tomorrow, did not have that honor, so he felt it would behoove the Council and the City that evening to recommend to the Parks & Recreation Commission, that they name either one of the Parks, the one possibly on 8 Mile and Napier in his honor, or a future construction site such as the Ice Arena, but he felt it should come from the Council because they had the opportunity to serve and not the new Council and they could do something that night to recommend to the Department of Parks and Recreation and he personally would appreciate it and felt the citizens would too.

Mr. Harry Avagian of 1623 West Lake Road was present. He said he was addressing the Council as a private citizen. He said he wasn’t present when the Council approved their Agenda, but it has been indicated to him that they have already pulled Item #8 off of the Agenda. He said even though it was pulled, he felt it was wise to make a comment that evening.

Mr. Avagian said one of the things that turn people off about government is the over politicalization of Council meetings, meetings of Congress, State Legislature, and when he received this in the mail several days ago, which reflected the Agenda for tonight, one of the first thoughts that came to his mind, was Item #8, because indeed this does involve a candidate who is running for City Council.

Mr. Avagian said it does involve a candidate who is running for City Council, from the standpoint that this individual may have been a part of this particular presentation, and we don’t know that for certain, but he did know that the topic is very close in that particular person’s activities.

Mayor McLallen said at this point, that issue is not on the Agenda tonight. Mr. Avagian said it was not on the Agenda, but he did feel as a citizen he did have the right to express himself and this is the forum where citizens express themselves and if you are going to turn me off, this is part and parcel of what people complain about. Go ahead and turn me off or tell him he is out of order, but you interrupted me Madam Mayor and so you took some of my three minutes, didn’t you? He said make certain when you time people who come before here, that the timing is commensurate with everyone’s effort to speak to this Council.

Mr. Avagian said he had a right as a citizen to express himself, and he didn’t think that has left Novi, and that is the first amendment of the Constitution and he taught that in American Government class for 32 years.

Mr. Avagian said secondly, when Agendas are being put together for this Council or for any legislative body, he felt it takes some common sense on the part of the people who put the Agendas together to be sensitive to the activities that are taking place in that City and in less than 12 hours, the polls are going to be open. He felt in no way and in no fashion and no form, should any issue that has potential political relativity to it, be placed on the Council Agenda. These people who are running for Council out here, didn’t have that advantage and he was glad the Council used their judgement and pulled that particular item from the Agenda.

Mr. Avagian said he was extremely disturbed at the Mayor to shut him down and that is what we are concerned about in this City and you have no right to ask any citizen to sit down as long as what he was saying was not offensive or untrue.

Ms. Ruth Hamilton of 1245 East Lake Drive was present. She said she was speaking in regard to Item #3 on the Agenda, which is the approval of the last City Class C Liquor License for Andris Romain. She said she has distributed to them a rebuttal and only the highlights of the rebuttal would she touch upon.

Ms. Hamilton said they were all aware of the continued community involvement on this project since the 1980's. She said certain City employees have chosen to remove this project from the normal process of citizen’s input and she could tell them that they are all outraged. She said as an example, the Planning Commission granted the fifth site plan extension on their Consent Agenda on June 21, 1995 and when this happened, she personally subscribed to the Minutes and Agendas of both Council and Planning Commission in an effort that the residents in her area would not be put in this position again.

Ms. Hamilton said it amazes her how this City tries to sneak projects through that they know do not have the support of the residents in that area. She said they were outraged that after watching this project on the Planning Commission Agenda since July, we find it here tonight on the Council Agenda for the last City Class C Liquor License, the night before the election.

Ms. Hamilton said we feel that the City of Novi has drastically compromised our position, when as late as this past Friday, we discovered that Greg Capote, Staff Planner, administratively approved the revised preliminary site plan because he felt the changes proposed were minor. She asked did they expect them to believe that the complete changes and the design of the building, and the addition of acceleration and deceleration lanes on both 14 Mile and East Lake Drive, were minor changes. She said so that they may all realize exactly what it is they were dealing with here, she asked them to look at the drawings to her right, which were approved by this Council and then look at the drawing to her left at some of the so-called minor changes. She said she was sure that even at their distance, they could tell that the changes were certainly not minor.

Ms. Hamilton said if in fact our City Staff can approve documents administratively please tell her why we need a City Council or Planning Commission. She said many established businesses have come before you in the past with the same request for a City Class C Liquor License and they have turned them down under the rules of not being in the 20 criteria of their Ordinance, the most common reason being that they are not unique. She said to remember please that the same uniqueness applies here and there is none and the application for the same resort license is the identical application being used that night including the typographical errors. She said it has been photocopied and the most outrageous is Item #14 where he threatens us again of a DNR access lot and then Item #17 where he speaks of voters crossing the R-4 zoned lakefront to gain access to his establishment, which he has continuously been denied through this City Council.

Ms. Hamilton said there are, we feel, 15 of the Ordinance criteria that Mr. Andris does not meet and for this Council to approve this tonight, would be a direct violation of that Ordinance. She said none of the documents in their packet were date stamped when received by this city and why did the Police, Fire, and Building Department give their approvals for this Class C license in October when the request was not made by Mr. Andris until November 2nd.

Ms. Hamilton said finally, they feel that for Mayor McLallen and Councilman Schmid to vote on this issue tonight, would be a direct conflict of interest due to the fact that both have received campaign contributions from the applicant.

Ms. Hamilton said to Mr. Fried, that he will probably state that there is not a conflict of interest to which she would suggest, if not legally, than at the very least, it is ethically and morally a conflict. Thank you.

Mr. Korte of Shawood Lake was present. He indicated he left messages for the City Manager today. He said he was led to believe through phone calls and discussion, that again this year, there will be rented trucks with illegal political signs and he is referring to size. He said now he has talked with the Police Department, and they are a little confused as to what they can do or what they should do, and he has talked with Mr. Don Saven who has assured him that he is getting together with the Ordinance Officers and if those trucks arrive, something has got to be done.

Mr. Korte said any political sign not of the right size is illegal and all candidates, all citizens have to obey all of the ordinances. He said the City refused to do something last year, so please note that it is illegal.

Mr. Korte said his second point was Andris Romain and again, from the direction of Sector Study Implementation, we tried our best to follow this before we became a defunct group. He said HCD Funds and bike/safety paths for East Lake that were promised are not there and it was still his opinion that they will never be there. He said all the paperwork and all of the engineering, which he understood was done by Deb Gosselin of JCK & Associates in Grand Rapids, does not show acceleration lanes.

Mr. Korte said he guessed one has to have acceleration lanes because they do that kind of a project, but the minute that happens, you have destroyed the engineering that Walled Lake Sector Study Implementation fought so desperately and paid almost $25,000 for. He said so all of the things that have happened at this corner, you know this is not the first time, and this man certainly has the right to build whatever he chooses to build on his commercial property and let him get his own license.

Mr. Korte said he would think if this City is as sheik as we are led to believe, there is really going to be something in the next few years that it would be a pleasure to give that license to, and he would strongly suggested they save it for that point.

Ms. Sarah Gray of 133 Maudlin was present and she said she was speaking as Secretary Treasurer of the Southeast Shawood Homeowners Association. She said Mr. Fried has graciously agreed to pass those on to everyone. She said Item #4 on the Consent Agenda tonight is Lakewoods Preserves and she is requesting five minutes on behalf of SCS which was not granted to her at the last meeting, and she was sure they forgot to recognize her and she chose not to make a scene and she was claiming that time now.

Ms. Gray said they have reviewed the proposed open space preservation easement agreement and find it to be very comprehensive. She would urge this Council to approve it tentatively, due to the following four points that she had. She said on Page One of the Agreement under Recitals, Item #A stated Grantor Owned, and we understood that this property was under option and it was her presumption that until such time as the developers, Novi Group/LOC, owns this property, it probably would not be appropriate to enter into an agreement with you for this property.

Ms. Gray said Item #2 was Rights of Grantor, which refers to the right to conduct any other activity subject to ordinances, rules and regulations in effect, and she would presume that this is where the Lake Property Protection Ordinance comes into play but it was not specified what activity or activities may be allowed and it does need to be specified.

Ms. Gray said Item #3 appears to be a conflict with the usage of the word Parks, which is at the end of the first line in the Agreement in relation to the lakefront area, and under the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, you cannot have a lakefront park unless you meet certain criteria which this Agreement sought to avoid, and she would suggest that they amend the phrase to specifically exclude the lakefront area from the term, Parks.

Ms. Gray said Item #4 was Restrictions on the Grantor, and again this is where the Lakefront Protection Ordinance kicks in, in addition to the Gomaere-Anderson Wetland Act, and the Michigan Inlakes and Stream Act.

Ms. Gray said this does state that the Petitioner would not be allowed to construct or install any improvements or structures in or on the lakefront area including but not limited to boat houses, boat docks or beaches, however, this does not state anywhere that the Petitioner, their Successors, or Assigns, cannot swim, sun, fish or most importantly, launch a boat or any watercraft. She said please, this must be specified and this must be part of the disclosure when selling properties.

Ms. Gray said in the description of preservation areas dealing with the animals and the wildlife, they also have to note that on the west side of West Road, there are rattle snakes in the area and in the Description of Preservation Area B in the flood plain area, please note there are mute swans, 5-7 nesting pairs in the immediate area, and they will be back as they are very territorial.

Ms. Gray indicated she would skip over some of the other items as they all have copies. She said the Description goes on to state during spring flooding, Walled Lake connects directly to the Rouge River, and this is confusing because we are not aware of any time when Walled Lake does not connect to the Rouge River and we are geographically the head waters of the Rouge.

Ms. Gray said thank you, thank you, to the Novi Group for working with them, the City and the residents, to make this a premier development as we expect it to be, and she was asking on behalf of SCS, that they pull this item from the Consent Agenda and address the areas, Items 1-4, that she has outlined and she urged them to grant tentative approval unless they agree to amend these four points that night. She said if they agree on these four items and if the Petitioner does indeed hold title to the land, then give them the approval so this project can get off the ground, but please address the four criteria and pull it from the Consent Agenda. Thank you.

Mr. Steve Myers, a resident of Novi, was present. He said he and his wife run a business here and they were pretty busy and dine out a lot. He indicated he was in favor of Mr. Ted Andris’ development. He stated he grew up in Grand Haven, Michigan, on Lake Michigan near the mouth of Grand River, and he very much values the scenic views of the river and Lake Michigan and Spring Lake. He said as he drives along Walled Lake, he is continually struck by the relative lack of development of the scenic views of Walled Lake. He felt that is one of the benefits of having more facilities there.

Mr. Myers felt the development proposed by Mr. Andris is good for Oakland County and would be good for Walled Lake and would be good for the City of Novi and be good for Key Largo and be good for Frigates and he felt it would bring people in the area to dine and that is good for development. He said he would urge the Council to support his application for a Liquor License and support his team. He said he has known Ted Andris as a member of the Rotary club and knows him as a friendly and gregarious individual and he is helpful and has worked with him on projects and he felt he was a team player.

Ms. Patricia Hughes was present and she indicated she was against the Liquor License tonight to bring in any more traffic. She said as the previous gentleman spoke, it was nice to come from Grand Haven, but that was a resort area, and she lived permanently on East Lake Drive, and she didn’t like the idea of a Trappers Alley type of building being put up at the end of her street and she felt Trappers Alley is on the downgrade and she just didn’t like it and she is definitely against it.

Ms. Hughes said she also did not feel it was fair to give a Liquor License right next door to a another liquor license, inasmuch as was said earlier tonight that there is a lot of beautiful growth to be in Novi and Novi is a big City and she was sure there are other places except squeezing them all along one road. She said she knows it was personal, but she didn’t need anymore traffic.

Mr. Smith was present and said he lived in the hot bed there on East Lake Drive, and he felt from his standpoint, he definitely supported the Liquor License, but he did have a different slant on it than most people. He said when you look at the potential for the restaurants, and you look at the fast-food restaurants, or look at the family style restaurants, there were certainly enough of those in Novi. He felt from what he has seen from the plans and menus and what Mr. Andris is proposing, it seems to be an upper level type of restaurant, and it has been his experience that in that type of restaurant, it is not uncommon to have a Liquor License and he felt it was more the norm than the exception.

Mr. Smith said from his standpoint looking at it, he really would enjoy having a restaurant there and he felt what Mr. Andris was proposing gives a little ethnic flavor and he felt that was also nice and he thinks of Too Chez or one of those restaurants in the area. He said so once again, he hoped this issue could be put to bed and some of the questions that the other people have raised can be put to bed also because he felt it was time for us to stop having so many disagreements on East Lake Drive.

Mr. Tom Fry a resident of Novi was present. He said he was in favor of the granting of a Class C Liquor License to Port Papadapalis and Mr. Ted Andris. He said he has known Mr. Andris through Rotary and he is a very active rotarian although he does not live nor does he operate his law practice in the City.

Mr. Fry said he is in favor of this restaurant and he knows Mr. Andris and he knows it will be a quality restaurant and it would be a very upscale type development and anyone who objects to this type of a restaurant, he didn’t know how they would feel about the adjacent bar.

Mr. Fry said he was also glad it would be locally owned and it was not a chain and there was just too many cookie-cutter type restaurants in Novi. He said this would be a very upscale unique restaurant. He said what he liked most about it is the focus on the lake and there is no place on Walled Lake where you can sit and take advantage of the views of being on the water. He felt it was a shame and he felt this restaurant would be a real attribute to their City. He felt if it was denied, it would send out a message to developers and it makes no sense to deny this Class C Liquor License.

Mr. Fry said he knows the City of Novi is growing and he knows Liquor Licenses would be granted based on the population and there would be a lot more liquor licenses coming to the City and he just felt it would be punitive to deny this Liquor License.

Mr. Christoff was present and indicated he was there on behalf of Mr. Andris in support of the project. He said he also spoke on Mr. Andris’ behalf the last time this item was on the Agenda. He said he has known Mr. Andris for several years, and he is a member of his Parish and a respected officer of the Parish Council and he has had numerous opportunities to work with him on several projects and he valued his advice and expertise.

Mr. Christoff said he was in support for perhaps a selfish reason and he was somewhat partial to Greek cuisine. He said presently Greek Town and a few other places offer it, none of which compare to the proximity or the setting that is planned for this particular site. He said it was his understanding that many of the original objections to the project have been addressed and satisfied and the site has been moved from the waterfront to the other side of the road and the anticipated traffic problems have been considerably reduced because of Decker Road. He said it has considerable support from people living next door and he understood that the Lakes Area Residents Association is also supporting the project.

Mr. Christoff said he would be the first to admit that there are some projects that should be rejected because they override the sensible interest of the community, and this property however has been zoned Commercial for decades and Mr. Andris has been paying property taxes for the last 15 years and it would seem to him that a restaurant on a lake setting would not only benefit the City of Novi, but also benefit a community in that the people of Novi could enjoy an evening out and a beautiful lake setting, a lake that should be enjoyed by all the people in the community.

Mr. Christoff said at this stage, it appears to him that the opposition comes not from common sense but perhaps from selfish interests and some people may be objecting because they feel they will get undue competition to their existing businesses. Frankly, he felt that the competition was good.

Mr. Christoff said it seems that everyone stands to benefit and the City will benefit by removing vacant land from its tax base and it will provide employment to many adults and young people in the community and the residents will benefit by patronizing a first-class restaurant with unique food in a unique setting.

Ms. Eileen Charnis was present and indicated she and her husband have been residents of Novi since 1974 and she was in support of Mr. Andris and to recommend that he be granted a Class C Liquor License. She said they often eat at Key Largo and we find that the Restaurant is filled and we can’t get in, so we turn around and we drive out of the City of Novi and we spend our money at Big Daddy’s in Birmingham or some other place. She said they would prefer to eat in Novi and spend their money in Novi and they believe that this restaurant is an upscale restaurant and the architect has won an award, the Young Architect of the Year Award, so that the building will fit in beautifully with the new homes that are going up around the lake. And it will be a wonderful addition to the area.

Ms. Charnis said she didn’t believe that it would be competition because what happens is you know there are several restaurants and bars in the area so you go in and if one is full, you try the other and it actually helps the businesses to have several businesses there so she didn’t see that as going to affect anyone personally.

Mr. Bob Churella, resident and businessman of Novi, was present. He said when Mr. Ted Andris came to him, and explained his situation, he had to speak out and he is not speaking out whether the restaurant should be there or not because it has already been approved, and he is ready to go. He said what is holding this man up is red tape and they should either approve him for a license or he will have to go through all the red tape to get the license and it will cost a lot of money for both the City and for him, so why approve the building and not approve the license. He felt they have to approve the license because they approved the building and some of you might disagree with him, but he hoped not.

Mr. Churella said it was up to the Council to go ahead and approve the license because everything else has been approved and he is going to get the license one way or the other.

Mr. Jim Montain a resident of Novi since 1978 was present. He said he was a lawyer and has an office on 7 Mile and Haggerty Road. He said in his business, he takes out clients and business associates and he takes a lot of clients out from out of town and their towns have TGI Friday’s, and have Chili’s, etc., and he felt there was a need in Novi for a restaurant that is ethnic, unique and one that takes advantage of one of their most impressive natural resources, the lake. He said they don’t have lake access to eat or view unless they drive around the lake.

Mr. Montain said this restaurant would provide an upscale place to take clients and he felt it would be in their best interest to approve the liquor license so they could get this restaurant built. He said it is going to cost 1.37 million dollars, which are improvements with the land to our tax base and which will employ 75-85 people and he felt it was in their best interest to do so now.

Mr. Greg Getner of 1250 E. Lake Drive was present. He said it seems like he is going to talk about the hot topic of the evening also the Andris Restaurant. He said he had just a couple of points. He indicated he was not against having the establishment or restaurant there and he felt steps have been taken to take into account the traffic on East Lake Drive and there were still some issues that need to be discussed.

Mr. Getner said his main objection is giving the Liquor License to Mr. Andris. He said there are liquor licenses available from the State of Michigan and he believed they can be purchased for around $50,000. He said his main objection is giving the Liquor License away. He said he enjoyed going to a restaurant and enjoying the atmosphere but he felt they could be more prudent about giving away their last Class C Liquor License for the City of Novi.

Ms. Madeline Holland of 1349 E. Lake was present. She indicated she has been a resident for five years. She indicated she supported Mr. Andris getting his liquor license and she would like to see that type of establishment in that particular area of the City. She felt it would be a positive thing for that area because it was going to be developed anyway so why deny him the liquor license when he has been paying taxes for this period of time anyway. She said she would like to see that type of development there and felt it would be good for us. She said the traffic was already so bad so what difference would it make.

Mr. Art Vrettas was present and he commented they have a great bunch of Consultants and he has been very impressed with their thoroughness and with the spirit and the letter of the law that they apply. He said he knows for a fact that the parcel and politics of having a vested interest, of having ideals, both pro and con, is what makes a democracy so great because they could sit and fight and argue and get mad and then go home and have a cup of coffee at a local McDonald’s. He said he was glad to see the people getting up and voicing their opinions.

Mr. Vrettas felt they have some tough decisions to make. He then said he would like to speak on Item #3. He said one of the things that he noticed on the Planning Commission was that the developers have come and asked us for permission for Preliminary site plan approval and they seem to come in two different modes. He said the first mode he did not like which was the ones who come in and say this is what they want and it is according to the laws of the Master Plan and the City has to give it to them.

Mr. Vrettas said sometimes they have approval and sometimes they don’t but we try to do what is best for the City of Novi. He said he likes the people who come in and who from the very beginning, try to work with the local people and sometimes it does work beautifully. He said they had a case of that just recently and then we have other cases where no matter how hard the developer is trying to work with the people, there are hidden Agendas.

Mr. Vrettas said in Mr. Andris’ situation, he has come in and has tried to work with everyone and those who are willing to listen, have listened and those who have other agendas, have other agendas, and he respected those agendas and he just wished in some cases, that the agendas were in front of us, as it makes it a lot easier.

Mr. Vrettas said he knows that Mr. Andris has followed the process because if he hadn’t, he would know about it, and he has done everything he is supposed to do.

Mr. Vrettas said he has known Mr. Andris for over 20 years and if he is going to give a liquor license, he is going to give it to someone like him, and not give it to a local bar and that is the other alternative. He said he would strongly recommend that we do this. He commented that on Friday night, his family usually goes out to a nice restaurant and they would like some new choices.

Mr. Lee BeGole of 43707 Grand River was present. He said he has known Mr. Andris for many years and he is dependable and responsible and has been a taxpayer in Novi for many years. He felt he would have a successful operation.

Mr. Leininger of 24584 Hampton Court was present. He said he was speaking on behalf of Port Papadapalis. He said when he was on the Council, it must have been over 12 years ago when we first looked at the original proposal, so this is not a new request and he was quite pleased to see that it was an approved project. He said he was really here to speak on behalf of this unique project that he believed that the ordinance was written for and intended to address.

Mr. Leininger said so therefore he would like the Council to consider it that night and he felt it would be an asset to the community and he knows that a liquor license is what makes a successful business. He asked the Council to give it careful consideration.

Mr. Norman Paul 1349 E. Lake was present. He said he has lived there for six years. He indicated he was in favor of Mr. Andris’s restaurant and he felt it was a good addition to the community. He said he has been calling the Police Department once a week because there are these huge commercial trucks going up and down East Lake Drive and there were a lot of speeders and he would say to the Council that he has been calling the Police Department who hasn’t done anything about it to cut down the speeders and he would ask the Council if the restaurant does go in, that it wouldn’t be Ted Andris’ fault that these people are doing what they are doing, so he would ask if the road could get additional patrolling. He felt they should grant the license and they couldn’t control the people but if the police were there, he was sure the people would slow down.

Mr. Darrel Lumbar, a resident of Novi for about a year now, was present. He said he enjoys the variety of different things in Novi and the different restaurants. He stated he enjoys dining out and he would like to enjoy something on the water and he would support Mr. Andris’ restaurant.

A gentleman asked if he could comment on Item #6 as he couldn’t stay for the entire meeting. He said he wanted to discuss Open Signs for Businesses. He said he was a new business owner in Novi and a seven year resident and his business was set back on one of the neighborhood plazas on Novi Road and Nine Mile and he found it a bit of a burden to notify patients that he was open without any kind of a sign in his window. He would strongly support some specific regulations on what signs are permitted, but he would hope that the Council would consider the amendment to allow Open Signs so that he could conduct business and let people know he was there.

Ms. Ruth Ann Jirasek, President of the City of Novi Homeowners Association, was present. She said she would like to speak to Matters for Council Action, Part II, Item #7, The Regulation of Peddling and Soliciting with the City of Novi - I - Reading. She said the City of Novi Homeowners Association respectfully requests that the Council allow time for them to review proposed changes as submitted for tonight, the first reading, the Regulation of Peddling and Soliciting within the City of Novi. She said if a grace period is granted, it would allow CNHA time for discussion and they would appreciate being notified when the contract will come before the Council. She said they have some concerns regarding the proposed changes as dated October 17, 1995 submitted by Fried, Watson and Bugbee.

Ms. Linda Hamilton of 1283 E. Lake was present. She indicated she was not opposed to Mr. Andris opening his restaurant on East Lake Drive. She said she was opposed to giving him something that she felt he should purchase just like anyone who comes along and to follow the guidelines and rules which are sent out and there is no reason why he should be given something and he should purchase it.

Ms. Hamilton said not to mention the fact that it was very important since a lot of you who are running for election are copying off the slogans saying how they were for the residents. She said she didn’t feel they could get much more residential than the people who live on East Lake Drive and the people who are going to have to deal with another business in a residential neighborhood like it is going to be.

Ms. Hamilton said some of us don’t want the restaurant there at all and some do but the access lanes that were being proposed she did not feel was for a residential neighborhood and she felt they should keep tabs on it and keep it under control.

Mr. Blair Bowman of 43700 Expo Center Drive, was present. He discussed the Illuminated Open and Closed Signs. He stated he supported the open and closed signs and urged their favorable review. He said as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and serving on the board for the last four years, there has been many instances of discussion and actual approach to their board from the membership and others about the need for the business itself being able to communicate that simple open and closed, as well as for the people who are traversing the roadways to be able to determine whether a business is open or closed. He urged a favorable review on that.

Mr. Mike Condon of 1321 S. Lake Drive was present. He said he also owned property on East Lake Drive which he would be building on next year. He said he has really struggled with this issue on the Port Papadapalis Restaurant. He said he has wrestled with it and he has answered a question to himself several times that he doesn’t want this development, but he felt he has to be realistic enough to understand that someday there is going to be commercial development there and someday there is going to be a lot more traffic going down the road where his new house is going to be.

Mr. Condon said even though he didn’t want that developed, it was going to be developed and it is a nice restaurant going in and it is not another chain restaurant. He said he had some concerns on the traffic, but he realizes that anything going in there is going to add traffic to it. He said it was a unique restaurant and it is ethnic and for all those reasons, even though we have struggled and he sympathized with all of you, at this time he did ask them to support granting of the Class C Liquor License because it is land that has sat vacant way too long and he felt it was a good development and improvement that the north end needs and it would be a welcomed asset to the area, so he asked the Council to allow the new restaurant a Class C Liquor License and to allow them to proceed as planned.

Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation.

Type of Document Executed By Compensation

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RRESOLVED, that the City accepts absolute delivery of the Highway Easement attached hereto.

WHEREAS, proposed plans showing said improvement have been prepared by the City Engineers; and

Eleven Mile Road - N-2886-05

Driveway Grading Permit Doice & Joanne Ward Gift

Main Street - N - 3620-04

Temporary Construction Permit Vic’s Kid, L.L.C. Gift

Miscellaneous

Drainage Easement Broadmoor Park, L.L.C. Gift

18. Approval of Budget Amendment 96-8 in the amount of $9,588 and the purchase of four (4) patrol vehicles from Campus Ford Through State of Michigan Joint Purchasing in the amount of $74,116.

Councilman Toth pulled Items #4, 5, 7 and 8.

Councilwoman Mason pulled Items #2 and #10.

Councilman Schmid pulled Item #9.

Councilman Mitzel pulled from Item #1, Minutes of September 25, 1995.

Mayor McLallen pulled Item #18

Councilwoman Mason pulled Items #15 and #16.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

To approve the Minutes of October 2, 1995 from Item #1, Item #3, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 and 17.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

Mayor McLallen indicated the removed items would be addressed later in the Agenda.

2. Approval of Lot Split Application - Parcel #50-22-29-226-037, Lawrence & Marla Santos.

Mayor McLallen explained the applicant is Larry and Marla Santos and this is property located in Section 29 west of Beck Road and it is before us that night because the City Assessor has denied the lot split based on the inability of this lot to physically meet our setback at the 30 foot line.

Mayor McLallen said both the Assessor and Mr. Rogers, our City Consultant, state that the applicant’s proposal to have the setback moved does not violate any state act or a conflict of state act. She said the area that they are asking for relief from is the regulation that requires the lots to be 120 feet at the 30 foot setback and because of the physical consideration, this house cannot do it.

Mr. Clif Seiber was present representing Mr.Santos. He said they have before them a proposal for a parcel division. He indicated this is a 1.44 acre parcel, which has frontage on two City roads, Iroquois Court to the east and Andover Court to the west. He said what Mr. Santos is proposing is to split that 1.44 acre parcel into two parcels such that his existing residence will be located on a .94 acre parcel fronting on Iroquois Court and the remaining half acre parcel will front on Andover Court.

Mr. Seiber said they do meet the half acre requirement for the R-1 zoning and are deficient in the width requirement, however, we feel we can attain that width requirement if minimum setbacks are established for that parcel of 70 feet. He said once that minimum setback is established, we will then meet the 120 foot width requirement to the R-1 zoning.

Mr. Seiber pointed to a drawing and indicated he has positioned the house at the 70 foot setback line and they could all see that it blends fairly well with the adjacent two platted lots on either side of that parcel. He also stated that this variance or waiver has been granted before, to Bradford #3 Subdivision, which had an almost identical condition and was granted a waiver for additional setback in order to meet the width requirement.

It was,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Member Mitzel asked as part of the approval, will there be a restriction on the lot and would the building envelope be shown on the plan as submitted. He said in other words, the setback at least 70 feet or is that something that has to go to the ZBA.

Mr. Fried said you can do a conditional lot split on that basis.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

To condition the lot split on the fact that the house would be established at a 70 foot setback as a condition for granting this split.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

3. Local Class C Liquor License Application - Port Papadapalis.

Mayor McLallen said there was quite a significant Audience Participation this evening. She then asked if either the applicant or the City Attorney would comment on the issue of the giving away of the license.

Mr. Fried said Mr. Carlin is here and he would listen intently to what he says and if he disagrees at any point, he would let them know.

Mr. John Carlin was present and was representing the applicant. He said what happened on March 1, 1995 was the Liquor Commission had a new Chairman and changed its policies on resort licenses and as you know, they previously would come in here and they were getting resort licenses from many applicants who were now business restaurants here in the community. He said he has saved several of their Class C licenses for other uses. The Chairman and the Commission changed that policy and they are now prohibiting resort licenses and they will not give a resort license in any community that has a license in its quota or a license in escrow that is available for sale at a reasonable price for transfer.

Mr. Carlin said they were caught in a Catch 22 position here and they had to come to you on February 6, 1995 and you gave him resolution denying their application for the Class C license because they had wanted to retain those for other uses, in fact, on the same night he was there for the Epic or the Too Chez Restaurant on both of those the same night. He said they then went to the Liquor Commission for the resort license and he believed they have in their package a copy of the order from the Liquor Commission in August, who denied it for the sole reason that the City of Novi had one license remaining in its quota.

Mr. Carlin said they were here tonight to ask you instead of approving as you did back in February to give us a Resort Class C License, that you give them now your last remaining license.

Mr. Carlin said he did check, because he thought they would be asking him, but there are 22 licenses in your quota based on a 1990 population figure of 32,998. He said 21 have been issued and there remains one. He said you get one for every 1500 or any fraction thereof, and if there was a census coming down the road, you would increase the number of Class C’s available.

Mr. Carlin said right now there are no Class C’s in escrow here in the City that they could buy to move, so there really is no other alternative for this applicant other than to get the approval of this City Council for the remaining Class C.

Mr. Carlin said he knows they have a long Agenda, and he didn’t want to take up any more of the Agenda time than he has to. He believed that Mr. Andris has come up with a very nice program and it was going to be a very unique restaurant and it will be the only full service upscale restaurant here in Novi and for that matter, close proximity to Novi.

Mr. Carlin indicated it would be locally owned and operated and managed and Mr. Andris would be there if there are any problems, and if the Police Department has questions or anyone else, Mr. Andris would be available to help. He said the hours are Monday through Thursday, Mr. Andris is closing at 10:00 P.M. He said on Friday and Saturday he would be closing at midnight and then on Sunday from 10:00-2:00, there was brunch only, so the hours would not be conflict with the community.

Mr. Carlin said the main entrance to the restaurant on 14 Mile would help with the traffic and there would always be traffic. He said he didn’t live anywhere near Novi, but he enjoyed driving down East Lake Drive and it was nice and a great view so they would always have traffic on a road that abuts a lake like that, but by putting the entrance on 14 Mile is going to help quite a bit.

Mr. Carlin wanted to give the Council a few letters that he has and he indicated one letter was from Mr. Clarke and Mr. Clarke is the first resident south of the restaurant so he is the closest to it and he is in support of it. He indicated Mr. Suroki was present who would be happy to answer any questions. He said he has gone through the criteria in the package that they have, and have answered every one of the items in the criteria and have demonstrated the business experience, the financial backing, and everything else that the City looks for in determining what kinds of restaurants they want in the community.

Mr. Carlin then said he would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Kriewall felt it was in the best interest of City Council to issue this license at this time for a couple of reason. He felt it would start the flow of resort licenses with the issuance. He also indicated the mid-decade census affects state revenue share, also acquire 4-5 additional licenses for a target in the Spring of 1996.

Councilwoman Mason thanked Mr. Kriewall for defending a developer once again. She asked if they give this license, does it go to the individual or to the restaurant and Mr. Kriewall said to the individual. Councilwoman Mason said but they have a choice and it could go to the establishment or to the individual. Mr. Fried replied the individual has to own the license.

Councilwoman Mason said if the restaurant never opens, then Mr. Andris owns a license and Mr. Fried said they would issue it on the establishment being built and opened.

Councilwoman Mason asked if it was always given to an individual, and Mr. Fried said yes or the corporation, whoever owns the establishment.

Councilwoman Mason said could it be given back to the City of Novi and Mr. Fried said it would not be given back to the City of Novi, but it would be put in escrow. She asked why and Mr. Fried said the license is a property of the State not the City of Novi and once the license is issued, it will be issued by the Commission and not the City of Novi and the City of Novi just consents the issue and issues the license.

Councilwoman Mason said but if that establishment isn’t opened, could it go back to the City of Novi, and Mr. Fried said it would be conditioned upon the establishment being opened..

Mr. Carlin said the approval the Council would make would be conditioned upon us completing the building and passing final inspection to determine that it is completed, so if they didn’t do that, the license would never actually be issued. He added he didn’t have any problems with that.

Councilman Toth asked what was the applicant’s management experience in the alcohol liquor business and the answer was, "I have been involved in liquor sales in four different locations in cities for 20 years." He asked if the staff found out what cities and what establishments and where they were. He asked if the staff did any checking.

Mr. Cohen indicated they don’t personally go through those questions 1-20 and try to make decisions on them. He said if there were any questions, they ask the applicant.

Councilman Toth said the other concern he had was the signature was written by the same person and was it signed when they submitted the application and Mr. Cohen answered his question.

Councilman Mitzel asked which site plan was submitted to them and was this the one that the Planning Commission extended or is this the one with the minor changes done administravely. Mr. Cohen said it was an administrative review.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried concerning some of the procedures that were listed in the Ordinance, the Ordinance mentions that there were two types of action by Council, and one is the initial presentation he believed in Section G of the Ordinance and then there is another section that discusses conditional approval of Council after initial presentation has been made.

Councilman Mitzel said what has been requested today is conditional approval and can it be done without having an initial presentation. Mr. Fried said it can be done if the Council considers that it was an issue that was given initial consideration. He said or if the Council doesn’t consider it, the Council can waive the issue of the initial action by the Council, or they can ask it be required.

Councilman Mitzel said under the conditional approval in the Ordinance, Section J, it states that the applicant must present more detailed and complete reports and obtain all necessary approvals by the City and then he can request conditional approval. He asked if the preliminary site plan was sufficient for that and Mr. Fried said it must meet Final approval also.

Councilman Mitzel said so unless Council specifically waives that, they could not grant conditional approval that evening and Mr. Fried said no unless Council waives that.

Councilman Mitzel said going through the applicant, he noticed there was some mention about the site being accessed by boat slips on the lake, which is not included in the site plan. He asked what weight does that hold when it is mentioned in the application that they are being asked to approve and Mr. Fried said none at all.

Councilman Mitzel said from the legal standpoint of the City approving the liquor license application, should that be corrected before him or was he saying it doesn’t really matter and Mr. Fried said it has no bearing on either the license or on the site plan.

Councilman Mitzel asked did that give the Council authority to issue a restrictive license so to speak, in other words, a license with certain conditions, and Mr. Fried said no, again the license is issued by the Liquor Control Commission, and it is in effect property of the state and not of the city and there are certain regulations that deal with the issuance of licenses that the City cannot interfere with.

Councilman Mitzel felt the restaurant should be built and it has its approved site plan and he was not against the restaurant and he just wanted to make sure they were following the proper procedures in their Ordinances. He said that Mr. Fried mentioned they should have Final site plan approval before they issue a conditional approval, and he also had a concern over some of the impacts in the neighborhood of a liquor license with outdoor seating and the proximity to the bike path and the road and such. He said while he was asking Mr. Fried about the restrictions, he was trying to find out if it could be for indoor use only, in other words, no alcohol on the balcony, the front, along the lake, or by the bike path and such. He said that was one concern that he had with that area.

Mr. Fried said the City cannot restrict that.

Councilman Mitzel said at this point, he felt the proper action was to postpone it until the time that the applicant has the Final site plan approval, which according to the packet, goes before the Planning Commission for Final site plan approval, and then they can come back and it would meet the criteria of the Ordinance for the required conditions.

Councilman Mitzel also asked Mr. Fried regarding the time limitation, can we postpone it or must we deny it at this point and then they would resubmit. Mr. Fried replied the Council could postpone it.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

To postpone the granting of a Class C Liquor License until Final Site Plan Approval is obtained.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen said based on the earlier discussion which said this license can be granted conditional upon the building ever being built, if the building is never built, which means it would have to obtain Final site plan approval, the license will never leave the City’s quota and Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Mayor McLallen indicated her position would be that yes she would like them to have Final site plan approval, but she didn’t see any necessity to require them to come back again before this body and she felt they have the power tonight to say if the building was not correctly brought to fruition, that this license never leaves this building, so she would not support the motion.

Councilwoman Mason felt it was good to postpone this matter until they have Final site plan and there were fifteen other reasons that were not met if they all read what Mrs. Hamilton gave them. She said it shows many restaurants in the area and shows many Greek restaurants in the area and it does say when they give out a license, that it has to be unique and different, and this is not unique and different from other things. She said the total facade is 100% different than what was presented several years ago, and she didn’t understand how that could be an administrative okay. She felt it was a slide past the Planning Commission and the Council and that was a very serious situation because if that can happen, then many other things can happen that we do not know about and whether you shake your head yes or no or not, it is happening, the Planning Department, and she felt they have to look through this..

Councilwoman Mason felt there were only 5 things of the 20 and she has been through everything herself and found 10 of the 20 before Mrs. Hamilton and Ms. Gray brought these to her attention, so it was not like this liquor license is going to escape and they were going to keep it for Mr. Andris. She said she would not go with anything that allows them to overlook their Ordinance for a specific business and they have to stay consistent in the City or they are not going to have the City developed the way they expect it to be developed.

Councilman Schmid asked two clarifications from Mr. Fried. He said one, he asked Mr. Carlin a question, and he was aware that the new law in March designated that they could not get any licenses until all the licenses in the City were utilized.

Mr. Carlin said it was not a new law but a change in policy. Councilman Schmid said he was not aware however that they could not get a license that was in escrow and was that also true. Mr. Carlin said a person could buy one if someone, for example, was going out of business or had a fire and was not going to use their license and the building then was going to something else and they wanted to sell that license and yes, he could buy that, but this point was that there were none of those available in Novi. Mr. Fried said they have to clarify it has to be a Novi license. Mr. Carlin said yes, it has to be within the boundaries of Novi. Mr. Fried said there are not any now.

Councilman Schmid referred back to Councilman Mitzel’s comments relative to conditionally awarding the license, and he asked Mr. Fried to repeat what he had said. Mr. Fried said Councilman Mitzel asked him whether under Subsection J whether you would have to have Final site plan before they could authorize a conditional approval of a license and Subsection J refers to a site plan and he construed that to mean a Final site plan. He said that condition can be waived by the City Council, but the motion did not include a waiver so, therefore, his interpretation of Subsection J was they need the Final site plan.

Councilman Schmid asked one additional question, and said this Code goes on to read that there are many other areas that they could review, such as cost estimates, building furnishings and fixtures as part of the Final site plan information, including landscaping, etc., and Mr. Fried said yes. Councilman Schmid that would be proper, would it not, before if they wanted to have that information which may or may not be available this evening. Mr. Fried said absolutely, it was proper.

Councilman Schmid said at various times he would have issued a license, but was concerned with the issued license or issuing licenses "willy-nilly" without knowing what was going on. He said it was strange that the Council has issued a dozen of the resort licenses, which is virtually the same licenses except they come from the State and this comes through the City of Novi, without asking any of these questions, without having these similar concerns.

Councilman Schmid said in fact, this Council authorized a resort license some weeks ago to this very same person and the only reason they didn’t get it was because they changed the rules of the licensing department, otherwise he would have had a license today and was that true Mr. Carlin and Mr. Carlin said it was true.

Councilman Schmid felt it was a bit of a stalling tactic here perhaps and maybe properly so, and Councilman Mitzel has apparently changed his mind on this, although he didn’t know how he voted last time.

Councilman Schmid said he didn’t know if he could support that motion, although he did think that they could go through some of these other items if, in fact, it gets down to the point where there is going to be a vote on this.

Councilwoman Mason wanted to clarify to Councilman Schmid what he said about licenses wasn’t quite right, and there is no license other than a Class C that they have to give you right now available, and there are no other resort licenses or any other type available in the City of Novi. She said, however, if there is a business in Traverse City or anywhere else in the State, a person can go and purchase that and bring it in. She said the last time that is what they did and they allowed a company to bring a license into the City that wasn’t in the City.

Mr. Fried said they could purchase a resort license, but not a Class C license. Councilwoman Mason said but a resort license they could bring into the City because a lot of their restaurants have done it. Mr. Fried said they could bring in a resort license.

Councilwoman Mason said but what Councilman Schmid was understanding was incorrect and there is no resort license available right now in the City of Novi for purchase, but there were resort licenses around the state that he could purchase if he wanted one of those. Mr. Fried said he didn’t know if that was a fact and Councilwoman Mason said she talked to the Liquor Control today.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Fried to distinguish between resort licenses and Class C licenses and Mr. Fried said you can transfer a Class C license within the City of Novi, but you can’t go to the City of Detroit and buy a Class C license and move it into the city of Novi. He said but you can go to Traverse City and take out a Resort License up there and buy that license and bring it to the City of Novi subject to the criteria that they have in their Ordinance for allowing such a license to come in the City.

Councilman Schmid asked if a resort license is virtually the same as a Class C license and Mr. Fried said it was the same thing.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion:

To postpone the granting of a Class C Liquor License until the applicant is able to obtain Final site plan approval.

(Voice vote) (4) Yeas (2) Nays-Schmid and McLallen

MOTION CARRIED.

4. Approval of Preliminary Site Plan Approval Six-Month Extension - Crescent Oaks Continuum of Care Facility.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

To grant the Six-Month Extension to Crescent Oaks Continuum of Care Facility.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

5. Approval of Revised Preliminary Site Plan and Revised Wetland Permit for Main Street Village.

Mr. Mike Kahm was present and he said when he was before them some months ago when Council initially approved their Preliminary Site Plan, he had indicated that he was concerned about the two buildings that were on the south, which were the two-bedroom stacked ranches with two-car garages. He said they went back and analyzed the site plan to try and get at least one more of those building styles back and to make it brief, they moved the road north and placed one more building where the two buildings were and by doing that, they actually saved five additional trees from the plan that they had originally approved a few months ago.

Mr. Mike Kahm said they lost a net 8 units in the process. He said other than that, they have come back in with facades with 75% brick meeting the Zoning Ordinance for a TC-1 District.

Mr. Kahm said he was before the Planning Commission last month and he had unanimously received recommendation for approval on the site plan. He said he had the renderings here and they all have copies of those and if anyone has questions, Mr. Seiber would answer them.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked if Mr. Kahm could clearly point out the phasing lines as it was hard to follow it.

Mr. Kahm said they were going to build the project all at one time and we are not going to split it into phases, and other than that, each building is a phase.

Councilman Mitzel said on the table here were some blocks that were labeled Phase One and some were labeled Phase Two and Mr. Kahm said that was true and since that time, we have changed the way we are going to do this rendering and we are going to do it all at once, so we are going to build 240 units at the same time.

Councilman Mitzel said so you have revised the site plan and Mr. Kahm indicated the final site plan will have no phase lines on it other than the buildings so we can get C of O’s for each building, and besides that, they would have no phase lines.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To approve Revised Preliminary Site Plan for Main Street Village, SP95-09B based on it being all in one phase, subject to the Consultants’ letters, and per the Planning Commission recommendations.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To approve the Revised Wetlands Permit for Main Street Village, SP95-09B, subject to the Consultants’ letters and Planning Commission recommendations.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

6. Ordinance 95-100.17 - Amendment - To permit illuminated window signs which convey whether an establishment is open for business - I - Reading.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

DISCUSSION

Councilman Toth said he would not support the motion as he didn’t really see this as a city of having Neon signs stuck in windows of businesses. He felt they have done a very good business in the City without those particular signs and he was not in favor of having Neon signs stuck in the windows of shops so he wouldn’t support the motion.

Councilman Crawford asked the City Attorney, does the proposed Ordinance only limit it to Open signs and nothing else, for instance, Closed signs, and he was in agreement of someone’s comment that he would not want to see a city full of Closed signs also when the establishments are closed.

Councilman Crawford said he wanted to know what provisions are in that Ordinance that would not allow the proliferation of any other kind of Neon signs, Sale for instance and also there was some question as to whether the two square feet was a standard size sign and should we have some regulations that would more closely define what is a standard Open sign than just two square feet. He said he didn’t think they would envision a sign being two inches high by 7 feet long or whatever two square feet would end up being and he asked is there something in there that would not allow that to happen.

Mr. Fried said there was nothing in there that would not allow that to happen and there are limitations as to what the sign can be and it can be either an Open or Closed sign and it can’t be a Sale sign or any other type of sign such as that, but there are no restrictions in here as to what the two square feet can be, using the illustration you gave us.

Councilman Crawford said he would like to see all those questions and comments he made addressed at the second reading and he would support the first reading, expecting those to be addressed at the second meeting.

Councilwoman Mason pointed out that all illuminated are not neon signs. She said in other words, there are signs that are lit that are not neon and it would not be like a traveling neon sign or anything like that.

Councilman Schmid said as many people know, he has been supportive of the Sign Ordinance in the City of Novi and has been for years and he felt it was an exceptionally good Sign Ordinance he believed. He felt it has made the community to some extend what it is today. He said he was talking to a gentleman the other day who has been in the City for a long time and there were good arguments made as to why they should have those types of signs, and 2 square feet certainly is not very big. He felt there were pros and cons across this table and some like them and some do not.

Councilman Schmid said his statement was this is just the first step to proliferation of lighted neon and similar signs, which he did not believe was in the best interest of the City of Novi so he had great concerns about that. Councilwoman Mason suggested that these are not neon signs and Councilman Schmid said he wasn’t sure if that was stated in this Ordinance that it was not neon, and it could be neon and it could be a neon sign if it was illuminated.

Councilman Schmid said he thought when this went back to the Ordinance Review Committee, he thought all of these things would be addressed, but apparently nothing was addressed as it relates to the types of lights, whether it was Open or Closed. Councilman Mitzel said this went back to the Planning Commission after it went to Council and Councilman Schmid asked if it went back to Ordinance Review Committee and it was stated no.

Councilman Schmid asked if any of these were addressed which is not evident as to the types of signs and it says illuminated. He said he could perhaps be convinced eventually and he has heard a lot of good arguments for a sign, particularly in some of their stores that do sit back in hidden areas in some of the strip malls. He said perhaps they could make a case for a sign of specific standards, specific kinds of lighting signs and so on, and two square feet would be a similar shape of all signs and as Councilman Crawford pointed out, they could have a 2-3 foot sign length, which would be narrow.

Councilman Schmid asked if this was going back to Ordinance Review Committee now or Planning Commission and this was the second reading or was it going nowhere. Councilman Crawford said other than our comments that night, it , was it going nowhere? Councilman Crawford said other than our comments tonight, it would go to the City Attorney. Councilman Schmid said he couldn’t make any changes and Mr. Fried commented if the Council instructs him to make changes, then changes he would make or he would bring back several different drafts back for the second reading.

Councilman Schmid said enough said, and he felt this is far too wide open and again, he would support something that was more restrictive and serve the purpose but would not cause a proliferation of neon signs, and illuminated signs perhaps have some merit but neon signs frankly he didn’t think the City of Novi is the proper place. He said he supposed that was just his opinion, so he would not support the motion, although he would suggest we support Councilman Crawford’s comments when it does come back and talk about those issues.

Mayor McLallen asked Mr. Fried what is being changed in Ordinance 95-100, and is it merely Section E and Mr. Fried said yes. She said her comment would perhaps follow Mr. Crawford’s then regarding the definition of illuminated and to further define what is illuminated because this is fairly restrictive in that it says that this is solely to direct whether the store is Open or Closed and he agreed that you could have one Open period, and if it was not on, it must be Closed. She felt they should perhaps tighten up what is meant by "illuminated" which might move this issue further somewhat.

Mr. Fried said by tightening up illuminated, they indicate to him that they want an Ordinance that does not provide for neon signs. Member McLallen said no the request was for neon and yet this does not speak to neon and it says illuminated, which could be a plexiglass box with bulbs inside versus what truly is neon.

Mr. Fried said again he wanted this clarification, and possibly he could write two Ordinances, one that says neon and one that says illuminated but not neon. Mayor McLallen said her impression was that they were dealing with that material which is known as neon, but that is not what the Ordinance says.

Mr. Fried said he was trying to read both the Mayor and Mr. Schmid and they have to come to some agreement.

Councilman Schmid said never has he seen any diagrams or pictures or anything else that shows really what we are talking about. He said they should ask the Planning Department to probably come up with something.

Mr. Fried said he understood clearly what Councilman Crawford wants, but not quite what Councilman Schmid wanted.

Councilman Schmid said he would make it clearer. He stated he wanted to understand what they were dealing with here other than square feet and whether it was neon or not neon, a lighted box so to speak, and he didn’t feel this tells us really what this talks about.

Mr. Fried said he would bring back an Ordinance that is going to define what Council was talking about and Councilman Schmid asked for a diagram or a picture also.

Councilman Toth said Councilman Crawford alluded to the length and height and he just wanted to point out that perhaps we need a height and length ratio identified in the Ordinance, and whether it was going to be 1-2 or 1-3, so that the height does not get between something ridiculous in length and stretch out forever and forever. He felt they need to define illuminated and the indications here are that they are going to be Open and Closed signs, and it was stated it would be Open or Closed. Councilman Toth said so they could have either sign in their window. Mr. Fried said only one, either Open or Closed and it couldn’t be both.

Councilman Toth said hang one sign up when they are Open and hang up one sign when they are Closed, so effectively, they would have the use of two signs. Mr.Fried said but they can’t be in the windows at the same time.

Councilman Crawford felt everyone has basically rephrased his comments, and he would support it but he wanted to see all of those comments addressed, and he would not support a second reading unless they were all addressed. He felt Mayor McLallen, Councilman Schmid and Toth had very similar comments. He felt they were all saying the same thing. He said they all want to know what illuminated is and we want a standard size and we don’t want a proliferation of other signs like Sale or whatever else it may be and we don’t want to see Closed signs as well as Open signs.

Councilwoman Mason asked Mr. Fried doesn’t it say that it can contain a message referring to current temporary merchandising or promotional activities such as a Sale and Mr. Fried said no. She asked what is it she is looking at here in Ordinance No. 95-100.17, the third page, subsection 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Fried replied that was not the window sign that they were talking about and that has always been in there and it hasn’t changed at all.

Councilwoman Mason said but now we are talking about an illuminated one, and how much of this would fit into the other one and is it an addition. Mr. Fried explained it would be an addition to the message referring to current temporary merchandising or promotional activity such as a Sale, and it would be in addition to that.

Mayor McLallen said as of this point, there has been a motion to move this on to a second reading and there has been much comment that would be brought back with that second reading. She asked for further comments and there were none.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay - Toth

MOTION CARRIED.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Peter Wolfe, owner of the Novi Pizza Cutter on Ten Mile, was present. He commented about the discussion they just had regarding signage. He felt if they look at it realistically and have traveled to small towns such as Northville or Livonia or Farmington Hills, they would see the businessmen were not going to go out there and have those specific signs made up for an Open sign. He said there is almost a standard Open sign that is on the market. He felt sometimes you put increasing burdens on us all the time when you keep pushing back, and we are not looking for big flashing neon signs. He said they sit so far back from the road and it is wintertime and they just want to compete the same as other businessmen in the surrounding towns, and he felt they keep throwing stalling blocks in the way.

Mr. Wolfe said they came to the Planning meeting and the recommendation was put forward and it was for an Open sign and he didn’t know why they didn’t have that information in front of them, and if anyone was at the Planning meeting, those recommendations were made for an Open sign and there were no Closed signs. He said he didn’t think anyone was looking to having big neon signs. He felt they have to look at it and say what do we need to do for the local businessmen that would allow him to compete with someone driving another mile down the road to Northville. He said he wanted to compete with them and he wanted to stay in Novi and he wanted to compete equally with them and he wasn’t looking for anything special, just the same as the other towns that were around here.

Ms. Shirley Cash said she really couldn’t be there without speaking up in defense of the signs. She felt the business owners of Novi are entitled to have a sign saying Open or Closed. She said if she were the Mayor or a Councilperson, she would like them to have all the signs they wanted, so the City was lucky she wasn’t politically inclined. She also wanted to thank Time-Warner for showing the candidates at least 25 times on TV and she felt they deserved a nice round of applause.

Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation.

THE COUNCIL TOOK A TEN MINUTE BREAK AT 10:15 P.M.

7. Ordinance 95-40.03 - Amendment - The regulation of Peddling and Soliciting With The City of Novi - I - Reading.

Mayor McLallen explained this was an amendment to the regulations of Peddling and Soliciting with the City of Novi.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said there were some concerns brought up tonight about the Homeowners Group that wanted to review this. Mayor McLallen said they could direct the Administration to send a copy of what we have in our packet to them and their other request was to be notified the next time it would be on their Agenda.

Councilman Crawford said he understood his opinion about limiting hours and such but if there is a way some of those hours could be put into their Ordinance, he would prefer to see some of those in the Ordinance and go from there, so at the second reading, he would like to see that one specific thing addressed.

Councilwoman Mason said perhaps the Homeowners Association could have one copy showing the reasons why cases have been lost in other states because they try to restrict too much and Mr. Fried said he wouldn’t hesitate to have them call our office and discuss the matter with us.

Councilman Toth said to Mr. Fried that he noticed could they limit the permits to once or twice a year per applicant, and Mr. Fried said no you can’t limit it unless there is a justifiable basis for it.

Councilman Toth said they seem to come in bunches and they come around certain times of the year and it seems like the same ones are coming around two to three times. Mr. Fried said they are entitled under the First Amendment to come in, and if there was a justifiable reason why they shouldn’t be able to, maybe they could do something. He said he couldn’t conceive any justifiable reason.

Councilman Toth said but they are allowed to come by and say they represent a certain group and selling it for this but he had no way of checking that. Councilwoman Mason said then don’t buy it and he said he doesn’t, but he has a problem with some other people on the Council who were soft touches.

Mayor McLallen said the motion was to pass onto the second reading Ordinance 95-40.03 an amendment to the regulations for Peddling and Soliciting within the City of Novi.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

9. Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 451.

Mayor McLallen said Warrant No. 451 was in the amount of $3,045,175.30.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

To approve Warrant No. 451.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Toth

MOTION CARRIED

10. Award Bid for Streetscape Construction Main Street Project.

Mayor McLallen explained this came back to City Council because the initial bids exceeded the bond cost of the project and it was sent back to the Consultants and the Engineers and portions of the design were needed and now the project Budget was expressed as 1.6 million dollars and we are slightly under the 1.7 million dollars. She said the recommendation of the staff is to award the Streetscape Bid to Wayne-Oakland Contractors.

Councilman Mason said to Mr.Fried she believed she understood that the Streetscape Construction bid now came in all right because the Fifties Festival was going to give them a gazebo that was worth $90,000 and Mr.Fried said he really hadn’t known that.

Councilwoman Mason said that is what happened and that is why the bid came in all right. She said everyone that bid, were they given the same opportunity to know that $90,000 was being paid out by the Fifties Festival.

Mr. Kriewall said he reviewed this with the attorney throughout the entire process and that is identical..

Councilwoman Mason said her question to Mr. Fried is that this company now has come in where the bonding money could come in only because the Fifties Festival is giving a $90,000 gazebo, which is removing that amount from the amount of the bid and her question is should it be re-bid because the other people who bid, did not know that.

Mr. Fried said it should be rebid unless the Finance Director says it was in the best interest of the City not to rebid this project. He said the Finance Director makes that determination and it isn’t necessary to go out for rebids. Councilwoman Mason said they should have a letter in their package saying that the Finance Director says we don’t have to rebid even though this whole thing has changed.

Mr. Fried said he was sure Mr. Kriewall has reviewed this matter. Mr. Kriewall said he has reviewed it with Mr. Watson and everyone else, and Mr. Watson has been involved through this entire process and the idea is to award the bid and this unit item identified in the project like all the other projects we bid around here, and that item would just be eliminated after we award the bid and we have the right to do that.

Councilwoman Mason said her point is if the Finance Director says it is okay not to rebid, shouldn’t we have a letter here saying that the Finance Director has stated it is all right, just to protect ourselves. Mr. Fried asked Mr. Kriewall, you are going to give the bid for what amount of dollars, and Mr. Kriewall replied a million and six dollars and Mr. Fried continued and said then you are going to have change-orders that would eliminate items from the bid and Mr. Kriewall replied yes, would eliminate one or two items from the bid.

Mr. Fried said that is the proper way to do it and Mr. Kriewall replied that it is the way we are doing it. Mr. Fried said then it doesn’t have to go out if there are going to be change-orders given after the contract is let, and reduce the amount of the contract. He said it was the proper procedure and done all the time.

Councilwoman Mason said but is that a legal thing to do even though other people have bid the project to make that decision, to take $90,000 out. Mr. Fried said they bid these projects on a unit price and the unit price hasn’t changed and that doesn’t change, and what has changed is the amount of work that they are going to do under the contract and that is proper to do and we do it all the time.

Mr. Fried said to you, that might be unfair, but that is really the only way we can bid it. Councilwoman said she doesn’t worry about unfair, but she worries about legalities.

Councilman Crawford said his understanding was that all bidders bid the total project, including this trellis and in the meantime, Mr. Kriewall or someone, found a way we can substitute the gazebo for the trellis and eliminate that from the bid so everyone bid the same package, and everyone bid a trellis, and all we are saying now is never mind Mr. Bidders, we don’t want it, and what that does for us is it brings it down under our recommended Budget cost and they don’t even have to put the gazebo in there, and we are just going to say we don’t want that trellis and that brings it down under.

Mayor McLallen asked for any other further comments or a motion on the awarding of the streetscape construction bid.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

To award the Streetscape Construction Main Street Project to the Wayne Oakland Contractors in the amount 1.6 million dollars.

(Voice vote) (4) Yeas (2) Nays-Mason & Toth

MOTION CARRIED.

11. Schedule an Executive Session to Immediately Follow Regular Meeting - Pending Litigation.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

To schedule an Executive Session to immediately follow Regular Meeting regarding pending litigation.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

12. Proposal to Have Updated Formalized Retainers for All Consultants.

Mayor McLallen said this issue was brought forward by Councilman Mitzel.

Councilman Mitzel said as he outlined in his memo, many of the retainers for our Consultants haven’t been updated for about four years or more and our needs continue to change. He felt it would just be best that we go through a process of updating retainers for our Consultants. He proposed a process to do so, utilizing City Administration and Consultant Review Committee starting this month and bringing forward a request for proposals by early next year and get those out and review them and then be able to have all of this information by Budget time next year.

Councilman Mitzel said as he outlined, he believed it was a good way for us to review our current needs, review what is available in a professional community, and update the retainers like he said.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

DISCUSSION

Councilman Toth said to Councilman Mitzel that he did an excellent job in collecting all this material and he started to go through this in some detail and the more he went through it, the more he was convinced that perhaps what this Council should do is to turn this entire packet of material over to a professional and he for one would consider putting together some type of appropriation hiring some outside individual to go through, because he wasn’t sure that he has all the time in the world to go through each one of these.

Councilman Toth said Councilman Mitzel has laid out a fairly good timetable. Councilman Toth said he was of the opinion that if they go outside and secure someone to start formulating these contracts and do all of that necessary work, some professional handling this would probably be the best approach for us to take, especially to start it off and then it can be turned over to Administration perhaps in the second year or third year and so forth.

Councilman Toth said he felt the initial groundwork is maybe to seek someone who has the expertise and to sit down and go over the contracts and perhaps the Administration can do some investigation on this, but define that individual and have that person put it together. He felt that might be the best approach but that he wanted to discuss it here tonight. He asked Councilman Mitzel if he understood what he was saying.

Councilman Mitzel said he understood Councilman Toth’s point, however, the way he was envisioning the process was that internally ourselves, meaning the Administration and then with the review of the Consultant Review Committee, and then ultimately Council has to review what our needs really are. He said in other words, a lot of the services we are getting, we are maybe just getting because it has always been that way. He said four years later, our City has changed and we may have different needs so that is why he proposed it.

Councilman Mitzel believed Councilman Toth had a good point in having a professional help prepare some of this information and he didn’t know how they go about doing that, but he was anxious to get something moving on this because he felt they should have it ready for Budget next year and implement it at the beginning of the fiscal year. He said he would suggest that they go ahead and start with this time line and that is part of what City Administration is looking into to bring in the professional to help with preparing of the evaluation of the needs.

Councilman Toth indicated he was not saying change the time line, and he was saying within the next 30 days, bring in a professional to start working on it. Councilman Mitzel felt that might be quite helpful.

Councilman Crawford said he concurred with Councilman Mitzel and he didn’t think they needed to get that involved to bring in a professional and he thought what they already have here is a starting point and they don’t need to reinvent the wheel. He said there are probably a lot of these, as he briefly skimmed through them, that need to be brought up-to-date and perhaps some things deleted and some things added that as Councilman Mitzel has stated, they have changed in four years and quite frankly, he didn’t know what kind of professional they would bring it to tell us what they need to expect from an attorney, from a planner, from a city engineer and it would seem to him he would have to bring in several professionals, if such a person exists, to tell us what they want in our City.

Councilman Crawford felt the Council members and the Consultant Review Committee and Administration already know what needs to be updated and using these documents as a base, he felt they could go from there with Councilman Mitzel’s time line, so he felt Councilman Mitzel’s proposal is more than adequate.

Councilman Toth said his point was well taken, but it seems like we just don’t have time to sit down and put this altogether in a reasonable period of time, and to sit down and discuss this with all the parties concerned, and put together all these formal documents and bring it back to Council to review, and he asked were they trying to make it for Budget time and it was stated yes. He said they still have Council rules that they haven’t even passed yet and yet we can be sitting around with this same document going through here for another 18 months before something gets passed.

Mayor McLallen then restated the motion:

To direct the City Administration to begin the process of re-updating formalized retainers in conjunction with the Consultant Review Committee.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Toth

MOTION CARRIED.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no discussion, and Mayor McLallen closed the Audience Participation.

1, Area wide Water Quality Board Meeting of 10-18-95 - Mitzel.

Member Mitzel said he submitted his report in the packets if anyone has any questions.

Member Mitzel asked whoever is on the Town Center Steering Committee to give an update on what is happening with that committee, and he heard something that they were reviewing the Street signs or something to that nature.

Councilman Schmid indicated street signs were not discussed at the last meeting.

Mayor McLallen said they would try to get that information out from that committee.

Councilman Toth discussed the Computer Committee and indicated Committee has submitted a request for some funds to operate in the next year and the newly-hired Budget Analyst has provided you with a memo and a letter from the Finance Director explaining the expenses and in addition to that, there is attached to the document spread sheet, and that is the same type of spread sheet that you received the last time, the funds being requested are listed in the second quarter of 1995 and the sum total of that is on the last sheet, $111,720.00. And those are all identified as to the line items where they are intended to be spent in accordance with the same layout that we did for the five-year projection.

There were no other Committee Reports.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Mayor McLallen indicated there were no Mayor and Council Issues.

MANAGER’S REPORT

Mr. Kriewall said he had nothing to report unless there are any questions.

Mayor McLallen said she would like to have the City Manager continue to follow up what the party said during the Audience Participation concerning the issue of the weighmaster and speed on Thirteen Mile. Mr. Kriewall indicated he has already sent a memo to the Police Department and he talked to this individual last week.

ATTORNEY’S REPORT

Mr. Fried said he had nothing to report.

Mayor McLallen said she had written down clarification of signs - someone during the meeting someone brought something up about signs and she wrote a note to ask him about it.

Mayor McLallen said it was political signs. Mr. Fried replied the Ordinance Enforcement Officers enforcing the ordinance in regard to the political signs.

1. Minutes of September 25, 1995.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

2. Re-Adopt Zoning Map Amendment No. 18.539 - South of Grand River Avenue east of Karim Boulevard from General business District (B-3) to Office Service District (OS-1) or any other appropriate district. (Approved at 10-02-95 however requires re-approval for publication requirements.)

Councilwoman Mason said she wanted to make sure it was noted she voted nay.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

To approve Re-Adopting Zoning Map Amendment No. 18.539.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Mason

MOTION CARRIED.

4. Final Approval of Lakewoods Preserve Concept Plan SP95-

Mayor McLallen said we have forwarded to the Consultants and the Attorney, Ms. Gray’s comments from the Homeowners Association.

Councilwoman Mason said she had pulled the item.

Councilman Toth said he also pulled this item

Mayor McLallen said and she had a note that Ms. Sarah Gray wanted her comments incorporated.

Councilman Toth explained the reason he pulled the item was because he wanted to make the Final approval of that subject to the City Attorney reviewing the comments made by Ms. Sarah Gray and have the City Attorney make the final determination on what that final concept plan should contain and he would make a motion.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Toth

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried has he had a chance to look at the letter and did he feel those issues have been addressed. Mr. Fried replied he felt those issues have been addressed, but he would review it again just to make sure they have been addressed and if there are any problems, it would be back to Council. He said but he did understand the motion does approve the final concept plan subject to his review of just this item.

Councilman Mitzel said some of the questions were similar to the ones he had asked and received response back from his department. Mr. Fried said he was sure that they have covered them, but he would just review them again.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

Mr. Gibbs said he just wanted to reaffirm that they feel people should be allowed to walk into this area and that was discussed last time and it was one of their greatest issues and they will discuss that with the Attorney, but it was his position people should be allowed to walk in there.

5. Approval MERS - Benefit E

Councilman Toth said he pulled this item for two reasons. He said one is the fact that it states in the material that he received that the increase in accrued liability was over $70,000. He said the other factor he has to consider is (1) He believed all of these should be turned in at Budget time and not sporadically throughout the year. He felt that some of these costs are rising at a much greater rate than the City is aware of, and he could not approve any of these increases until he had a total financial picture of where they stand with these increases, plus pension plans, plus some of the other factors to consider on this, so he could not support this.

Councilman Mitzel said he would ask Councilman Toth was he asking for the Big Picture.

Councilman Toth said he would like to know what the total costs would be projected for the next five years considering this type of an increase. He said this is a small increase at this time, but when they start laying out this pattern of increases as we go along, it’s a percentage increase which means as their retirement burden increases, the percentage amount will increase.

Mayor McLallen said following up on what Councilman Toth said, she has some concerns about this also and when she talked with the City Administration, the indication was that this is an annual item that they vote on. She said she shared Councilman Toth’s concerns of long-term projections, but then something else turned up that was interesting and if they choose not to approve this one and go through the review that Councilman Toth was requesting and next year decided it’s a good idea to approve this, then it is retroactive so next year they pay double.

Mayor McLallen said so she would like to have the information of where Councilman Toth is going, but she was not sure she wanted to put them in a position of having to repay this year next year, if they decide that the projections are okay. She said is a difficult thing to be facing.

Councilwoman Mason said where did she receive that information? Mayor McLallen said from City Administration.

Councilwoman Mason asked so what happens then?

Mr. Klaver said what happens is if you skip a year for example and don’t approve this and next year they consider a similar resolution, at that point in time, the increase will be 4%.

Councilwoman Mason said how long do they have to approve this?

Mr. Klaver said this schedule is established by MERS and every October they send up this to consider and it needs to be filed by December 1st to be considered for next year.

Councilwoman Mason said when did he receive it and Mr. Klaver said it was about ten days ago.

Mr. Klaver said so each year in November, they bring this to their attention and as the Mayor indicates, if you didn’t act on it this year at all, then next year if you were going to consider the inflationary increase, they go back and pick up the last two years for a total of 4%.

Councilwoman Mason said but they have until December to act on it, right and Mr. Klaver said that is correct.

Councilwoman Mason said so they don’t have a problem with Councilman Toth’s suggestion.

Mayor McLallen then said there is no motion at this time.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Schmid

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said he would just like to point out that as was stated, this is something that does come back to us every year, and instead of having a 2% increase happen automatically without any of their review or the discussion we just now had, it has been past Council practice that this comes back every year at this time for their okay or denial. He asked what happens if they denied it five years in a row and would it go back five years if they eventually approved it and Mr. Klaver replied it would.

Mr. Klaver also pointed out one additional thing because it is very germane to the information being requested. He said this is only for existing retirees and it is really considered a cost of living increase and therefore, there would be no other factors that would be increasing. He said if you didn’t approve this for four or five years, the pensions for those existing retirees would be absolutely the same, so there’s no other inflationary factors such as there would be for future retirees. He said really he didn’t know what other information we can bring to bear and everything they have in front them, and it has no bearing on the other pension programs for existing employees at all.

Councilman Crawford said so it is they either do it for these retirees or they never ever do it again, give them a cost of living increase, because then it would all be retroactive.

Mr. Klaver said that’s right.

Councilman Crawford said it is to continue what they have done in past years for the retirees with a 2% increase that comes of course once a year, or forget about it forever really.

Mr. Klaver said they may recall, in future years one of the other alternatives many communities have adopted an automatic escalator but Councils have previously not wanted to do that and they have wanted to see it every year and look at the numbers, which is what they have done that night.

Councilman Toth said he wanted to comment on this so called "see this every year." He said this is the first time he has seen this. He said this was not in the Budget this year and there is no line item in the Budget that says this 2% is listed in there. He said his concern was it has been brought up here and here we are going to spend almost $7,000 that was never put in as a line item in the Budget.

Mr. Klaver said he suspected that they have the money under their pension funds to cover this because of the amount but you are right and the timing is exactly the opposite of the Budget process and we are asked in November to approve it.

Councilwoman Mason said then she felt they should look at what Councilman Toth said and also look to see if that money is there and they have until December 1st and we have two more meetings before December 1st.

Mayor McLallen said there is a current motion on the table made by Member Crawford and supported by Member Schmid to pass as presented. She asked for further discussion and there was none.

Yeas (3-Crawford, Schmid Nays (3-Mason, Mitzel,

McLallen) Toth)

MOTION DEFEATED.

7. Approval to purchase one (1) Vehicle for the Water Department from Red Holman Pontiac/GMC through Oakland County Joint Purchasing in the amount of $12,864.55.

Councilman Toth said Items 7 and 8 are the same. He said they are purchasing two vehicles from the fleet prices and he has a couple of concerns and one is they are GM products to start with, which goes against the grain. He said he saw no prices from Ford or Chrysler in here for Chrysler vehicles or Ford vehicles. He said the other concern he has is the almost $400 for an AM/FM cassette radio for a truck. Mr. Kriewall said that got by him and they could take that right off.

Councilman Toth said that’s my concern so he couldn’t support either one of them without getting prices from the other two suppliers.

Mr. Kriewall said as a matter of fact in the next one, you can take out those $282.00 floor mats, that’s got to be a typo and remove that too. He said anyway, for County purchasing, there is no choice. He said they bid GM vehicles, however we have compared pricing with State purchasing which we do annually and the County Purchasing is always cheaper. He said as a matter of fact, we went to a MML seminar about nine months ago and it was pointed out by the County Purchasing Director, who was doing a seminar, that many counties throughout the State buy their vehicles through Oakland County Purchasing because they get the best price in the State of Michigan and they beat the State Purchasing Program. He said they have learned through experience that we cannot beat their prices even if we bid them ourselves. So we would recommend these purchases to City Council through Oakland County Purchasing with the two deletes he pointed out.

Councilman Crawford said he would concur with those deletes if they are not part of a total package. He said sometimes there’s little spiffs in there that are part of a total package and if you delete it, then you can’t get the package and it gets more expensive, so they should check that out before they totally delete it.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That one vehicle for the Water Department be purchased for $12, 582.50 which reflects the elimination of the floor mats, but taking into consideration Mr. Crawford’s comments.

Yes (5) No (1-Toth)

MOTION CARRIED

8. Approval to purchase one (1) 1/2 ton Pickup Truck for the Water Department from Red Holman Pontiac/GMC through Oakland County Joint Purchasing in the amount of $13,592.54.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

That approval to purchase the 1/2 ton Pickup Truck for the Water Department for $13,210.20 which reflects the change of eliminating the AM/FM Cassette but also taking into consideration Mr. Crawford’s comments.

Yes (5) No (1-Toth)

MOTION CARRIED

9. Approval of Budget Amendment 96-7 - General Administration - Capital Outlay (Data Processing) Account in the amount of $111,720.

Councilman Schmid said Councilman Mr. Toth likes line items in the Budget but he didn’t recall seeing this line item in the Budget, in fact, there was a lot of discussion at Budget time if the Budget didn’t pass, that it was indicated there would be no money available for such creatures as we are talking about here. He said what is strange is now we have come up with $11,000 and he was just curious where this came from.

Mr Kriewall said Mr. Les Gibson is here to represent that particular answer and it has to do with their newly identified Fund Balance adjustments.

Mr Gibson said that’s exactly right. He said they have completed the year-end to June 30 and they have looked at the Fund Balance after the year has been ended and after taking into consideration the 10% set aside for Fund Balance, as well as the amount that they planned on using for the current year Budget, there is approximately $500,000 left and that is where we are recommending to draw this money from.

Councilman Schmid said to Mr. Gibson, was he going to recommend at a later date to draw another several hundred thousand dollars from that for your data processing equipment? He said it wasn’t too many months ago that we sat here at this Council table for five or six hours trying to get a Budget passed and we couldn’t get it passed and we didn’t have any money for computers. He said finally, we did get it passed after eliminating several other items and a few months later we come up with $111,000 or $500,000. He said he has nothing against the computers, but it seems to him that those that were in favor of computers could have voted on it at the time the Budget was being passed and failed to do that and now we miraculously find the money. He said it was a little disturbing and a little difficult for him to understand why we spent so much time at Budget time if this really wasn’t a Budget problem.

Mr. Gibson said basically what it is when they estimate the carry-over numbers, he guessed it was their nature to be conservative so he ended up with a little more than what he expected and that’s how we are recommending that this be financed.

Councilman Schmid indicated he understood. He felt they have spent a lot of hours on the budget talking about this issue and also the fact that some like line items on the Budget but yet this item is not a line item and they were talking about $6,000 for a Retirement Fund when there is $111,000 for a computer neither of which were a line item Budget.

It was then,

Moved by Councilman Schmid

Seconded by Councilman Toth

That Budget Amendment 96-7, General Administration Capital Outlay $111,720 be approved.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel said if I heard the Finance Director correctly we now have $500,000 more than what we anticipated based on the year-end audit and that has been revised since last August. He said he didn’t recall seeing that information come forward.

Mr. Gibson said basically the numbers that we put out last August he felt they were in the range of $900,000 as available Fund Balance. He said there are many roll over items and we are just getting that information compiled and that’s going to bring this number down to the range of $500,000 so it will go back to the City Council recommending roll over items. He said for example, there is sidewalk money in there and there is a fire station in there, etc.

Councilman Mitzel said he has confused him because he thought he had said a few minutes ago that they have more money in the Fund Balance than they had anticipated at Budget time.

Mr. Gibson said that is exactly right but when we gave you a report back in August, at that time, we gave you a number and it was in the range of $900,000, more than we had anticipated as being available.

Mr. Gibson said now we are saying that when we come back to you once we get the roll over items back to you, there’s going to be about $400,000 worth of those items, so that will bring this original $900,000 that we reported to you back in August, down to about $500,000.

Councilman Mitzel indicated he had a concern similar to what Councilman Schmid expressed with this and he also had the same concern back at the MERS Benefit that we seem to get little glimpses of this stuff throughout, and not so much throughout the year because he understood that is the process of a Budget Amendment, but the Amendment here just states we are going to take $111,000 from the Fund Balance and put $111,000 into the Capital, but it doesn’t give them what the resulting balances are.

Councilman Mitzel felt he was not seeing the Big Picture and that is his concern. He understood the need for this and he had supported the need for this, but he also felt Council needs to see the Big Picture all the time and that is back in the MERS that was talked about which listed the Big Picture on the Pension and where they were going on this. He felt it would be nice to know what is left in the Fund Balance and where that is heading for the rest of the year, anticipating roll-overs and such.

Mr. Gibson said if they look at the second page of his letter, it gives you that number and if you adopt this amendment, we are saying that the available Fund Balance would be down to $477,695.

Councilman Mitzel asked but did it include the roll-over items that you are talking about and Mr. Gibson said yes it has taken that into consideration. Councilman Mitzel then thanked him.

Mayor McLallen said it has been moved and supported to pass the Budget Amendment and she asked Councilman Crawford if he had a question.

Councilman Crawford said he would support this and he felt it was something we should have addressed at Budget time and he felt it was needed and he has always supported the Computer Program, but he was just disappointed that they couldn’t find $6,000 to provide a cost of living benefit for our retirees. He said he would assume that based on the logic that some people voted not to provide that $6,000 because it wasn’t a line item, that they wouldn’t be voting for this either.

Councilwoman Mason said we didn’t say we were not going to vote for that, we just said we have until December 10th to do it, and that we wanted a little more information and that is all we said.

Mayor McLallen said it has been moved and seconded to support the Budget Amendment 96-7.

Yes (6) No (0)

MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

10. Approval of Adams Property Purchase in the amount of $355,200

Councilwoman Mason said she had asked for this item to be brought forward so she could vote no.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Mitzel

To approve the Adams Property purchase in the amount of $355,200.

(Voice vote) (5) (1) Nay-Mason

Mayor McLallen indicated this property was part of the Parks & Rec Bond Purchase.

15. Approval of Main Street Project Sanitary Sewer Change Order Number 1.

Councilwoman Mason requested this item to be brought forward so she could vote no.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

To approve Main Street Project Sanitary Sewer Change Order Number 1 - Item #15.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Mason

MOTION CARRIED.

16. Approval of Main Street Project Roadway Change Order Number 2.

It was,

Moved by Councilman Crawford

Seconded by Councilman Toth

To approve Main Street Project Roadway Change Order Number 2.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Schmid said he really wanted to repeat what Mr. Nowicki said about this that it seems to be becoming a consistent problem with their appraisals. He said you estimate these projects and do bores for the soil and then low and behold, we find out later that we have bad soil which didn’t show up. He said this was fairly consistent and it was a bit alarming that there was another $109,000 additional to this project because the bores did not show that we had some bad ground for the road that they were going to build the Main Street, and he hoped Mr. Nowicki comes back with something that would clarify why this happens a lot.

Mayor McLallen indicated it was moved by Councilman Crawford and Seconded by Councilman Toth to approve the Main Street Project Roadway Change Order Number 2.

Councilman Mitzel said he just wished to echo what Councilman Schmid said that Mr. Nowicki has reported to us that 1.5 million dollars of unbudgeted expenditures have been found on Decker Road, Eleven Mile Road, Wixom Road, Nine Mile Road, and Main Street all because of the same type of situation. He said he would strongly encourage the City Administration to keep us informed of the resolution of this issue.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Mason

MOTION CARRIED.

18. Approval of Budget Amendment 96-8 in the amount of $9,588 and the purchase of four (4) patrol vehicles from Campus Ford through State of Michigan Joint Purchasing in the amount of $74,116.

Mayor McLallen said she pulled this item because again it was timing after the approval of the Budget, which seems rather swift for a $10,000 change and upon further investigation of this, she understood we are due four cars from last year and this is to purchase four more cars for this year, and she would like the Police Department to give us their scheduling and her understanding is that by contract, the new cars come on line after the current cars achieve an 80,000 mileage, and she would like to see how that actually functions and how long does it take for a car to reach 80,000 miles and how soon do they anticipate that. She said she was not thrilled with the idea of having eight new cars that represents 50% of their fleet all at once.

Councilwoman Mason believed the information they received was that four of the cars are from last year and now will be delivered this year and what we are asking for now are cars that will not be delivered until next year so we will be getting four out of last year’s Budget and these will be first of 1996 and was that correct, and it was stated that was correct. She said so we are only replacing four that have hit 80,000 miles and by the time we get these four through this joint purchase, four more will have hit $80,000 miles.

Mayor McLallen said she would like to see the projections of when each and every car is due to be scheduled in and out of service.

It was then,

Moved by Councilwoman Mason

Seconded by Councilman Crawford

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel concurred with Mayor McLallen that he would like to see the schedule for basically the Vehicle Fleet Program and Mr. Kriewall said they could do that.

(Voice vote) (5) Yeas (1) Nay-Mitzel

MOTION CARRIED

ADJOURNMENT

It was,

Moved by Councilman Mitzel

Seconded by Councilwoman Mason

To adjourn the City Council meeting at 11:25 P.M.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

___________________________________ ____________________________________

MAYOR CITY CLERK

Date approved:_______________________