REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI

Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M.

PRESENT: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid

ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Edward Kriewall, City Attorney David Fried, City Clerk Tonni Bartholomew

Mayor McLallen presented a RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO KENNETH SCHELL - COMPUTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mayor McLallen introduced Ms. Martha Hoyer who would discuss the Taft Road Extension Route Determination Committee.

Ms. Hoyer explained the Committee was a Committee that did not take its job lightly and Mr. Tony Nowicki was their guide and the committee met every Monday from 4:00-6:00. She said after many sessions, they were pleased to submit their recommendations.

Ms. Hoyer indicated the committee reviewed 21 routes, some of which we even brought to the Committee themselves and with all information in hand, they proceeded to devise a quasi-scientific rating system for the 21 routes and they established four major criteria for evaluation which were function, the route that would provide the best relief for South Lake Drive; environmental and they analyzed the impacts of the routes on woodlands, wetlands, and habit. The third criteria was cost and cost estimates were supplied by JCK and tree replacement by Chris Pargoff, and the fourth was utility, the impact of land use, opening of new vistas and utility extension.

Ms. Hoyer said they then assigned a numerical weight to each criteria and individually proceeded with the rating of each of the 21 alternatives and fed them into the computer for calculation and a point value ranking.

Ms. Hoyer said the recommendations of the committee were that the new proposed Taft Road generally follow the corridor created by alternate alignments 2, 3, 6 and 7. She said the routes were very close together in the ranking process so they left it open to a corridor.

Ms. Hoyer said the Committee also recommends that a grade separation be constructed over the CSX railroad tracks and that West Road from the new roadway’s intersection to Pontiac Trail be reconstructed and resurfaced. The existing railroad crossing at West Road will be maintained presently and West Road will remain open to vehicular traffic until such time as improvements as noted in Section C can be completed. She said the City of Novi and City of Wixom in cooperation with private development, should reroute West Road to the south and connect to the Taft Road extension and the existing West Road crossing with the CSX railroad would then be eliminated.

Ms. Hoyer said that they feel it is essential that the City and developers work together and we realize it cannot be dictated but we feel with a close working relationship, developers can see that this is an advantage and not a disadvantage.

Ms. Hoyer said further they recommend that funds remaining in the 1990 roadway bond program be allocated for the new roadway design right-of-way acquisition and construction, with funding shortages to be provided out of the one mill road fund. The sale of Michigan Transportation Bonds to be repaid from the one mill road fund could complete this voter approved road program from which this project is the last, without a request for further millage.

Ms. Hoyer said they recommend that the naming of the new roadway be referred to the Street Naming Committee. We further recommend the appointment of a new committee charged with reviewing traffic operations, and to identify area control measures to further encourage the use of the new roadway and we go on to detail some of the concerns that the Committee would like to pass on to the new committee, such as shortening left turn signal phases at Decker and Novi Road and Decker and Thirteen Mile Road which we feel would then deter traffic from going over and using South Lake Drive.

Councilman Crawford said regarding Item #16, the Attorney asked to add, Pending Litigation, to the Executive Session. Mr. Kriewall also added to Item #16, Parkland Acquisition.

Councilman Mitzel said we also had a memo in our packet about drainage property acquisition, Item #16 and Mr. Kriewall said that would be under the Right-of-Way.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

James Korte referred to the Consent Agenda, Item #2, demolition of a structure at 151 Penhill, and thank God that dump can finally go and Mr. Saven has been very good and diligent and hopefully a few more will go.

Mr. Korte said regarding Item #7, the drainage easements, the tragedy about this whole point is there was never a particular problem there until the current owner bulldozed buildings down and filled in the canal. He said he didn’t know what the situation is, other than pay the man the money, however, we shouldn’t be paying it, we should have forced the man to undo what he did ten years ago.

Mr. Korte discussed Iva Street and said there is a change in venue in the area and there are three new owners out of the four properties and he would ask them to immediately expedite the process to begin vacating that street. The Veterinary Clinic is doing a beautiful job to the tune of probably 3/4 of a million dollars and they cannot finish their project with regards to elevations until they have that portion of the street. He said there will be no opposition to the vacating of this useless street so he requested them to get that in motion.

Tim Mitz, Garfield Road, expressed concern about the dewatering that occurred at 9 Mile and Garfield Roads and when they did the de-watering to put in the sewer system, they estimated well over 100,000 gallons of water was pumped out. No one considered the impact to the area, and on Garfield Road right now, you can see lakes half empty or empty all the way.

Mr. Mitz said the backlash has caused heavy sediment build-up in their water filters and any forward movement on any sewer system should have to be regulated. He said if they go forward with another section of the sewers and he loses his well, drinking water, furnace, etc., who is responsible at that point and who is going to replace the lakes on Garfield right now and there are three almost totally dry and the main one has dropped six feet. He felt before any more sewers go through, they should find out what happened so it doesn’t happen during the next project.

Diane Chippewa also had concerns about the dewatering. She referenced the proposed 9 Mile sewer project and discussed the plans presented by Seiber Keast & Associates. She hoped the City Council would approach the sewer project very cautiously.

Carlos Ruiz echoed the same concerns of the previous two residents. He said many of the residents are experiencing negative impacts on their septic fields, and he presented some pictures of the water they struggle with out there. He said the residents have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in their homes and they need utilities whether they are septic or sewer. He said they do have a very responsible piece of legislation or law with the woodlands/wetlands protection, and he had faith that whatever the plan is and if there is enough observation and comment going on, that they will do something that is justifiable and prudent but something has to be done. He asked whatever plan is put into place, that it be studied carefully concerning the impact on the trees, but primarily they need to consider the impact to their homes.

An unknown resident of Garfield Road discussed his lake levels. He said there was a 12 acre lake behind his house and now it is probably 6 acres and he is presently down 8 feet. He said people who have lived there for 20 years have never seen it this low. He questioned whether the dewatering of Nine Mile has caused this. He said half of the fish in the lake have been killed and the larger lake is about half its size right now.

Tom Steiner of Nine Mile Road discussed the sewer extension, Item #3 and also the Garfield problem. He said one issue the residents have had was what would the cost be to us for any of alternatives that have been specified. He said if this is to take place, something that should be considered is the fact that the people should be involved in the decision making process because it would impact their costs and impact their investments in their homes.

CONSENT AGENDA

CM-96-02-032: Motion by Crawford, seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10, as follows:

1. Approval of Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and School Board on November 13, 1995, Regular Meeting of December 4, 1995, Special Meeting of December 9, 1995, Special Joint Meeting of City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission of December 18, 1995.

2. Approval of initiation of Circuit Court action for the demolition of a structure located at 151 Penhill, Novi, Michigan.

3. Approval of Traffic Control Order 96-4, to repeal Traffic Control Order 90-52, No Right Turn on Red 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM.

4. Award bid for Computers for P.C. Tecknar in the amount of $19,283.

5. Revisions to Liquor License Ordinance - Request for approval to proceed with revisions to Ordinance Review Committee. Removed by Councilman Schmid

6. Approval of 1996 Tri-Party Program - Grand River Avenue Bridge.

7. Authorization to seek proposals for Novi Public Information Kiosk System. Removed by Councilman Clark

8. Approval of MDEQ Conservation/Preservation easement for Leavenworth Regional Storm Water Basin.

9. Award of Leavenworth Regional Storm Water Basin bid to low bidder, Jack Anglin Company, in the amount of $621,988.25. Removed Councilman Schmid

10. Novi Police Department - Wrecker Contract Approval.

TAFT ROAD EXTENSION ROUTE DETERMINATION

Mr. Kriewall felt the Committee did a very good job in studying the history of the project and the potential alternatives that could be employed. One element they need to bring to City Council’s attention and also to the attention of the Citizens Committee has to do with the eventual relocation of West Road to the south at the CSX track crossing and that was suppose to be a subsequent improvement as this project moved along and after the bridge was built and then Taft Road was extended.

Mr. Kriewall said one of the Committee members, Brad Bock, contacted him and indicated that he hoped that we could certainly pursue that part of the Committee recommendation because that was important to him and he lives on West Road. He looked into the matter and he met with the owners of the property in the City of Wixom to structure this kind of redirection and abandonment of West Road at the CSX tracks and that developer indicated they already have an approved plat and already have projects under construction in the City of Wixom and they indicated it would be impossible for them to consider that element of the project at this time.

Mr. Kriewall said there was considerable discussion by the Wixom City Council about a year or so ago to look into the potential of redirecting West Road at the CSX tracks and we were part of that planning process and he recalled that the City of Wixom all along did not want to see the closure of the West Road crossing of the CSX tracks and denied the developer’s earlier application to have a roadway through their project from West Road to the south, in other words, a redirection of West Road was denied to this developer earlier. Given an opportunity to pursue that particular design for his industrial plat, they came back and redesigned their plat with access to their development from Beck Road just south of West Road in the City of Wixom and the developer has indicated that that project is too far along and they have an approved plat and they will not be able to accommodate a re-route of West Road through their particular project.

Mr. Kriewall said his commentary would be does this have an impact on the Committee’s recommendation because if you look at their recommendation, that is like a third part of it or a second part of the puzzle, recognizing that they have identified a route for the Taft Road extension which includes a bridge crossing of the CSX tracks to accommodate the northern route, and the subsequent stage of their recommendation was to encourage abandonment of West Road, either side of the CSX tracks. He said as indicated earlier, that option was discussed some time ago but apparently the time has passed in the City of Wixom to exercise that kind of abandonment of West Road as we had envisioned earlier, so the City Council may want to refer that particular item of the recommendation back to the Committee before they take an action on approving the northern route, which we recommended.

Mr. Kriewall indicated we have recommended to City Council in memorandum that they approve the route as recommended by the Taft Road Committee and it was only last week that we found out in meeting with the developer that they did not believe there was any way of accomplishing the abandonment of West Road at this point in time.

Ms. Hoyer said this particular recommendation was added after the ranking of the routes and it was a proposal that was introduced after the corridor had already been determined and it was done as an added protection for West Road.

Mayor McLallen asked if her recommendation as presented still stands and Ms. Hoyer replied yes.

Mr. Kriewall said we reaffirm the recommendation and we just wanted the Council to be aware of that element of the Committee Report that apparently has been added on toward the end, but given that and the clarification by the Chairperson, Administration recommendation would be to confirm and approve the northern route determination as recommended in the Committee Report and if Council does that, we can commence negotiations on the remainder of the route to the south, and as Ms. Hoyer has indicated, there are several alternatives once you lock in on a northern route determination and if Council does that at this time, we can commence to hopefully finalize this route.

Councilman Mitzel said the recommendation from the Committee was for a corridor and it seems in your memo, you are asking for Council to lock in only the northern half of that as a specific half as opposed to a corridor. Mr. Kriewall said he meant corridor and there is really only one recommendation for the crossing of the CSX tracks off of the grade separation and essentially that is really all Council would be approving at this point.

Councilman Mitzel said it basically looks like the corridor all converges into the north, and all four routes converge into one, and Mayor McLallen indicated that Ms. Hoyer was pointing out what they have solidified and then the four ribbons at the bottom are the options depending upon what can be negotiated most successfully.

Ms. Hoyer said all four of these come off that northern portion.

Councilman Mitzel said he had a question specifically concerning that northern portion and maybe Mr. Nowicki could respond and the concerns were that these alignments look very similar to the ones that were presented to Council several months ago whereby grade separation wasn’t being considered and crossings were taken at right angles to the track and his question was now that we are considering a grade separation, does the crossing have to be at a right angle and could that general corridor be further refined to increase the efficiency of the route.

Mr. Nowicki said he would still recommend that any crossing, be it a separated crossing, or be it an at-grade crossing be at a 90 degree angle to the tracks and you minimize the length of your bridge and all other problems associated with that and we have looked at the various alignments and we believe that is the best one.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch said this is recommending an overpass and what are the relative merits of over versus under. Mr. Nowicki explained if you go under the tracks, there are some problems associated with that as well as over the tracks, and it depends upon the availability of right-of-way and if you go below grade, you would have storm water pumping stations ground water problems associated with that, and he believed Mr. Kriewall recommended that we evaluate both of the alternatives and that would be done and we would evaluate the costs of going above the tracks, versus below the tracks and take a look at our annual operations for pump stations should we need it for ground water, storm water, and come back with an economically viable recommendation.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Kriewall to give a tentative timetable to the construction and completion of this project. Mr. Kriewall said the Road Bonding Program is really the end of the line in terms of funding and the most recent expenditure to the Road Bonding Program was the acquisition of the Beck West property, which is necessary for the construction of this roadway.

Mr. Kriewall said the available funding is about nil and even though there may be some bonding potentials associated with transportation bonds, which we might be able to float, Council is fully aware that our continuing one mil road program has been strapped for years and this community periodically has to recognize our transportation needs and consider a bond issue.

Mr. Kriewall said we have been talking about a third major bond issue for several months now and it would appear that they would have to include the construction of this roadway within the next major road bonding program, which would be hopefully presented to the community in the November Election.

Mr. Kriewall hoped they would have enough funding in the one mill road fund to fund the continuation of this project so it does not slow down and our plan would be to continue the route determination and we would have to negotiate the southern portion of the route. The approval of the committee recommendation this evening indicates there are at least 3-4 alternatives in the lower portion of this route that we would be negotiating for right-of-way and attempting to find the best and most economical route for completion of the project.

Mr. Kriewall hoped they could complete and finalize all of the necessary right-of-way acquisition and complete engineering design prior to the November Election, and the bond issue, if Council should approve that, and if we get all permits and right-of-way determined this year, we should be able to build this project in the Spring of 1997 and be completed in December of 1997.

Councilman Cassis asked if we could have the cost run-downs to date for the design work that has been done and Mr. Creel said yes.

Councilman Schmid was disappointed with the route and was somewhat surprised by the outcome and he felt the report leaves out many of the criteria. He said this item has been discussed for at least five years. He felt they should change the name from Taft Road to Administration Road or some other name.

Councilman Schmid said they don’t know the cost of this road and it has always been felt if you go over or under a railroad track, it is cost prohibitive. He felt the new Beck Road Interchange would allow for all the traffic that would ever want to go south or north on Beck Road so why do they need another Taft Road within a few hundred feet of there. He said there was no money for this project and it has to be voted on and before he asks the citizens of Novi to vote for a project or another case where it might go nowhere, he would like the committee to tell him the reason that they decided to put this road so far west.

Ms. Hoyer indicated in investigating a general route, environmental and cost-wise, it was absolutely impossible. When we learned that CSX ballasts those tracks every two years or they would be underground, we knew that a road running parallel to the tracks would never work and we would have maintenance that would be astronomical.

Ms. Hoyer said the feeling of the Committee was that there was no one in this community who would vote for a bond issue of 13-20 million dollars to pay for this small stretch of road. Councilman Schmid asked the cost estimate of this new road with the railroad crossing, and Ms. Hoyer replied 4 million dollars, and it was 1 1/2 million dollars for the grade separation.

Councilman Schmid asked why not just go down Beck Road and Ms. Hoyer said she didn’t see the Beck Road improvements in the immediate future and anything you read tells you there are no dollars and we can’t wait 10-15 years. We have a new subdivision being built at South Lake and West Road that is going to put probably 1200 more cars on the road and we can’t wait.

Councilman Schmid said then the primary reasoning was that Beck Road may never be done or it would be awhile and Ms. Hoyer added the temporary measures are working to decrease accidents, but by no means does anyone still want to use that intersection if they can avoid it.

Gary Zok said regarding function, everything east of the tracks won and it was exactly as Ms. Hoyer stated that the cost was just outrageous and another problem was with the environment and all the environmental consultants were telling them that area is way too sensitive and we knew that and on top of that, the cost made it look impossible. He said they were told there was probably little likelihood that the DNR would let it go through.

Councilman Schmid commended the committee and said they did an outstanding job but he was very disappointed in the location and it should be east of the railroad tracks and he couldn’t support it.

Councilwoman Mutch felt an alternative point of view is that when other roads have been constructed, sometimes mistakes are made or things have greater weight at that time. It seems in this case, people most familiar with the area say that the environment in which they live is important enough to them that they are willing to take their chances on persuading the rest of the City that this is an environmental asset not to be disturbed and consequently it may cost more, but they are saying it will cost even less just to save that area.

Councilwoman Cassis said there was no question this was motivated by need for traffic relief, but she had concerns with the eventual outcome.

Vote on CM-96-02-033: Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch

Nays: Schmid

Mr. Kahm said he received approval from Council in April of 1994 for site plan and rezoning of property to RM-1 with a PD-1 Option which allowed for the development of this kind of facility. He received two six-month extensions and the second one will expire April of this year and we have appeared before the Planning Commission last month and on January 17th received positive recommendations for approval of the site plan.

Mr. Kahm said they have downscaled the project from 20 acres to about 13 1/2 acres and the 6 1/2 acres that were removed were the ones on the easterly portion of the property that did previously have 30 patio units and they were single level with attached garages. He said it was a joint mutual decision between himself and the Taubman Company who had future plans for the property and we mutually agreed to exclude that property from our development.

Mr. Kahm said when he received approval in 1994, we had some variances to the site plan that we needed because we didn’t meet all the requirements of the PD-1 Option and we have those same variances that we are requesting for Council’s positive recommendation to the ZBA this evening, and they did receive approval from the Planning Commission for the variance of the 45 degree orientation to the property line because of the unusual configuration of the property line.

Councilwoman Cassis asked about sidewalks and Mr. Kahm said there would be sidewalks through the development.

Councilman Schmid was disappointed that the 30 patio houses were eliminated and he asked why and Mr. Kahm explained we didn’t have a great deal of control over the loss of that property and we had to determine what was the optimal use of the balance of the 13 1/2 acres. We felt the pressing needs in the Novi community for senior citizen housing were the independent apartments and the assisted living.

Councilman Schmid said he couldn’t have built them on the land then and Mr. Kahm said that was correct.

Councilman Schmid said to Mr. Rogers they have ended up with strictly multiple type living quarters for the aged group and for the independent living and Mr. Rogers said yes and it was all central management, central loading and unloading, integrated sidewalks with joint shared parking. He said it was a convalescent facility and also a multiple family facility.

Councilman Schmid asked if they increased the units and Mr. Kahm said they previously had 55 assisted living units on a single story and 120 apartments and 30 patio units for a total of 205 with six more acres. He said now they have 230 and what they have in addition are single room assisted living units and they are small.

Councilman Schmid said Mr. Rogers has recommended the length of this building be allowed to go to the ZBA and what does the Ordinance say the length of the building should be and Mr. Rogers said 180 feet and it was going to be 653 feet and it would be 4 times the length that would be permitted and has been permitted in the conventional multiple family development. He said the previous plan that was approved was 584 feet. Councilman Schmid felt that was extremely long. Mr. Rogers said they were positioned in an area where no other buildings are likely to be proximate.

Councilman Schmid asked if there were any drawings of this facility and Mr. Rogers said he had a packet of materials and Councilman Schmid said it scares him to think about a 600 plus building. Mr. Rogers said they have broken up the facade and the facade would be all brick with a gable roof and a colonial appearance.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kahm if there was any way to break this up to make it less lengthy and Mr. Kahm said the problem is the critical component of this facility, which is to interlink it for services and we tried everything they could. There are many ins and outs with this building that it wouldn’t appear to be as massive as the 653 foot number sounds.

Councilman Clark concurred with comments of Councilman Schmid concerning the length of the building, but would still support it.

CM-96-02-034: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a Revised PD-1 Option, Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Revised Phasing Plan and Revised Wetland Permit contingent on all Consultant comments and recommendations.

Councilman Mitzel asked about the ZBA variances and were the variances concerning the frontage on the public street and the setbacks from the previous plan still valid for this one or do they have to go before ZBA for all and Mr. Fried said they would have to go to the ZBA. Councilman Mitzel said the motion is subject to the ZBA variances also and it was stated yes. Councilwoman Cassis said in the motion it was evident that in supporting the consultant’s comments and recommendations, therein lies the recommendation to go to the ZBA.

Vote on CM-96-02-034: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Kriewall explained the residents along the Nine Mile and Garfield area have expressed continuing concern over the sensitivity of the woodlands and treed areas along Nine Mile and dewatering concerns have been raised also and the impact of sanitary sewer construction in general.

Mr. Kriewall said residents in that particular area are about ready to circulate a petition for sanitary sewer because of some lingering or continuing concerns over septic tank utilization in that area.

Given that, we are at crossroads that typifies Novi’s historic approach to projects and that is using the developer’s money and that is what is being proposed in this instance. He said the developer is proposing to fund a study and analysis of four sanitary sewer services in this area and that particular study has been priced out at approximately $15,000 by JCK & Associates. It appears there might be an opportunity here to work cooperatively between the development interests in the area and the residents in the area to design a project that is both environmentally sound in terms of the existing water tables in the area and protection of the existing woodlands along Nine Mile Road.

Mr. Kriewall said given the high water table in the vicinity of Nine Mile and Garfield Road, this is an area that would not be suitable for septic tank development and even though there are existing septic tanks in the area, given the high water table, it would appear that the availabilities of sanitary sewer would eventually and ultimately be beneficial to everyone in that area.

Mr. Kriewall recommended to City Council that authorization be provided to draft an agreement, wherein the developer would fund the cost of studying the potentials for sanitary sewer for this area with the idea that a payback agreement could be devised in the eventuality that sanitary sewer service is approved. He would recommend a motion be approved to direct the City Attorney to prepare an agreement that would come back to City Council that would describe the developer funding of this particular study.

Councilman Clark said if we agreed to this and Mr. Harris reimburses the City for the study, it does not automatically mean that later someone is going to come in and because of that request, downsize lots with hundreds of houses. He said he would not support that.

Councilwoman Mutch said it seems to be simple that we either accept the offer to have Mr. Harris fund the study by JCK which will take a look at not just servicing his property/the property under his ownership but that whole area or if Mr. Harris is taken at his word in terms of his letter, his alternative to service his own property is that he will pursue a sewer treatment plant that services only his property, so he has two options.

Councilman Schmid concurred with Councilman Clark as to the zoning and that is at least master planned one acre lots and that is the intent of the City today to maintain that acreage out there, and Mr. Harris perhaps plans on building one acre lots but it is a foregone conclusion once you get sewer capacity, there will be extreme pressures to lower the density.

Councilman Schmid said each of these lots if they are one acre large, can live with septic tanks and septics are cheaper than paying a sewer fee every quarter. He felt it could be a win-win situation because the developers are fronting up $15,000 approximately. He concurred with Councilman Clark’s comments regarding density.

Councilman Schmid said they have to develop a timetable for sanitary sewer extension west of Beck Road and determine number of taps needed for future development, in other words, you have to have a number of taps in order to pay for the pumping stations, which we know are expensive to maintain and develop, so he was wondering if the number of taps that would be feasible would not pay for the system and what would happen then. He felt they need to determine cost of pumping stations and examine existing septic system users required to tap the sewers and if this sewer goes in, those living on 9 Mile Road and Garfield will have to tap into the project. He said he would vote for this but reluctantly.

Councilwoman Cassis said the residents have shared some concerns about what is happening in that area and they requested we move cautiously. She said with the information tonight, she could not make any more of a determination than for the attorney to draw up some papers but she would like to take an opportunity to share what she would be looking for when this comes back to us.

Councilwoman Cassis said one thing would be Mr. Harris’s intentions with the property and his interest and his timetable for development and whether or not his land will perk as it is currently laid out on Napier Road. She would also like to see a study brought back from Mr. Nowicki’s office regarding the problems that were documented tonight by the residents and which we have a letter in our packet and she would like some feedback as to what were the causes of this situation and did development cause this.

Councilwoman Cassis said back in September or October of 1993, a former City Council commissioned a $15,000 study by JCK to do a sewer capacity study west of Beck Road and she would like to see a copy of that report and see how it fits into what we are looking at tonight. She would also like to see a copy of the sanitary sewer master plan and perhaps whether or not there was ever a route looked at to go all the way out to Napier Road by way of Nine Mile Road, and whether this was considered to be an extension as part of the whole Master Plan for sewer/service in the City of Novi and how this might fit in.

Councilwoman Cassis said she would like to see some information as to how it might fit into the land use Master Plan because several questions have been raised tonight and appropriately so regarding density and the City’s philosophy of acreage development. She would also like to ask Mr. Fried if the question that was raised by Councilman Clark can be included and that is an understanding of the City’s Master Plan for Land Use and density and would that in any way be something that would be involved in a contractual understanding.

Mr. Fried said are you just saying with Mr. Harris or wherever the sewer project may go and Councilwoman Cassis said both and Mr. Fried said probably with Mr. Harris because he is going to be a signatory to the contract, but as to the others it probably can’t be done.

Councilwoman Cassis said she would like to see some reference to what was discussed here that night and with those concerns she could support moving this on to the attorney.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Fried if he would also be noting that this agreement in no way obligates the City to build any project, and Mr. Fried said absolutely and he would put in there sole discretion of the City.

Mayor McLallen asked the time frame and Mr. Kriewall said we could have it back in two weeks, the meeting of February 26, 1996.

Councilwoman Mutch said the questions she asked earlier were in no way advocating any direction at all in terms of whether there should be a sewer line or there shouldn’t be a sewer line or whether there should be septic or there shouldn’t be septic. She said she had just asked questions as to what is a vote in favor of this motion obligating us to and Councilman Mitzel took it one step further with his comments just now, so the only thing she is supporting, despite other’s interpretations of her remarks, is that we take advantage of having an opportunity to have $15,000 worth of information provided to this Council so that we can make a decision on what we will do at some future date, not irregardless of what any property owner, including Mr. Harris, decides to do in the interim.

MICHIGAN JOBS TEAM LOAN APPLICATION - AVL NORTH AMERICA - RELOCATION FROM NOVI TO PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP.

Mayor McLallen said this is a firm that has previously been located in Novi and they were unable to find a new site in our community and are moving to the Township of Plymouth. Using funding from the Strategic Fund, they must have support from the City as they are taking more than 20 employees from that community.

Mayor McLallen said that Planning & Community Development has stated no objections to the approval of this application and notes that AVL did an extensive site search within the City of Novi and determined that the move to Plymouth Township was a more appropriate business decision for their company.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if there was a representative present from AVL and there was no one present. She then asked Mr. Wahl if AVL came to him seeking information about relocation and Mr. Wahl replied no and the first they heard about this was Monday, January 29th.

Councilwoman Cassis asked how did he hear about it, and Mr. Wahl replied he was given this letter and asked to look into the matter because they needed formal action and prepare a response.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Wahl if he was aware of how a loan application works from Michigan Jobs Team Loan and Mr. Wahl replied not in any detail, but he felt it was similar to other programs where companies that move from one community to another, there is a certain sign-off that is part of that process. He said although he is generally familiar with this particular program, he is presuming that is one of the actions that is required in order for this approval to move forward.

Councilwoman Cassis said then it requires Council approval/recommendation and Mr. Wahl said yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said she was sorry to see AVL North America leave Novi, especially when Novi desires to not only keep industrial uses, but enhance and expand that role and the work that has come out of the Economic Development Corporation of the Chamber of Commerce. She really wished they had come to the City to see if they could possibly get some insight or workability as to where to relocate in Novi. She felt they had a very large store of property within all of the tri-county area zoned for this purpose.

Councilwoman Cassis said she had concerns that maybe the City did not really do a full enough job. She said not only are they taking jobs with them, but this is a loan application that they could have also perhaps applied here in Novi to a site and a relocation.

Councilwoman Mutch said she too is disappointed there is no representative here or that a representative did not contact someone in the Planning Department. She said there may be a lot of reasons why this company made this move and she would like to know those reasons.

Councilwoman Mutch said there were a lot of questions that could help us, maybe not in finding them a place, but to help in attracting businesses that are looking at any number of cities in which to locate and Novi could put themselves in a more competitive position to attract those. She would hope there is some way even after this vote to have some communication with AVL North America telling us why they chose to move.

Mr. Cohen responded he had about a half hour discussion with the Vice-President of Finance, and the main problem was the price of land. He said they had looked at the Guardian Industries building but that was too big, and they couldn’t make the numbers crunch right and they just decided to move on.

Mr. Cohen said they also expressed to him that they did not contact our department and had some Realtors working for them and that the site with frontage on M-14 was the place to be, so they had to move on.

Councilman Clark concurred with comments of Councilwoman Cassis and Mutch. He questioned why there was no contact earlier with the Building Department and he was disappointed, given the numerous existing sites and clean sites of industrial property available in the City of Novi, that Novi couldn’t come up with something workable for them.

Mr. Kriewall shared everyone’s concerns in terms of wanting to keep people like this in the community, however, he felt based on the report that is before City Council, AVL has explored alternative sites in this community and has made a decision to leave and they have committed to leave, so he didn’t think it was fair to penalize this company that has been an employer in this community by extending action on this particular item, and he didn’t feel that was any way to treat them given that they have already made a decision to leave. He felt Council should act on this, this evening.

Councilman Mitzel said this issue has come up in the past, and Mr. Pope used to advocate that this Council should adopt some sort of policy on whether or not we agree with allowing companies to get tax breaks to move from our community to another community or not and he felt that was appropriate for us to look at, so we could inform people ahead of time that we either support this type of tax break or we don’t.

Councilman Mitzel would ask that this current Council consider debating this issue at some future date, not specific to this item, but general policy, so maybe we could set some direction for our City Administration and let people within the community know our position.

Mayor McLallen commented that part of our problem is that we are unfamiliar with the requirements of these strategic loan applications and she would ask the Administration to bring forward to the Council what our options are under this Program and what could we have done and what can we do in the future.

Mayor McLallen said we only see these after the barn door is open and the potential person is gone. She said they have no pro-active way to address the challenges within our community and this is not the only company that is leaving our community and there are a number of companies who are not finding adequate space. We tend to deal with new development and this community has had a luxury in the past of not having to look at re-development. She said as we have been successful, many of our industrial smaller shops have become successful and yet we have made no place for them to stay and we don’t know what their needs are.

Mayor McLallen said she would not support the motion to hold them up. They are gone. She is familiar with Metro West, and quite frankly, it is a state of the art industrial community and we have nothing like it in Novi to offer them.

Mr. Kriewall said we do not have an inventory of industrial properties such as what exists along M-14 and the only project we have in town that has available substantial lots is troubled in terms of site plan approval. He said if you look up and down the Grand River Corridor, just about every site that is zoned industry has an existing building on it or an old construction company, etc. He said there is not a lot of vacant industrial in this community with utilities and road improvements that are ready to go.

Councilwoman Cassis was disappointed no representative was here. She didn’t mean to hold them up but she has questions and the City wants to work with companies that are within the City of Novi and know what the problems are. Councilwoman Cassis felt at the very least we would want to open a dialogue with these people before they exit. She said she would support the motion.

Mr. Fried said under the Strategic Funds Act, the municipality has 30 days upon receipt of the application to reject the application or to vote against the application and if you wait until the 26th, the 30 days will have expired and your objection will be no good. Mr. Fried said if there is an objection, the majority of the committee can still adopt it, but they wouldn’t receive their objection unless they vote on their objection before the 30 days expired.

Mayor McLallen said their letter addressed to us was dated January 24th, so 30 days would be February 24th and unfortunately we are not meeting before that time.

Councilman Schmid said he could not support the motion and if they want to leave, that is fine with him. He said it was citizen’s money and that is why they have to come to Council, and they are leaving our community and we are losing jobs and that is unfortunate. He didn’t feel they should hold them up.

Councilman Crawford questioned the City Attorney, Section D at the bottom of the page, where it says, if we object within 30 days, the Board has to vote on the issue, and if we do not object, then it just happens automatically and Mr. Fried said correct.

Councilman Crawford shared Councilwoman Cassis’ concerns and said it looks like it will happen one way or the other, but he felt they ought to file an objection just because of the process that happened and the fact that they didn’t contact us and Novi didn’t have the opportunity to work with them and maybe we would have found something for them or at least established a procedure to build on, that would have solved this problem in the future.

Councilman Crawford felt at a minimum, they should object to it and he would offer that as an amendment but it seems a radical departure from the suggestion to postpone.

Mayor McLallen said the motion on the floor now is to postpone this issue until February 26 so that a representative from AVL could be present.

Councilwoman Mutch felt it was very likely that an action to postpone will be seen by AVL the same way Mr. Kriewall appeared to see it, which is as a punitive thing and as Mr. Fried pointed out, if we don’t vote to object to it, which she would not support, then it will happen, and if we don’t by a vote, register an objection within 30 days, then it will be approved.

Vote on CM-96-02-036: Yeas - Cassis, Clark, Mitzel

MOTION FAILED

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford also added he was taking into mind there was no representative here, that they did not work with our community development department or EDC, and other discussion items that night. He said he would like to see those items in a letter of objection. He said as he clarified before he made that motion, objection or not, it will probably pass by majority of the board, but he felt they need to file the objection.

Councilman Schmid asked if we object to this, then where does it go and Mr. Fried said it goes to the board. Councilman Schmid asked doesn’t the impact of Novi objecting, have some weight as far as the financing. Mr. Fried said it has some weight as to whether they are going to get the loan or not and the weight would be on the reasons why you are objecting, and he felt Councilman Crawford pointed out that the resolution should contain the reasons why the objection is being made and that is the weight the board will give to it.

Councilman Crawford said we need to object because they are removing employment, and beyond that, they haven’t worked with the City and were not here that night. He felt if we do not object, it is an automatic done-deal and if we object and this board takes that letter under consideration and votes on it, if they had a negative vote on that, then maybe the company would come before us and perhaps answer those questions raised and then we may give a positive recommendation.

Mayor McLallen said the motion was to send a notice of objection on the application of AVL to leave the community, stating the reasons for Novi’s objections as: removal of employment, the lack of representation at this meeting to discuss their position and the lack of actually working with the City to find alternatives for them within the City.

Vote on CM-96-02-037: Yeas: Crawford, Cassis, Clark, Mitzel

Nays: McLallen, Mutch, Schmid

Mayor McLallen said they would take this discussion and if we have time, to put it down for Matters for Council and Mayor Issues, and it seems that many issues were raised that night that the Council may want to take from this and send to Administration.

MID-DECADE CENSUS:

CM-96-02-038: Motion by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt a Resolution authorizing a Mid-Decade Census.

Councilman Mitzel said they have to correct the date on the resolution and it says February 26th.

Vote on CM-96-02-038: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilman Mitzel said their Resolution sheet shows that there was originally $7500 budgeted for this and the proposed cost is $40,000 so why aren’t we asking for $32,500 for the amendment.

Mr. Kriewall explained the Budget amount of $7,500 is for General Consulting and he believed in checking with Mr. Klaver and other staff, they have pretty well used that up at this point in time.

Mayor McLallen asked the time frame and if all of this is approved, when will the process begin and when will they expect the end and Mrs. Bartholomew stated they must see the results in June of 1996.

Vote on CM-96-02-039: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilman Mitzel said the Resolution doesn’t give a not-to-exceed figure and could we place, not to exceed $40,000, in the Resolution because that is what we are budgeting and that is what the estimates are based on.

Mr. Kriewall didn’t feel they want to do that because they may find more people than they think out there and they would have to come back and possibly do another Budget memo, but the problem is we have estimates of population growth of anywhere from 40,000-48,000 and his guess is about 40,000-42,000. Councilman Mitzel said he just didn’t like approving a Resolution with an open ended amount of money in it and would feel more comfortable having a not-to-exceed figure

CM-96-02-040.1 Motion by Mitzel, Seconded by Cassis, MOTION WITHDRAWN: To amend the Resolution to add not to exceed $40,000.

Mr. Kriewall asked do they quit counting people then when they spend $40,000 and what did they want to do about that and Mr. Fried explained the original Resolution authorized $40,000 for this project and if it exceeds $40,000, they would have to come back and get an amendment to that resolution, so the amendment being made now is just duplicating what the original Budget Resolution does, he believed, and Councilman Mitzel indicated he would withdraw his amendment.

Vote on CM-96-02-040: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Klaver explained this contract will cover nine members of the Police Department and it represents two lieutenants and 7 sergeants, six of whom are on the Road Patrol and one of which is assigned to the General Service Bureau. He said as Council is aware, the most difficult aspect of these negotiations deal with the City’s proposal to eliminate the 12-hour shifts, which was predicated to some extent by the Arbitration Award that was granted earlier this year by an arbitrator that governed the conversion of the Patrol Officers from 12-8 hour shifts and obviously we were anxious to have the supervisors and employees on the same basic schedule.

Mr. Klaver stated this represents a compromise between the original position of the City and that of the Union and a tentative agreement was reached four days prior to beginning the arbitration process. He is particularly pleased with the fact that at Council’s direction, we were able to extend this contract out and this does go back 2 1/2 years approximately at this point, so it would have expired in less than 6 months had there not been an extension, so the extension to a five-year agreement was a worthwhile change.

Mr. Klaver said there was one issue that we brought up previously in a memo that he would like to cover in some detail. He said it dealt with a proposal to include in this agreement an understanding that when there is a vacancy in the Road Patrol Sergeants Schedule, that we will fill that vacancy with a sergeant and heretofore we had upgraded a police officer who then becomes an acting sergeant and he would like to point out to Council and to the public that most of the hours fall outside the normal business hours from Monday-Friday when we have other administrative employees present. He said 74% of the time we have a Road Patrol Sergeant as the highest ranking officer, in essence in charge of the department. He felt it was fine because their sergeants are long-term employees and have been very well trained and are very capable supervisors.

Mr. Klaver said however in cases of illness or unexpected absence, when one of them is not present, it is possible that they may be upgrading a police officer with no more than 4-5 years of experience who truly is not for the period of one day going to become a supervisor such as an experienced sergeant would be, so he felt that was an important change in this contract. He said there would, of course, be a cost associated with that, however, in this case it is an expense that is well worthwhile to guarantee that they do have that level of supervision at all times.

CM-96-02-041: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the COAM Contract as proposed by Administration.

Mayor McLallen asked if they had a cost figure on what the effect of this contract is. Mr. Klaver said basically there are no other changes other than a very minor one concerning the dental coverage, so it would be the percentages in terms of the salary adjustments, which is 4% in the first year, and 3% in each of the next four years and that, in essence, would be the costs and there are no other changes. Mayor McLallen asked if the retroactive years have been set aside and covered in the current Budget and Mr. Klaver replied yes.

Vote on CM-96-02-041: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilman Clark said there was a comment relative to not having the title commitment as to all of the lots at that time and has that come in and Mr. Fried said it hasn’t come in as yet, but before this goes out, he would have it..

Mayor McLallen indicated there was a memo from Tonni Bartholomew noting that we had missed a person for an appointment to the Historical Commission and he is the only applicant for the Commission and she would like to amend the Council Action Agenda, Part II to add Item #18, Historical Commission Appointment, with the Council’s permission..

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - PART II

Mayor McLallen indicated the ownership of Grady’s was changing but nothing else about the operation is and with the ownership changes, we have to transfer the license.

Mr. Carlin asked for approval from the City for the transfer of ownership. He said the organization just simply took over everything that was there and even the people that worked for Brinker that were operating at the home office, were now Quality Dining employees, so there is really no change whatsoever. He said there wouldn’t be any changes in the menu or operation and it was simply a stock transfer from one public corporation to another.

Councilman Schmid asked if Brinker was taking over Grady’s or Grady’s taking over Brinker, and Mr. Carlin explained that Brinker International Inc. is the current owner through its subsidiary and it sold all 40 of the Grady Restaurants nationwide to Quality Dining Inc. Subsidiary of Grady’s American Grill Restaurant Corporation, so it is a totally different owner than what is currently the owner of the restaurant.

Mr. Fried explained the first amendment is regarding the Preamble and that is being amended because Judge Mackenzie had some comments so we are just amending it and it doesn’t change the Ordinance at all. He said the second amendment relates to flags in the Town Center District and there are a variety of site amenities required to advance the downtown urban theme and among those are flags and this amendment is to cover where they are an integral part of the approved streetscaping and landscaping plan. Mr. Fried said the third change relates to the use of mounted banners and this would limit them and place restrictions on them.

Mr. Fried said all have been before the Ordinance Review Committee and the Ordinance Review Committee has sent them onto Council for their consideration.

Councilman Schmid asked who were the members of the Ordinance Review Committee and the Mayor replied at that time it was Councilman Mitzel, Councilwoman Mason and herself and then members of Staff. He asked the rationale for changing the Ordinance for the flags and the banners.

Councilman Mitzel explained the flags came up and the focus was in the Town Center Area and also there was some discussion about industrial companies that get their quality award flags which they wish to display and how would that fit in with their current Ordinance. It was felt after discussion, there was probably no way that we could write the Ordinance to allow a fourth or fifth flag for a quality award or some award, but there was some talk about exploring the possibility that if in the Town Center Area or along a certain road within the City there was a uniform theme where not just one or two sites put out flags along the road but it was carried for a half mile or a mile through the area, would there be some uniformity towards those types of flags.

Councilman Mitzel said the Committee asked the City Attorney to look at exploring that option and then bring it back to the full Council for discussion and input and the three of them on the Committee felt the whole Council should have input on this before fine-tuning it.

Councilman Mitzel said the banners had been brought forward apparently because there had been requests from various people to have banners up in their parking lot areas and some have come before Council and it was felt to bring this also before the full Council for their input.

Councilman Schmid said regarding the flags, he could see maybe the Town Center area if you have a theme, which might have some merit, but he was concerned they were opening this up to every commercial development which could put up 24 flags and make up the fact that it is a theme. He wondered how they would control this.

Councilman Mitzel said at the Committee level, we didn’t discuss the detail of the language and this is the first time he has ever seen the proposed language. We just talked about the idea that if there would be a uniform theme adopted, such as in the Town Center area, then parcels could participate in that uniform theme and that was the gist of the conversation at the committee level. He said the way it was written right now, it just says flags are a part of a landscaping plan.

Mayor McLallen expanded on that and said it indicates, "when they are an integral part of an approved plan of streetscaping and landscaping." She felt they could add more language here, but it was making an attempt to say that this is part of a whole look that has to be approved and that look will include all of these elements, streetscape, landscape, decorative lighting, paving, benches, planters, and landscaping, so she felt that would preclude an individual store from just lining the front of their shop with flags.

Mr. Fried said when it comes back to Council, we will have inserted in there a section of the Zoning Ordinance that requires this so it would be even more limited as to what that means when we talk about improved plan of landscaping and streetscaping.

Councilman Schmid felt there needs to be some work done on this Ordinance. Mr. Fried said that is why it is before the Council for their ideas and what they want to control.

Councilman Crawford asked if the Committee discussed a limitation on the size of the first initial flag allowed and it looks like any additional flags or two more additional flags that are allowed have a restriction of 24 square feet but what about the first flag. He then said if this was going to the Planning Commission, those comments should be noted as the Commission might want to deliberate on the size of that first initial flag.

Councilman Crawford said also there is a section under Banners that might well be put under the section of flags and it says, "mounted banners shall be maintained in good repairs so as to prevent tearing, fraying, and other deterioration, dilapidation and decay," and they might want to include that

also with flags.

Councilman Clark said he would like to see some language in there when talking about flags or banners to maintain them in good order so as they are not frayed or torn, etc., but there needs to be some language in there if that condition arises, it has to be corrected within 30 days or it will be considered a violation of the Ordinance and appropriate action will be taken.

Councilwoman Mutch asked how is it handled in a situation where you have a dealership where an automotive supplier becomes eligible for one of those quality achievement flags and how much of a landscape plan are you approving and how do you deal with that. Mr. Fried said that would be part of that two additional flags.

Councilman Mutch said for example, they would have a State of Michigan, a US Flag, a Novi Flag, or a Corporate Flag, and they were already at their maximum and they want to add additional flags. Councilman Mitzel said you are almost saying if they are at the limit of two flags under Paragraph One, they may be able to use Paragraph Two as a means to get their additional award or corporate flag in and Councilwoman Mutch said she was just asking and Mr. Mitzel said they didn’t even think of that at the Committee level and it looks like maybe if they came with the landscaping plan, then they could get a fourth flag.

Mr. Fried said the Ordinance was limited now but we intend to tighten it up more than it is right now and they couldn’t use that as a loophole to get additional flags. He said if they wanted to do that, there is no provision in the Ordinance and they could go to the ZBA and get a variance if they convince the ZBA that it is a hardship.

Councilwoman Mutch asked what about a situation where you already have something in place, and say someone wants to come in under the landscape review by submitting a landscape plan. Mr. Fried said the landscape plan is going to have to be part of the original site plan approval and they are not going to be able to come in later. Councilwoman Mutch said that was exactly her point, so if you have something already approved and all landscaping is done and they are in business, and they want to put up flags, are they bringing in a plan that then opens up the whole plan or it only opens up whether or not they can have the flags.

Mr. Fried said they would tighten this up so it will be part of the original site plan approval and that is the only way they can get within this particular paragraph.

Councilman Mitzel felt they need to determine if there was a consensus on Council whether having an area with a theme with flags is worth pursuing and if there is a consensus, then he believed the City Attorney needs to bring back some feedback on which areas of the City or which roads or which zoning districts it would be appropriate and then limit it. He said the Committee came to the conclusion that before ironing out the details, we should have a consensus on the issue of flags and likewise the banners.

Councilman Mitzel said he would rather not open it up to allow banners all the time, and he felt their current Ordinance indicating Community Events and banners is appropriate and sufficient but he would say then that the Civic Center should comply with that and Enjoy Novi Year-Round is not a community event in his opinion.

Councilwoman Cassis felt the motivation behind the Ordinance in using flags as part of an integral attractive design is for several possibilities within the City. We all know there were flags dedicated along the perimeter of Vic’s World Class Market and it set a certain theme of a World Class. She said on one hand this Ordinance is not going to address that now because they have already submitted a plan and it has been approved, so he felt this Ordinance needs to be relooked and expanded to include a submittal of a landscaping amendment of sorts when it is an integrated design feature.

Councilwoman Cassis felt in the future they were looking at allowing the business community as part of their particular business to utilize this option, but only if it meets certain criteria as it goes through the design phase. She felt it needs more work and if it is just going to be sent back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, she didn’t think it was ready for that.

Councilwoman Mutch also agreed it needs more work.

Mayor McLallen said it was the consensus of the Council to send this back to the Ordinance Review Committee to refine based on discussion that evening or to drop the matter altogether.

Councilman Mitzel asked how critical was the Preamble Amendment and Mr. Fried said it hasn’t been tested by the court and it was Judge Mackenzie’s comment on it and when we amend the ordinance, we’ll take care of that and if we don’t amend the ordinance, we will bring back that part for Council. Councilman Mitzel said there seems to be no problem with that and we could forward it back to the Planning Commission and Mr. Fried said he would rather get it back to Council and see if they want to forward anything on to the Commission.

Mr. Fried asked Councilwoman Mutch if she wanted more flags and Councilwoman Mutch said she didn’t think so, but she just felt there were certain circumstances. She felt what they were aiming for is not to have proliferation all over town but at the same time, there are certain circumstances.

Vote on CM-96-02-045: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Mr. Kriewall said this matter came up as a result of signage discussion that was at the Town Center Committee. He said the issue was discussed with regard to how to deal with signage and traffic signals in the Main Street project and it was felt by the Committee to relook at eliminating the Mast Arm Standards and installation in the area.

Mr. Kriewall said what has really driven the discussion and why it is back to City Council is that the more everyone has been exposed to the size and scope of the Mast Arms which are large, the more the thought was we need to take a look at what we are doing to a special part of the community. The Main Street project is an architectural exercise and attempt to replicate an old downtown and the more you look at it, the more you start to think that maybe the Mast Arm Standards are not what we should be installing in this area.

Mr. Kriewall said for example, the Mast Arms we are talking about are the same as what has been installed along Twelve Mile Road with the Twelve Mile Road widening in Farmington Hills, versus the traditional downtown approach to traffic signals that you would envision in downtown Northville or Plymouth, etc. We have actually taken some video of the intersection of Main Street and Center Street in Downtown Northville.

Mr. Kriewall felt to introduce the Mast Arms Standards into the Main Street project, they were going to find out that they were really trying to put a modern type of major roadway improvement into an old downtown area. The Council then viewed the video.

Mayor McLallen said the Mast Arm was slightly more expensive and going to the wire was slightly less expensive. Mr. Foyt of JCK stated when they bid the projects, they had bid it both ways, the span wire and the Mast Arms and the span wires results in about a $130,000 savings to the project. He then said there was a board that represents both scenarios. He said the red represents either the wiring or the signal head and how they would configure the intersection. The span wire will require four poles along with the Mast Arm and the four poles versus what they saw in the video, is required to pull the span wire to line up with the intersection.

Mr. Foyt said looking at the Grand River Main Street intersection, you do have the Fire Station that enters onto Grand River at that point and other than that, those two pictures will represent the Grand River one and on the other side we have the Novi and the Main Street intersection.

Councilman Crawford said they were only talking about two intersections and Mr. Foyt explained the first was the north south leg that runs on the west side of Vic’s and intersects with Grand River and the Fire Station and that is one signal installation, then the east/west leg where it enters Novi Road close to Flint Street was the other installation.

Councilman Crawford said we are talking about two intersections and not the whole length of Main Street and he might offer those two intersections look nothing like Downtown Northville. He said maybe what was proposed is not the right type.

Mr. Foyt referred to the schematic drawings of what the pole with the Mast Arm would look like. He said there were certain limitations and regarding the colors, there is ultimately any kind of color you want as far as the poles go but the County does have some requirements as to how the Mast Arm would actually hang over and the actual light you would install because they would have to maintain it, so they have set some limitations.

Councilwoman Mutch agreed with Councilman Crawford’s comments. She said Northville does have very narrow streets and intersections and she could see where a Mast Arm would be out of proportion but in regard to the intersections we are talking about, it wouldn’t be out of proportion. She would also suggest some continuity.

Councilman Schmid felt it was okay if the Council chooses to go with these Mast Arms but the Committee felt if we are going to try and build a Main Street downtown type area, there was a good case made to put a light at Market Street and Main Street for pedestrian traffic, but it seemed totally out of place to put Mast Arms on a two-lane highway, a relatively small intersection.

Councilman Schmid said a short distance away, you have Main Street, which the Committee felt should take on a character different than the rest of the City and it should be unique. He felt the Mast Arms are good on major intersections. He said the wires would disappear at night and he could guarantee they would see the Mast Arms at night and it is overpowering to an area where they were trying to be unique.

Councilman Mitzel said this was discussed at length in the committee and in a memo to Mr. Wahl, the history was outlined and it was discussed quite a bit at City Council meeting and the decision of the Council was to approve it with the Mast Arms and we are only talking the Market Street, Grand River and Novi Road intersections as of right now in the SAD, and there is no mechanism for signalization at Market and Main Street and he supported that.

CM-96-02-046: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED: To sustain the original City Council Contract regarding traffic signals Main Street Roadway Special Assessment District contract as previously voted upon.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel appreciated the work of the committee, but he did have some concerns with the mechanism.

Councilman Clark concurred with Councilman Schmid’s comments. He said they were limited as far as what is allowed by the County in terms of maintenance and safety. He felt with the project they were trying to develop in this area, the proposal that came from the Town Center is appropriate. His preference would be for that as opposed to the massive poles and arms.

Nays - Cassis, Clark, Schmid

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Wrobel of the committee hasn’t been able to attend the meetings and by the committee’s own by-laws, he has to be removed from that committee and Mr. Wrobel has agreed. She said apparently there is a very important Cable Access Committee meeting coming up on the 10th and the Southwest Oakland Cable Director called and asked if they were to appoint Denise Jenkins to this position, there would be no loss of continuity as she has worked as a volunteer for the Cable Commission and is aware of their concerns.

Mayor McLallen said this Council has interviewed Ms. Jenkins in the past several months for a variety of positions and the timing of their February 10th meeting was the main reason that an appointment was put here this evening.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if Mr.Wrobel was given the opportunity to resign instead of an action of removal and Mayor McLallen said yes, but unfortunately that is the way this is worded and it was not any reflection upon him at all. She asked if Ms. Jenkins has interest and it was stated she did have positive interest.

Councilwoman Cassis said her concern is that they have a credible appointment policy in place and she would like to continue that path.

CM-96-02-047: Motion by Crawford, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To remove Mr. Wrobel as per the By-Laws of the Cable Access Committee.

Vote on CM-96-02-047: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Councilman Mitzel said he noticed dates on the terms and would it be more appropriate to have the Council representative expire November of 1997 when we do all Council Appointments and likewise, the Parks & Recreation Commission expire in September 1997 when Parks & Recreation Commissioners are appointed under our current appointment schedules. He said it would be more consistent for those bodies. Councilman Mitzel said with the terms expiring on February 28th, there will be one day no one would be appointed.

Councilman Crawford asked if they know whether the proposed 11 people is incorporated into the Resolution because the Resolution doesn’t speak to that, nor does it speak to some of the types of people we would like and he asked should it and Mr. Fried replied it would not be incorporated and Councilman Crawford felt it should be because the Resolution is very general when it gets to the specifics of the 11 people and the terms, etc.

Mr. Fried said the terms should be staggered and Councilman Crawford asked can they amend the Resolution to include this page and he didn’t know how specific we should get when it asks about a management person. He felt they should include the terms into the Resolution and he concurred with Councilman Mitzel and why not make all of those terms expire in November, and have everyone’s term expire in November. Therefore, he would amend the Resolution to make all terms expire November 30th.

Councilman Mitzel accepted the amendment to the motion. Councilman Crawford suggested making it March 1 to November 1 which seems appropriate. Councilman Mitzel said actually they would be going November to November once this gets rolling and Councilman Crawford said yes it would but if we are going to incorporate this initially, then they would all expire on November 1st in subsequent years.

Councilman Mitzel suggested saying terms ending November, then if we appoint this month, then they would just end in the appropriate November, either 96, 97 or 98, whatever years we choose and you just specify when the terms end and that is how all the other committees are set up.

Councilman Crawford said also the fact that we are going to include this schedule in here so they know exactly what people.

Councilman Clark referred to Proposal B which says you have to have one person of the 11, one person knowledgeable of each youth activity generating or anticipated to generate more than 10% of the annual receipts of the organization. He felt in essence, when you get citizens at large, they could in essence be members of the Parks & Rec Commission, so in essence you have the Parks & Recreation Commission really controlling who the board is and he has a problem with that.

Councilman Crawford said we have agreed to that as they were part of the by-Laws, but he didn’t interpret it that way and it would be just like Ms. LeBlanc who we interviewed today, Ms. LeBlanc, and she could be a representative of the figure skating group and someone would be of the hockey group and that is the way he interpreted it and it wouldn’t be Parks & Recreation Commissioners at all.

Councilman Clark felt there should be some language in there so that it is understood, that of the 11 people, we would have no more than 2 from Parks & Recreation, one which would be a Commission representative and the other would be Mr. Davis, Director of Parks & Recreation.

Mr. Fried suggested they go along with their appointments or adopt this Resolution as proposed and we can always amend the By-Laws to cover that particular problem.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if the Resolution precluded adding additional members and Mr. Fried said the By-Laws preclude it but they can be amended.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if they want to make reference to the By-Laws in this Resolution, and she would like something a little bit more substantial than just a Resolution, and she would like it to reference somehow the By-Laws.

Councilman Mitzel said it seems like they were trying to work this out legally at the table and it concerned him that Mr. Fried hasn’t reviewed this and he felt it is a very critical committee. Mr. Fried said he would bring in a Resolution that he has prepared.

Councilman Crawford pointed out that they needed to move with some haste on this whole project. He stated his motion incorporated the 11 people and Mr. Fried said he assumed at their next meeting you were going to name the people that you are going to appoint, and Mayor McLallen said the people would not be named until the first meeting in March. Mr. Fried said then in effect, there would be no one to sign the agreement until March and it doesn’t make that much difference.

Councilman Crawford said he didn’t know what they would do different two weeks from now that we are not doing tonight and Mr. Fried said he would prepare a cleaner Resolution that would satisfy everyone’s concerns.

Councilman Clark asked about Item #60, Consumers Power, $10,810.82 and also Item #119, Red Holman Pontiac, 96 Pontiac Grand Am, $31,784.00. Mr. Kriewall said the Consumers is for one month’s service for all buildings and regarding the 96 Pontiac Grand Am, Mr. Kriewall felt that was a $13,000 purchase and Councilman Clark asked to pull that item out and bring it back.

Mayor McLallen said Item #119 would be removed for further clarification.

Councilman Mitzel said it was his understanding that the position of the Commission was that they would rather have just an alternate added to it, in other words, 7 members plus an alternate as opposed to having 9 full members. They had written a letter about a month or so ago asking that Pam Superfisky be reappointed and then Ms. Pugsley be the alternate and he wanted Council to be aware of that so they can keep going on the track they are going and just have an alternate to fill in if there is a vacancy or an absence.

Councilman Clark felt the Beautification Commission could handle 9 members.

Councilman Crawford didn’t feel they needed alternates and 9 members were fine.

CM-96-02-054: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Special Council Meeting for February 26, 1996 at 6:30 PM.

Councilman Crawford felt they should take care of Community Clubs and also the Cable Access Committee.

Councilman Mitzel said he would not be there that day. He also stated they have to work on getting an interview policy set so they can start consolidating these.

Vote on CM-96-02-054: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

APPOINTMENT OF HISTORICAL COMMISSION

Mayor McLallen said there were two issues she would like this Council to address but she would move them to another date. The first was dewatering and the water problems in the Garfield Road area. Mayor McLallen said also tonight there was a discussion about companies exiting and Economic Development issues that they should also discuss.

MANAGER’S REPORTS - None.

Councilman Mitzel said the Expo Center traffic didn’t seem to flow too smoothly this weekend and Mr. Kriewall explained there is one weekend a year that they were not going to be able to deal with all of the demand for parking that a particular show generates and that is the Spring Home and Garden Show and attendance was up 40% this year. He felt the Expo Center handled everything quite efficiently, but there is no dealing with an over-abundance of people coming to a particular event.

CONSENT AGENDA

Councilman Schmid he wasn’t completely sure why they were sending this to the Ordinance Review Committee. He said there was a memo from Mr. Wahl stating, "City Council members have expected certain levels of information to be provided for their review, regardless of the type of license requested or the complexity of project, i.e. Shield’s Pizza and Port Papadapolis."

Mr. Wahl explained we have had some difficulties, both in confusion of applicants and requests from Council, for certain kinds of information. The Ordinance itself is somewhat complicated in terms of what it is calling for and we basically just wanted an opportunity to take a look at it and we have some ideas about how it would be improved to communicate better and to also require the

appropriate information for different types of liquor license applications, in other words, a new Class C license is in our view, somewhat different than merely changing ownerships and yet when we have a change of ownership, we are going back over to the police department to get site plans for projects that were built twenty years ago and this is the requirement of the Ordinance.

Mr. Wahl said we have talked with different departments that are within the process about what we might do to make it a more reasonable and communicative process and we just would like to pull together those thoughts and bring them through the Ordinance Review Committee and see whether we can approve the Ordinance.

AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK PROPOSALS FOR NOVI PUBLIC INFORMATION KIOSK SYSTEM.

Councilman Clark said one of the concerns he had was it talks about a proposal that would cost approximately $70,000 excluding hardware and then you have upgrading maintenance and it was his understanding that this initially would start out with the Kiosk at City Hall and the problem he has is when you come into the City Hall and stand in the lobby, you can look around the circle and see where the various departments are.

Councilman Clark felt this is a luxury item as opposed to a real need and he had a problem supporting it at this time.

Councilman Crawford commented it was approved in our 95-96 Budget with quite a bit of discussion. He said he didn’t recall the specifics of the $70,000 excluding hardware and since that came from Mr. Nowicki, he would ask why they were doing this and how much would the hardware be.

Mr. Nowicki explained the RFP indicates with respect to hardware, that the consultant we bring on board here would assist us in the design of the system including the hardware and assist us in configuring their existing hardware to be utilized for that purpose. He said these are touch-sensitive screens where people can come up and push menus and go through the continuous process. With respect to the locations of the systems, we have not set up a firm program of exactly where they will go right now, whether they be in the Civic Center, the Library, the Town Center or Twelve Oaks Mall.

Mr. Nowicki said in addition to that, we have had indications from the Traffic Improvement Association of Oakland County that they will be working with us and with SMART and other various agencies to connect their data bases to that system to provide people in the malls with traffic reports. We are also working with the Road Commission for Oakland County to provide traffic information via this Kiosk system, so essentially it was an outreach program to provide people with information that would previously have been accessible only within the Civic Center.

Mr. Nowicki said again what they were looking for here is an individual or consulting firm to come on board to help design the system and set up the software to help us to create the video clips and the images on the screen, and to set up the entire story line of the basic system and from there, we will go and connect that with the existing GIS system when we get that on board and allow the rest of the information to be accessible to individuals.

Councilman Schmid said he always has had a problem with the system and he watched it being demonstrated and it is extremely expensive and has to be updated. He felt it was a luxury item. He asked if this was a budget item and Mr. Nowicki replied he believed the total system was approximately $100,000-$110,000 and initially right now, this is the software design and the development of the hardware specifications so this is just the beginning.

Mr. Nowicki said with respect to the updating for the software we have seen we have people in-house that would be used to update that equipment and we have a data management specialist that is on staff and is being trained and she would be utilized to update all the systems and the information necessary to keep this current.

Councilman Schmid asked how many of these are now in use because he recalled several months ago, this was going to be the first. Mr. Nowicki said there are a few that are coming up now and Kalamazoo has an extensive system that Mr. Lou Martin has looked at and was impressed with. He said there are a few others around and there are some smaller systems within the State of Michigan, but what we are looking at is providing a lot more information to the public via the system.

Councilman Schmid asked the total cost and Mr. Nowicki said after you get the software system and everything designed, it was just a matter of the hardware and the hardware is coming down right now but he couldn’t give him a guess as to what the hardware would run.

Councilman Schmid asked if this was a budget item and Mr. Nowicki said it was for about $100,000-$110,000.

Councilman Schmid asked if this could be brought back just to put in the packet as to where this was in the Budget and how it was okayed. He also indicated he would not support it.

Councilman Crawford said they were not purchasing this and they were just doing an RFP and they were not making a commitment and maybe if the RFP comes back, it will give them the information they need to make a better decision.

Councilman Clark asked to have the information come back as to what will be authorized and how much. Councilman Schmid then stated he would support the RFP.

CM-96-02-057: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Cassis, MOTION CARRIED: To go out for the RFP on the Public Information Kiosk.

Vote on CM-96-02-057: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

AWARD OF LEAVENWORTH REGIONAL STORM WATER BASIN BID TO LOW BIDDER, JACK ANGLIN COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $621,988.25.

Councilman Schmid said he pulled this because he would like Mr. Kapelczak to briefly address the issue. He asked if there were any reasons as to the figures they come up with. Mr. Kapelczak said they just throw out the figures and come up with a total. He further explained some contractors want to take the profit of the total job in some early units and that is why you will see some grubbing and clearing on a particular project.

Mr. Kapelczak said Mr. Anglin was the low bidder and if you analyze it, he really left about $300,000 on the table there.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford asked if there was the potential of change-orders coming back on this and if there is, is there a way they track those and could they give a report over the last several years.

Mr. Kapelczak said change orders come usually because of a specific reason and usually it is a decrease or increase in the quantity or adding a quantity. As far as change orders, you can always expect a change order in any contract and it is a matter whether it is a valid claim or not. As Mr. Fried knows, we have a few of those claims right now.

Councilman Crawford asked if you give us a report at the end of these projects of the difference of the original bid and the end result, and Mr. Kapelczak said yes actually if you look at when we pay a contractor, you would get a running report. He also added it used to be in with the warrants.

Mr. Fried said these bidders are not bidding based on a change order and they are bidding on getting the job and it is the unit price that counts and if they bid wrong on a unit price, they will be in trouble.

Councilman Crawford asked about the Tri-Party Agreement for the Grand River overpass and he didn’t disagree with contributing funds, but he could not tell by this when that project might start and Mr. Kriewall said they want to start it in 1997 and they will complete it

Councilwoman Mutch referred to Item #3 under Communications, a letter from Audrey Blackburn Girls State Chairman, American Legion Auxiliary and she said to Mr. Fried that this has come up previously and the Council had asked for an opinion, which was included, but she wanted to make sure she understood it. The Council asked if it was able to authorize funds for sending a Novi student to either Girl State or Boy State or something similar and the opinion says not unless the Council itself sets up some sort of selection criteria by which students can apply and Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mutch said her question to the Council is she took it that no action was ever taken as a result of Mr. Fried’s opinion, in other words, the Council basically said they wouldn’t do it.

Mayor McLallen said she felt that was a correct summation of the previous Council. Councilwoman Mutch asked if anyone recalled what the reasons were and did they think it was an inappropriate use of tax dollars or they didn’t want to set up such criteria or maybe no one followed on it.

Mayor McLallen felt it was a combination but no one followed through to set up the system.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if someone would review that and bring back information and Mayor McLallen asked Councilwoman Mutch to take the initiative and Councilwoman Mutch said she would research the issue and bring it back.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 AM.

______________________________________ _______________________________________

Mayor City Clerk

Date approved:_________________________