CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 PM

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro Tem Crawford, Council Members

Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch (at 7:36 PM), Schmid

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Item #2 was removed as City Council had no jurisdiction over the appeal in circuit court.

Mr. Young stated he submitted a claim to the city for the loss of his well head and it was rejected. The rejection was because he was away from the area in which the dewatering took place. Also, the dewatering took place in December and he didn’t think council would consider it because his problem had occurred on March 28th. He had given the letter to one of the Novi reporters.

Mr. Young was present because of a situation that had recently occurred along Eight Mile Road from Beck to Napier Roads. The whole area was planned for development by Singh Development. The Northville School District had property in the area, several churches, Meyer Berry Farm. He was mostly concerned with the Meyer Berry Farm and it’s development as a sports/recreational park. He asked how the recreational zoning came about, what was the sports park, and what about the ice rink. He wanted to find out as much information as possible.

UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda with the exceptions of Items #4 and #8.

1. Approval of City Council Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 26, 1996

2. Approval of proposed Motor Carrier Safety Ordinance - II Reading

3. Approval of the proposed amendment to Section 34-20 of the Novi Code of

Ordinances providing for an Administrative Appeal of Assessed Late Charges

on Water Bills - II Reading

4. Adoption of Resolution, Re: Installation of FAST-TRAC Signal System - Haggerty

Road - Removed by Councilman Schmid

5. Approval of Change Order No. 1 - Main Street Streetscape Amenities Contract

Decrease of $127,095.00

6. Approval of Change Order No. 5 - Main Street Roadway Contract Decrease of

$14,520.00

7. Approval of Novi road (Twelve Mile Road - Decker Road) Wetland Mitigation

Conservation Easement

8. Adopt Resolutions, Re:

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

Novi Road Water Main by-Pass - N5003-01

Temporary Construction Easement Emerald Oaks Company $250.00

Temporary Construction Easement Emerald Oaks Company $250.00

Temporary Construction Easement Dixon Road Group Ltd. $225.00

Temporary Construction Easement Novi-Twelve Mile Assoc. $ 30.00

Main Street Streetscape - N-3620-03

Streetscape Easement Vic’s Kid Ltd Liability Co. Gift

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

Basset Drain Cleanout - Document Acceptance

Drainage Easement Thomas & Genevieve McSweeney Gift

Temporary Construction Easement Thomas & Genevieve McSweeney Gift

Ingress-Egress Easement Thomas & Genevieve McSweeney Gift

Removed by Councilman Mitzel

9. Approval of Anti Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policy

10. Approval of City Clerk’s Evaluation Format and Process

11. Award bid for Weed Mowing Contract to Weedbusters in the amount of $9,422.55

and adopt a resolution, Re: Authorizing employment of employee as a contractor.

12. Award bid for fuel contract to M & L Petroleum in the amount of $.0095 (mark-up

from rack price)

13. Award bid for Street Sweeping Contract to Metro Sewer Cleaners, Inc.

14. Approval of Resolution, Re: Nine Mile Road Infrastructure Discharge of Liens

15. Adoption of Resolution, Re: Authorizing Parks & Recreation Commission to establish

a Tim Pope Memorial Committee

1. Approval of Final Preliminary Plat - Delfino Estates Subdivision

Mayor McLallen advised the applicant had proposed a small subdivision of 8 lots on 5.9 acres zoned R-1 on Nine Mile west of Taft. Consultant and Fire Department approval letters, subject to their reviews, had been received. The Street Naming Committee agreed to the name. She noted there was some confusion whether council passed a variance concerning a detention basin easement and the minutes reflected that both Mr. Clark and Mr. Crawford, makers of the motion, included the variance in the original motion in January.

Mr. Fried, City Attorney, advised council that if the Final Preliminary Plat were approved it should be done subject to their review of the covenants and restrictions by the city attorney.

Mayor McLallen said it would be added to the motion.

Mike Priest, Civil Engineer for Mrs. Marchesotti who owns the property, said there had been comments about the maintenance and making sure that the wetlands would be left in an undisturbed state. He had incorporated into the deed restrictions an extensive section to address these issues.

CM-96-05-157: Motion by Clark, Seconded by Schmid, MOTION CARRIED

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked why this subdivision didn’t have to have a greenbelt easement?

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant, said there was a requirement for a berm or landscaping along the right of way. There is an easement shown through there and a space for it.

Mr. Priest stated it would be provided and asked how wide it had to be?

Mr. Rogers said at least 15 feet. He said it should be a condition.

Mayor McLallen asked if the maker of the motion and the seconder would agree to include the condition that the required greenbelt be added to the plans.

Councilman Clark accepted it as an additional condition of approval.

Mr. Priest asked when the landscape plans had to be approved?

Mr. Rogers said a street tree and landscape plan should be made available and approved prior to approval of the final plat and the bonding of the trees and the requirements pursuant to ordinance.

Mr. Priest said the final plat would contain the required easement and the landscape plan and appropriate easement.

Mr. Rogers said it would not be on the final plat it would be a separate document.

Mr. Priest said it would show the easement.

Mr. Rogers said it would.

Councilwoman Cassis said Lots 7, 8 and 4 were being platted in a wetland and needed a variance from council from the Construction and Design Standards. She asked if there would be standing water or would it be seasonal on those lots that encompassed a hundred year flood plain or wetlands?

Mr. Rogers said the plat was revised to exclude the regulated wetlands and the area of 7 and 8 go into a detention area. He said JCK commented that it would need council approval in their letter of April 16th, Item 3.

Councilwoman Cassis asked to what degree would these lots have standing water in them?

Mr. Priest said there was no standing water there.

Councilwoman Cassis asked about seasonal water?

Mr. Priest said there was a culvert that crossed Nine Mile Road with an area to the north, not a very large area, that drained through that. It was a 15 inch diameter pipe. He said there was no standing water there and it was a maintained lawn right now.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if there was anyone from the city or consultants who would know whether that would be an issue that would come up in the spring. She said there was water there and cattails. She had asked previously to what degree the people buying the lots would be made aware that they platted in wetlands.

Mr. Priest said the wetlands were in the park which was excluded from the lots. He said there were no wetlands on the east side.

Councilwoman Cassis said there was a hundred year flood plain. She asked why Lots 7 and 8 required a variance from the Design and Construction Standards?

Mr. Priest said because of an existing easement for the Lexington Green detention basin.

Councilwoman Cassis asked what was being detained in that basin?

Mr. Priest said nothing. If there was a hundred year flood he pointed out what would be flooded.

Councilwoman Cassis said then there could be flooding on the lots.

Mr. Priest said in a hundred year flood, yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said that didn’t mean every 100 years that’s a misnomer and they happen quite frequently. Her concern was that the people buying the lots be made aware that it was a flood plain. She asked how that would be done?

Mr. Priest said it would be shown on the Final Plat as an easement for the detention basin.

Councilwoman Cassis asked if she walked into his office and desired a lot how would she know that Lot 7 and 8 potentially had this situation in the back of the lots?

Mr. Priest said the Final Plat would show an easement there for the Lexington Green Detention Basin and would be delineated so anyone could see it.

Councilman Schmid asked if Mr. Pargoff had any knowledge this? Mr. Schmid read #3 of the engineers report.

Mr. Pargoff wasn’t sure about the water issues and the wetland situations. He believed a notification signage could be required similar to the signage that appeared for regulated woodlands and regulated wetlands. He said the signage issue didn’t guarantee that any one would call but it would be something that could be put on site as part of the notification ordinance.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Pargoff if he was familiar with the land?

Mr. Pargoff said there were no regulated woodlands on the site so he was not qualified to give an answer. He said the pipe Mr. Priest talked about was a continuance of Thornton Creek as it came out of Section 28.

Joe Kapelczak, President of JCK, said in the Final Plat documents the easements would be delineated but unfortunately it became a real estate matter when the real estate salesman sold the property. He said some time the real estate agent did not sell the parcels with a plat in hand. The real question was how did it get into the hands of the buyer. The 100 year flood plain would also be delineated. Mr. Kapelczak said at this stage the finite engineering had not yet been done but in the final stage the engineering drawings would be submitted and would have had to have been approved.

Councilman Clark asked if council could require as a condition of approval that any sale of Lots 4, 7 or 8 would carry with them, at the time an offer to purchase was signed, an acknowledgment by the prospective purchasers that they had been apprised that a portion of the lot was in a wetland?

Mr. Fried said as the ordinance stood now and the State Planning Act stood it could not be made a requirement but the ordinance could be amended to make such a requirement.

Mr. Priest said they would certainly be willing to agree with that.

Councilman Clark said he would also make that a part of his motion that every body knew exactly what they were buying and what was there.

Mr. Priest thought it was a good idea.

Councilwoman Cassis thought they could also put signage and it would also be in accordance with the ordinance. She asked Mr. Priest if he had a problem with that?

Mr. Priest said no.

Councilman Clark accepted that also.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion: To grant Final Preliminary Plat approval to Site Plan 95-063 with four requirements. 1) That the covenants and restrictions be reviewed by the city attorney 2) That the greenbelt plan be attached to the Final Plat approval 3) That the prospective purchasers in the sales contract be made aware of the delineation of the wetlands on the various lots and 4) That signage physically showing where these are be placed on the property.

3. Approval of Grand Meadowbrook Consent Judgement Amendment

Mayor McLallen said the purpose of this revision was the minor relocation of a drive that would come onto Meadowbrook Road and the purpose was to facilitate the safer and better traffic flow from the properties affected. In addition to moving the drive further south it will move some parking spaces that would be made up and there was no net loss in the process. The rubbish bins would also be relocated.

CM-96-05-158: Moved by Mitzel, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: That the Grand Meadowbrook Consent Judgement Amendment be approved.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Fried requested that it be conditioned upon, prior to the entry of the consent judgement, the Final Site Plan must be approved for the soccer zone.

Councilman Mitzel said the issue of the driveway relocation and the two issues that this was being amended for are going to be applicable whether or not that site plan was approved or not. This driveway had to be relocated regardless.

Mr. Fried said it would be a part of the consent judgement and he didn’t want the consent judgement entered until the final site plan was approved for the soccer zone.

Councilman Mitzel said he understood that the driveway was already on the consent judgement and they were just relocating it south.

Mr. Fried said it was the relocation that was important.

Councilman Mitzel said being the soccer zone was not approved when they went to that phase of the development of the consent judgement they would still have to relocate the driveway the same way they were proposing now to access that area.

Mr. Fried stated he didn’t know that to be a fact and another project that went in there might not need that particular driveway.

Councilman Mitzel thought the issue was the driveway was already on the plan but conflicted with a certain area and had to be relocated.

Cliff Seiber, petitioner, said he thought the Final Site Plan approval from the planning commission was conditioned on this being approved. The applicant was more than happy to make the change regardless of who developed the industrial piece. He thought the consent judgement required three access points. He thought this would give them a great advantage through the section, it provided better turning movement for what would be Ray’s Electric and provided altogether better access to that industrial piece. He said they would like to make this change regardless of whether the soccer zone continued with their project or not.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if it was true that in their judgement it was OK and they want to do it now anyway if their judgement turned out to be not quite so good later it could still come back. There was no limit to the number of times it could be amended as long as both parties agree to it.

McLallen said both parties to the original consent had to agree.

Councilman Schmid said it seemed there were three different things being discussed. Mr. Fried said they want to change the consent judgement and to do that council would have to agree with this change. Are you connecting us to the soccer field?

Mr. Fried said yes, I am.

Councilman Schmid said because that is also a change. So, these would go in together.

Mr. Fried said that’s right.

Councilman Schmid said there was nothing wrong with that and there was no need to go back twice. He thought it was proper that a change be made at one time for both projects.

Mayor McLallen said the motion on the floor was to grant the requested amendment to the Grand Meadowbrook Consent Judgement for the relocation to a southerly position of the roadway, relocation of parking at no net loss and a relocation of dumpsters as noted.

Councilman Clark said and also subject to the final site plan approval.

Mayor McLallen said that was not part of the motion.

Councilman Clark though Mr. Fried requested it be part of the motion.

Councilman Mitzel said he did not agree because the consent judgement did not show the soccer zone on it. We are not amending the consent judgement to include soccer zone in it. It could be soccer zone or any other light industrial. The issue is whether or not this drive how it services the site and would be the same whether soccer zone or light industrial what have you. The only provision in the consent judgement was the facade and that was dealt with the last time. If it made good traffic planning sense to relocate the drive then he thought it should be allowed.

Councilman Schmid agreed with Mr. Fried but thought Mr. Mitzel had a good point. He said it came before council because of the soccer facility and action taken by the planning commission. He said what Mr. Mitzel wanted to do was go to court, have it changed and then go back to court, assuming that the soccer facility was OK’d, and go back again and change it again.

Councilman Mitzel said it wouldn’t have to be changed.

Mayor McLallen said the request was because of the impact on the original consent judgement. The alignment that was merely a line drawn on a proposed plat. It’s functional effect on Ray’s Electric made the turning radius for parking inadequate when this road was going to be built whether for soccer zone or anything else. This road appeared on paper and now that it was about to be built the physical movement was constricted and the solution was to merely move it southerly a certain number of feet. The road had always been there and the only impact on the consent site plan was the relocation of parking spaces which were not lost but moved elsewhere in the site. Essentially, with the exception of moving the road southerly it is the same road with the same length. That road would have existed no matter what was built on the back parcel but as a portion of the consent judgement the road was there. Her understanding of the petition was an increased safety matter.

Mr. Fried said there was going to be a loss of a number of parking spaces that would be relocated and they were on the plan too. That should be covered.

Mr. Arroyo agreed there were no parking spaces lost. It was a one for one replacement.

Councilman Schmid asked what the big issue was? The only reason this was before council was because it was requested by the planning commission. It had nothing to do with what was going to be there or might be there in the future. It had to do with the soccer zone. It’s a consent judgement that should be taken care of at one time.

Councilman Crawford asked if there was some thing else that Mr. Fried asked council to consider besides the three items mentioned in JCK’s letter of May 1?

Mr. Fried said refuse bin, parking places and relocating the road. He asked council not to enter the consent judgement until council had approved the Final Site Plan of the soccer plan.

Mayor McLallen asked what the planning commissions conditions were of the approval of the soccer zone?

Jim Clark said the revision of the consent judgement of those three items.

Mayor McLallen said they would not grant approval of the Final Site Plan without this revision.

Jim Clark said that’s correct.

Mayor McLallen asked if there was a way to achieve everyone having a win situation that could be done in harmony?

Councilman Crawford asked if the motion was different then that?

Mayor McLallen said Mr. Fried’s request was to condition this upon final approval of the soccer zone by the planning commission. The planning Commission already took action on that and said they would grant it only upon approval of this.

Councilman Crawford said if council approved this their approval would automatically follow.

Councilman Clark said the proposal was before council to approve the Grand Meadowbrook Consent Judgement Amendment and Mr. Fried is saying make it subject to the Final Site Plan approval for the soccer zone so that this amendment to the consent judgement was not entered. In other words, council could approve it with the stipulation that the actual amendment not be entered in court until the Final Site Plan for the soccer zone was approved.

Mr. Fried said that is correct.

Councilman Mitzel asked if there was anywhere in the consent judgement that the soccer zone would appear at all?

Mr. Fried said no, except as it was indicated in the plan.

Councilman Mitzel said it was not in the plan. It was just mentioned as light industrial development.

Mr. Fried said it did mention parking places and rubbish bin.

Councilman Mitzel said soccer zone itself would not have to be in here.

Mr. Fried said it would not be in the plan attached to the amended judgement.

Councilman Mitzel asked Mr. Arroyo if from a traffic standpoint would council want the road relocated as proposed whether a soccer zone or any other light industrial development were to occur in Phase II or III of the consent judgement?

Mr. Arroyo thought it provided benefits to do what was proposed this evening regardless of what type of development occurred on the light industrial site. It would be an improvement to both the Meadowbrook Run project and the industrial development to the north.

Councilman Mitzel said that was his point. If for some reason soccer zone was not to go through this would be an amendment for a safer and better access to that back parcel and it wouldn’t have to be dealt with again. He said if it is conditioned upon soccer zone and for some reason they’re not approved then when the next development comes through in compliance with zoning they’re going to have to come back before council and ask that it be redone.

Councilman Clark said at that time Mr. Fried could request it be an agenda item requesting that council make a motion to authorize him to now enter the consent judgement. This way every things been covered.

Mayor McLallen restated the motion: For approval as presented.

Councilman Clark asked Mr. Mitzel if he would accept that amendment?

Councilman Mitzel said no.

DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Mutch asked what the purpose served was? If it could be done quickly at another meeting and improved traffic safety why not do it and be done with it? It better served what was already there. Why wouldn’t we want to improve that now?

Councilman Crawford said council could take care of all of this at once taking into consideration the pending project before council. If that project never happens and some thing else does then council could move to have that road included. The road is going to serve the site no matter what happens.

Councilwoman Mutch said exactly, the part that the consent judgment dealt with.

Councilman Crawford said there is a pending project before Council now that looks like it’s going to happen and we can take care of all of that, approving the project, the relocation of the road and everything. If the project didn’t happen the road wouldn’t happen either but the next project that came in the road could be taken care of at that time. For this project before us that’s going to happen, apparently, we can take care of all of it at once.

Councilwoman Mutch said there is a road on paper now and the relocation of that road is deemed to be in a location now that would better serve the site regardless of how it is developed. Why not just include it now? It doesn’t matter what comes in later. She said it was suggested that maybe this road would come in as being proposed at yet another location.

Councilman Crawford said if the project did not go that was a possibility.

Councilman Schmid asked why not do it?

Councilwoman Mutch said she didn’t see that it served any purpose.

Councilman Schmid said it served a purpose that the gentlemen were present this evening for it.

Mayor McLallen stated there was a motion to amend the main motion which would include the requirement that this consent amendment not be entered into the court until the final approval had been obtained for the proposed development on the industrial site.

Jim Clark, Soccer Zone, said this was a catch 22 situations. The Planning Commission would not give Final Site Plan approval until this was changed. So, if Council didn’t give them the change that killed the project. He said looking at the consent judgment the third access was required no matter what was back there. It didn’t matter if it was Soccer Zone or some factory but unless they could get that change the Planning Commission wouldn’t give Final Site Plan approval.

Councilman Crawford said neither one of these situations approved the change.

Mayor McLallen said the request tonight would approve the change. If the motion made by Member Mitzel unamended was approved the original consent judgment would be changed. The road would move southerly and bend.

Councilman Crawford asked how the amendment affect that?

Jim Clark said the amendment was that they had to get Final Site Plan approval and the Planning Commission would not give it Final Site Plan approval until Council approved this.

Councilman Crawford said Council is approving that.

Councilman Clark said what Council was saying the actual recording of the amendment to the consent judgement would not be filed in court until there was Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission knows Council’s action tonight they would give the approval seeing that Council had approved the change with reference to the road so the only thing they would have to do would be to give Final Approval and then it would be recorded.

Councilman Clark said the amendment to the main motion was that the proposed amendment to the Grand Meadowbrook consent judgment would be subject to Final Site Plan approval for the Soccer Zone and once that was granted the amendment to the consent judgment would be filed in the court.

City - I & II Reading

Mayor McLallen said the main issues were changes of hours for anyone soliciting under the age of 14 and the registration process through which anyone soliciting in the City must obtain permits. They must wear the permits at all times, they must have photographs on them and anyone under 14 could not solicit on City streets or public property after 7 PM.

Mr. Fried responded to questions that Member Mitzel raised in his memo to Mrs. Bartholomew. Member Mitzel had asked if the change in Section 26-2B required permits for Girl Scouts, bands, baseball, etc? Mr. Fried said it would. Next question was why was 7 PM chosen for minors? Mr. Fried said it was chosen for children under 13 and not just for minors. Those over 13 would not have the 7 PM curfew. Member Mitzel had also asked how the collection of signatures on petitions regarding political literature and etc. handled? Mr. Fried said they would be exempted from the amendment.

Councilwoman Mutch said she thought Mr. Watson had said a permit would not be required for Girl Scouts, etc.

Mr. Fried said when children solicit or peddle be it for Girls Scouts, Boy Scouts or school activities they are required to comply with the ordinance.

Councilwoman Mutch understood Mr. Watson to say that they needed to comply with the ordinance but the way it applied to them specifically was to observe the hours for solicitation and minors being accompanied under certain circumstances. She didn’t believe, from what Mr. Watson said, it required that they have a permit.

Mr. Fried said no, the ordinance didn’t say that.

Councilwoman Mutch said Mr. Fried said the ordinance said they did need a permit.

Mr. Fried said the ordinance did not say they needed a permit if they were accompanied by an adult. They need a permit when they are not accompanied by an adult.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if they would need a permit if they were going door to door to the homes in their immediate neighborhood would need to have an adult with them for Girl Scouts, etc?

Mr. Fried said that was correct.

Councilwoman Mutch thought that was an unintended consequence from the discussions she was a party to.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford asked how this would affect organizations such as the Lions soliciting on the street with their white cane sales or in front of stores and would they have to have a permit for each individual person that would participate in that?

Mr. Fried said yes.

Councilman Crawford asked if that was a change from what it was before?

Mr. Fried said he thought it was and that he would have to look it up.

Councilman Crawford said that would be very difficult for many organizations to come up for a work schedule, get all the people registered and he thought there might be some sort of an exception put in to take care of that.

Mr. Fried said each person would require a permit.

Councilman Crawford asked if that would be considered non-commercial solicitation?

Mr. Fried said no, it would be commercial solitiction. He said non-commercial would be when their doing petitions, signatures etc.

Mr. Fried said they would need a permit for each individual.

Councilwoman Cassis said several years ago there was a request for a solicitation ordinance and she thought the City had one in place. She said this was going further. She understood the intent to ensure that whatever activity was going on in terms of solicitation was bonafide and was not creating a problem for residents or children who might be on the streets. However, she felt that might be very difficult to enforce. She also felt that when children have to get permits and pictures for things like Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and school activities it would create some hardship. She didn’t know of any current problem in the City that was so outstanding that Council needed to regulate in this fashion. Also, the possibility of exceptions for certain charitable organizations might create a two tiered kind of system here which would open the possibility of some discrimination. Member Cassis would not support this in its present form.

Councilwoman Mutch said regarding one of the concerns, she believed the permit applicant could apply on behalf of an organization or company and that person had to have the photograph taken and the emergency information had to be available on the minors. She did not believe that individual minors had to be photographed.

Mr. Fried said no, the minors would not have to be photographed.

Councilwoman Mutch said, additionally, the Girl Scouts as a group already have as part of their organizational rules when it came to selling cookies, etc. a form that must be signed by the parents stating where they would be during the hours that they would be engaged in that activity with an emergency name, medical release and a phone number. In fact, they are already doing what Council would require and the permit would be duplicated and provided to each of the participants. In that particular area it might not be as great a problem as indicated. She had been to at least two meetings where members of various homeowners associations from across the City were very aggressive in their comments regarding the need for change in the Solicitation Ordinance and in fact would have like to have seen it go a lot farther. However, Mr. Watson reminded Council that there were certain civil liberties involved.

Councilwoman Cassis thought it was a good point that Girl Scouts were already doing this and asked why government had to step in. She felt that it created certain burdens and might not be equitably applied.

Councilman Clark thought the concerns that Councilman Cassis raised were valid but were addressed in Section 26-2A, B and C and then it made reference to 26-2C and E so we are not photographing young children. He thought one adult could pull a permit for the entire group and that would deal with the situation. Member Clark said it had an added benefit in that if that permit was pulled he assumed that it would come from the City Clerk’s Office or the Police Department. He said when there are minor children going out into the community he thought it was good in the sense that it’s kind of a memory jogger for the Police Department knowing that on this particular weekend these young girls would be soliciting in the neighborhoods. It would be an extra note of caution and surveillance on their part in looking out for the youngsters. He didn’t think it was a bad idea and stated it kind of put them on notice.

Councilman Crawford said it directed an applicant to the Police Department to be photographed and fingerprinted. He thought it was a bit much, for example, to request the president of the Lions to go to the Police Department to get photographed and fingerprinted so the Lions could conduct their white cane sale once a year. He understood the concerns this was trying to address but thought it had to be done in a different manner. He said primarily, the real concern was the door to door solicitation, unauthorized, not local charities at all hours of the evening. He didn’t know if Council could discriminate to that extent to write an ordinance, that might be a problem but if Council couldn’t he preferred to go the other way so as not to put the burden on people who were legitimately conducting charitable causes within the City.

Councilwoman Mutch said there was a concern for the children who were hired or some how engaged by commercial enterprises. The concern was the children were "dumped out" in the morning and picked up in the evening. She said the children were just left there and would wait at the entrances to subdivisions on Ten Mile to be picked up and if those children were injured no one had the authority to do anything for them. She said that was part of the documentation that was required. The Police Department has pointed out that if they had to come to the aid of or pick some one up, and the kids had been known to be left on Ten Mile in a driving storm after dark and they are not from the community, they would have to pull an Officer off whatever else they would be doing and take the child over to the Police Department and stay there with the child until they could locate whoever had failed to take responsibility for that child. She said this kind of concern was part of what led Mr. Watson to include some of the provisions.

Councilwoman Cassis wondered how such an ordinance would deter exactly what Member Mutch was talking about. She said if they were not aware of such a law or if they didn’t want to follow the ordinance and children still come in Council would be back to the same problem. She said the Police would handle it one way or the other. She said if such a law on the books would deter certain kinds of activities like that without infringing on the rights of people like Girl Scouts and school children to do what is appropriate in the long standing history of our whole country she wouldn’t have a problem. She just was not sure how this law would improve the situation and perhaps another mechanism was needed.

Mayor McLallen was a part of the Ordinance Review Committee and concurred with Member Mutch in that Mr. Watson indicated that there was a mechanism that exempted local groups from the strictures of this. She thought that they were not part of this ordinance and felt that the Committee, over a course of a year, had this very discussion. Their level of comfort was that it would not do exactly what Member Cassis was concerned with, restricting the historic fund raising efforts of multiple youth organizations in the community and the impact it would have on adult charitable fund raisers as Member Crawford pointed out.

Mr. Fried said it didn’t have quite the impact that Member Crawford put on it in regard to the adults. He discussed this with Mr. Watson just prior to the meeting and read a note that Mr. Watson put together for him. It read "assuming that minors involved in such activities and groups are not accompanied by an adult when they solicit or peddle. The group will need to get a minor group permit. Current ordinance states that minors need not get a permit if they’re peddling or soliciting for civic, charitable, philanthropic, religious, educational or athletic purposes." Mr. Fried said that language had been deleted. He considered providing an exemption for such activities, however, that wouldn’t address the problems that the minor use permit provisions was designed to address and those are the ones Member Mutch talked about. He said if Council wanted to exempt those groups then the problems that Member Mutch raised would not be addressed. Mr. Fried understood in discussion with Mr. Watson that was the concern that the Police Department had and it was exactly the problems that Member Mutch raised. If a child, soliciting for Girl Scouts or any other group, was injured and there is no adult accompanying the child and no information regarding the child what do the police do?

Councilman Schmid said he had some difficulty with the ordinance as written for some of the reasons mentioned. He did not have enough information to support the ordinance as written and thought there were many areas that could be addressed. He said he would like to see some police reports and information regarding the severity of this problem as well as the homeowners.

Councilwoman Cassis felt the ordinance should be tabled and returned to the Ordinance Review Committee along with the issues that were raised by the members of Council and get the information that had been requested and then return it. She said Council was being asked to approve a I and II Reading all at one time and there are question raised. If there are some improvements that could be made she wanted to look at them.

Councilman Clark said he would make a motion to table this item.

Councilman Crawford asked Member Clark if he would make a motion to postpone so he could ask a question?

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford asked Mr. Fried to respond to his concern.

Mr. Fried said in the group situation that Member Crawford indicated only one person had to make the application, be photographed, get fingerprinted and list the names of those in the group.

Councilman Clark asked if Mr. Kriewall could get the information for Council and Chief Shaeffer or his designee might want to be present to provide Council with information and insight.

Councilwoman Mutch said she had seen the information in terms of calls and knew it was available. She said the changes also provided for greater accountability so that if someone was soliciting in the community, particularly from outside the community, that person had to apply and provide information as to the name of their business, what they would be soliciting for and who could be contacted. Then if there were unusual things going on or if children were left in circumstances they shouldn’t be there would be accountability by the permit holder.

Design Modification Request.

Mayor McLallen said the resolution concerned the Grand River Bridge which was in the process of being replaced by the Oakland County Road Commission and Member Mitzel’s proposal is that the bridge be redesigned to accommodate pedestrian safety paths on each side of the bridge at no loss to the traffic flow over the bridge.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Crawford said the resolution would then exclude the center turn lane on the bridge. He said that sounded like common sense maybe there was a reason for that center turn lane for traffic flow once it widens to five lanes again.

Councilman Mitzel said the resolution said they could consider doing that and that would also allow accommodation of the extra lane without having to build the bridge wider. It didn’t say that Council desired it, necessarily, it was more of a consideration. Mainly it was saying Council desired the extra safety path on the other side.

Mr. Arroyo said it was a question of transitioning to provide the center turn lane. A center turn lane was not needed on a bridge structure because there was no place to turn. The question was in advance of that and after the bridge was there enough time to widen out and provide time and traveling space when building the road to provide the center turn lane. He said he could not answer that because he didn’t know what they were doing with the road design. He thought if Council would ask them to consider it they would take it into consideration and see if it was feasible to do that. Mr. Arroyo said it would depend on what kind of design they came up with.

Councilman Schmid asked if there was a design that Council had seen?

Mr. Kriewall thought Tony Nowicki had been given a preliminary sketch but the purpose of the grade inspection and the public hearing was to hear all input. He said there was nothing cast in stone at this point in time.

Councilman Schmid asked if there would be eight foot wide bike paths on both sides of the bridge when they’re done with it?

Councilman Mitzel said currently the south side is designated on the Master Plan for eight foot and the north side is not designated so it would be five foot. He said there was talk that Council might want both sides to be eight foot and that would be an ordinance change that was initiated last year. As of right now it could be five foot but if building a bridge why not just say eight? He felt that way it would accommodate whether Council went one way or the other in the future. The main thing Member Mitzel felt important was it was the only road that led into the Town Center from the west side and we are trying to get pedestrian access from both sides.

Councilman Schmid said he agreed that there should be a sidewalk going across the bridge.

Mayor McLallen stated there would be a public hearing on this issue at City Hall on May 8th, Wednesday at 7:30 PM.

Councilwoman Mutch understood, after talking with Mr. Nowicki, that originally the pedestrian pathway as proposed was on the north side and she questioned him initially that if there was going to be a pedestrian path on the bridge why not encourage them to put it on the south side. She said her question to Mr. Nowicki was whether it was possible or not and were they too far along in the design process? Mr. Nowicki told Member Mutch that it might be possible to have it on both sides. She felt with all the residential development on the south side of Grand River it made more sense for it to be on the south side as proposed by this resolution.

Councilman Crawford said the resolution didn’t talk about a five foot pathway on the north side. It sounded like the center turn lane was being eliminated so that the funds or the space could be used to put eight feet on the north side. Member Mitzel said there was going to be five feet on the north side and eight feet on the south side already.

Councilman Mitzel said he meant along Grand River the entire length but not the bridge. Right now there would be five foot sidewalks all along the north side of Grand River but there would be nothing on the bridge and on the south side they’re proposing eight foot. He said in his draft resolution he put eight foot on both sides and then if it was decided to widen out to eight feet on both sides of Grand River in the future the bridge would be able to accommodate it. The center turn lane was if the room was needed it could be used for the room as opposed to having to widen the bridge. As Mr. Arroyo said it might not be necessary or might not be feasible. Council was asking them to consider that and to try to include pedestrian on both side of the bridge.

Pete Hoadley, 31084 Arlington Circle, congratulated the Council on their wisdom in regard to the Soccer Zone and postponing the ordinance as he thought it did need a lot more thought and study particularly as it would impact charitable organizations and children.

Mr. Hoadley wanted to discuss the future of the community. He said Novi was not quite 50% developed. He stated he had seen the demographics recently in regards to our build out under the current Master Plan of about 78,000 people. He was also mindful of a speech that Blair Bowman made about a year ago to the Chamber of Commerce. He thought that everyone needed to join hands together as a Planning Department, Planning Commission, public, consultants and City Council to start a visioning process that allowed some of the ordinances that were archaic or not conducive to inviting the right type of Industrial Light/Industrial Commercial use so there could be a proper balance. He said it wouldn’t be very long before Council would be debating regarding a massive village to address our current concerns on budgeting. He said if what he was suggesting had been done several years ago we might not of had that debate at all. We might have had enough income from projects that didn’t generate a lot of cost to the City as far as servicing them with roads, infrastructure, police, fire and emergency services. He encouraged everyone present and the public to take a hard look the next two or three years. This is a great window of opportunity and we have over 50% of our community to think about re-master planning or changing some things and that would work for every body’s benefit. Hopefully, we can all bear that in mind and go forth as partners and address these community needs. If anyone has recently been out to Troy on Big Beaver Road it is a beautiful road, it’s boulevarded and has some marvelous projects on it that are not only architecturally interesting but generate a huge tax base that didn’t take a lot of cost to maintain as far as infrastructure. Twelve Mile Road once it’s boulevarded could be another Big Beaver if we think about it and do the right thing.

Brent Hartshorn said he had tried to get water in his house for over three years. The first time there was an ordinance that said he had to pay for it in full which was well over $10,000 for a single family hookup. He said after he complained Council made another ordinance that said he could pay for it in three years and $500.00 a month was no big deal, right? Everyone can afford $500.00 a month. He kept complaining and Council said they would go to the special ordinance committee over this. Mr. Hartshorn said the third time we went to special ordinance, discussed it and came up with a plan that was going to work. He said he was there, everybody agreed on it and the City was going to come up with a figure and the balance was going to be paid when the property was sold or split. He said the fee was $2,500, which was reasonable, and after a year the ordinance was finally written out and he finally got it and was told all he had to do was take it to his bank and get them to give the City first lien over his property. He asked who among Council could get their bank to give up first lien on their mortgage. He said he had talked to Vice-Presidents at First of America and everybody there for over two months and they won’t do it. He asked Council how they could make an ordinance that was out of reach. He asked why Council was doing this?

Mayor McLallen said this Council probably could not help him because they didn’t have the answer to his question but recommended he talk with the City Attorney.

Mr. Hartshorn said he had talked to everybody and they say good luck. He said he was tired of this and there was no reason why he shouldn’t be able to get water. He said the house had been there for over 100 years and he had been there over 15 years and people in the City can get water without going through what he had gone through. He said the City could put a lien on his property without his permission it was done all the time with Special Assessments. He said he was giving his permission and the City still would not accept it.

Mayor McLallen said Council was not able to deal with that legal aspect and referred Mr. Hartshorn to the City Attorney.

Mr. Hartshorn asked then what’s going to happen after he talked with Mr. Fried? It would be put off again and this has gone on well over three years and he had gone through three different Councils.

Councilwoman Cassis stated she would not respond to the gentleman in kind but would raise this issue during Manager’s Report .

Mr. Hartshorn said OK I can go talk to the attorney and then maybe come back again. Is there something I have to do like file some kind of report, petition, law suit? Tell me.

Mayor McLallen said Council would have to go through Administration to find out the details and get back to Mr. Hartshorn.

Ruth Ann Jirasek, representing the City of Novi Homeowners Association, said they had had the Solicitation and Peddling Ordinances in committee for over two years and as the Mayor stated it had been in Ordinance Review for a very long time. It was taken out of Ordinance Review and given to the City Attorney, over to the Police Department and back to City of Novi Homeowners Association. She said it had been an extremely lengthy process to get this done. She said they had made many concessions on the original document and they were all in agreement with the document that came before Council. She said there was one glitch and that was with the community groups. She said they were unaware of it reading in that manner and it was not their intent. She said it was a very big problem and so large that she had six pages of calls that came into dispatch January 1 through January 30. She suggested that a representative from the Police Department be present because they were able to help Mr. Watson and herself understand more thoroughly what the problems were when the police went out on the solicitation calls. She said the problems were addressed in the ordinance and they would be able to handle the problem without any repercussions to the children that were on the streets. It reverted directly back to the man holding the permit. She said they would like to see it back to Council on the 13th and if there was anything they could do to speed up the process they would be delighted to do that.

7. Approval of Excess Main Street Property Proposed Conveyance to Evergreen III

Mr. Fried said his letter was self explanatory in regard to what would happen to the extra ten feet that had not been conveyed to Evergreen. He said Mr. Chin was concerned about how this ten feet would be used and how their concerns would be protected and yet allow us to use that ten feet too.

Councilman Schmid asked where the ten feet came from?

Joe Kapelczak, JCK Engineering, said that if familiar with the piece of property there was Old Paul Bunyan Drive running easterly off of Novi Road which runs north and south and this is where the Main Street today is being built. He said when the legal description for the right of way was described we only needed X amount of feet along Novi Road. What happened was there was a little ten foot sliver that was left and was never put in the agreement to go to Evergreen III and was left as City property. He thought Evergreen III wanted to have control over that property and that was how they got into the discussion with Mr. Fried’s office.

Mr. Fried said Evergreen III was concerned that the City would use that ten foot strip for access to the Main Street and their concern was justified. He said there was Industrial or whatever in that area that they don’t have direct access to Main Street through that ten foot strip. He said he had put together conditions that would protect Evergreen III and yet protect the City too in the utilization of that ten foot. He said it came about through a surveyor who used exactly the number of feet he needed for the road and left ten feet over that remained City property.

Councilman Schmid said the City owns the property where the road is?

Mr. Fried said that was correct, where the road is and the ten foot strip.

Mr. Kapelczak said the ten feet was not needed for the road construction or for the right of way of the road construction.

Councilman Schmid asked if the property was part of the computation that was developed for the figures that were put together that determined that the City was getting a reasonable compensation.

Mr. Fried said in his discussion with Mr. Watson it was taken into consideration and not included in the numbers that would deal with compensation for construction of the road.

Mr. Kriewall said even though it might not have been officially included it really had no impact on the overall analysis of the entire figure because the strip is non-buildable, it is a small piece of excess right of way to the City. Several alternatives were discussed on how to handle this and

one was to retain the property and provide an easement conveyance that allowed Evergreen III to put in the landscaping and decorative wall or whatever they wanted to do. Mr. Kriewall specifically asked Mr. Watson why he chose to draft it so that there’s an actual conveyance but the City retaining several easement rights over this parcel and he indicated that the property ought to go back on the tax roll and that was why he set it up in this fashion. Mr. Kriewall said the City had all the protection it needed, the right to cross the parcel with a roadway to the easterly end of the parcel should the property develop non industrial. He said crossing the property was not allowed as long as the property remained industrial. There are protected easements for any future utility extension and if the requirements that are placed on any one trying to gain access on this parcel are reviewed they have to provide traffic studies and show that they are not creating a traffic impact or problem to Main Street. He thought the attorneys had covered and protected the City from all angles on this document and recommended Council approval.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel stated this ten foot strip was nothing new and had been talked about since the project came forward and it was stated at that time that it would stay City of Novi property. He said his question concerned the ultimate Master Plan in the area and he believed it was supposed to be TC (Town Center) and it might even be considered in the rezoning that’s going on at the Planning Commission level now.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant, said the subject strip was zoned TC presently.

Councilman Mitzel asked about the property immediately to the south.

Mr. Rogers said Lots 41 and 42 are zoned B-3 and then south of Lot 42 was the KMH property which for the most part is zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial.

Councilman Mitzel said Lots 41 and 42 are zoned commercial. He asked how they were Master Planned?

Mr. Rogers said B-3 and the Master Plan called out that the entire area down to KMH are some type of Commercial and it’s all black on the Master Plan and that did not distinguish between TC and TC-1. The pending rezoning, which might have come before Council tonight the Planning Commission recommended at a recent public hearing, would change the TC property plus the B-3 property and the KMH property all to TC-1.

Councilman Mitzel said then there is a pending rezoning recommendation to come to Council for the strip and Lots 41 and 42 to go to TC-1 which is the same as the Main Street project.

Mr. Rogers said and also Lots 38, 39, 40 and up those are TC-1 now.

Councilman Mitzel said and all along Novi Road?

Mr. Rogers said those would go to TC-1 too. Everything in the southeast and southwest quadrants was up for Council’s consideration maybe in the next meeting.

Councilman Mitzel advocated that Council proceed with what Mr. Kriewall said was one of the first alternatives which was the City would retain ownership of that property until such time Lots 41 and 42 were built according to TC-1 standards and then that property could be incorporated with the project to continue the theme of Main Street which is the zero setback and all the other type of amenities. He said it seemed Council would want in the long range to draw that to the Main Street Road which is a public road. Right now all that stands between those properties and that public road is a ten foot strip of public property. When those properties were ready to develop according to TC-1 then it seemed that would be the time to incorporate that strip of land with those properties so it could all be a complete development following TC-1 on Main Street. He saw no reason to transfer the property at this point.

Councilman Mitzel said this would be a transfer of City property which would be basically relinquishing City property. He said the City Charter required five votes and it also required bids or a letter from the Finance Director saying there was no value in going out for bids. He asked if the Council could act tonight without that letter.

Mr. Fried said yes, the City Manager said that he had discussed it with the City Finance Director and it would be supplied to the Council. It would be contingent upon receipt of that letter.

Councilman Mitzel would not support the motion. He believed that it was in the best interests in the long range development plan to maintain control of the property and have it integrate with the properties to the south at the time that they are redeveloped into TC-1 Zoning compatible.

Councilwoman Cassis said the City Manager made a very good point that this was to get the matter on the tax rolls but thought there was a technicality that Member Mitzel raised. She didn’t think it would be a problem for the City Manager to come back with a letter showing that the Finance Director had reviewed this. She said Member Mitzel said it was according to Charter and bring it forward so that every property owner was treated equally and fairly. She wanted to see the matter tabled or postponed until the next meeting on May 13th or earlier. She said Council did have a budget meeting May 9th.

Councilwoman Cassis asked Mr. Kriewall if it was possible to have the City Manager review this and bring it back by Thursday, May 9th and this matter could be added to an agenda?

Mr. Kriewall said yes.

Councilwoman Cassis said therefore, she would postpone this matter until Thursday, May 9th.

Councilman Crawford said that was a Special Meeting and asked if it mattered how Council added things to it?

Mr. Kriewall said we could bring it back next Monday.

Mrs. Bartholomew said the meeting had not been called yet so the agenda had not been set.

CM-96-05-164: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Crawford, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY; To postpone this item until May 13th at which time a letter from the Finance Director would be available and the amount of taxes this property would generate should it be put back on the tax roll.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel requested the amount of taxes this would generate if put back on the tax roll

be brought back.

8. Approval of Offer to Purchase Real Estate from Hughlan Meadowbrook Ltd. Partnership and Land Associates of Novi (Sandstone)

Mr. Fried said he had a couple of amendments he would like put into the agreement. He said they would not change the body of the agreement but were things he felt should be cleared up.

In Section 1, page 3, Mr. Fried added another sentence to the body of that language, "the City does not, however, guarantee that the costs of the construction of this road improvement project shall be $93,000.00." He said the cost was estimated and there was no guarantee in there.

Section 10, page 5, Mr. Fried added another sentence, "the City, however, does not agree that another governmental body or agency will not impede Sandstones access to the real estate retained by it." Mr. Fried said they wanted assurance they would have access to their property, we give them that assurance that in the course of construction they will have access but we don’t know what any other government agency will do.

Mr. Fried said with those two items in there the agreement is in a form that is acceptable to the City. He said what in effect this did was the City was buying these easements and interest in this real estate for $83,000 and are providing that Sandstone can complete and build a City road in accordance to plans and specifications approved by the City and they would have to build it in accordance with the conditions laid out in this agreement. He felt it adequately protected the City.

Mayor McLallen said on Page 3, paragraph 1, where it describes the work area it said, "the City shall cause plans for the grading and paving of Meadowbrook Road beginning at a point approximately 1,000 feet south of the center line of Thirteen Mile Road and ending at a point approximately 500 feet south of the center line." She asked if they weren’t concurrent?

Joe Kapelczak said it should be 1,500 feet.

Mr. Fried said thank you.

Councilman Schmid asked Mr. Kapelczak what was happening.

Mr. Kapelczak pointed out Thirteen Mile Road and said this project was going to be let next month by the State Highway Department along with the improvements in the Haggerty Road Connector. He said they would improve Thirteen Mile Road to a point approximately 600 feet west of Meadowbrook Road. Also, in their improvement will be a portion of Meadowbrook south of Thirteen Mile Road and they will go approximately 500 feet south of Thirteen Mile Road and improve that. He said to do all that construction, pointed out areas on map, everything that Council saw in color were some type of easements needed from Hughlan Development Company and all those easements were spelled out in the agreement. Along with that the City takes title to the immediate southeast corner of Meadowbrook and Thirteen. He said what happens was that Sandstone or Hughlan Development Company would have the right to construct this piece of the road south of where the Highway Department would terminate their construction. So they will be able to build another 600 foot section which was a future road connection through the Vistas Development. Also, the Walled Lake School District has plans to put a school which then would be putting their driveways into this road.

Councilman Schmid asked if they were building the road at their own expense?

Mr. Kapelczak said that’s correct. He said we’re putting a little bit of money in there in the easement agreement that they are going to use. He said we are paying for all those easements and they are saying they are going to use that money and build a road.

Mr. Fried said a little bit of money is $83,000.00.

CM-96-05-165: Moved by Clark, Seconded by Mitzel, MOTION CARRIED: To approve the Offer to Purchase Real Estate from Hughlan Meadowbrook Ltd. Partnership and Land Associates of Novi aka Sandstone with the changes the City Attorney had recommended.

Consulting)

Mayor McLallen said there were two proposals included, one from Plante & Moran and one from Cooper & Lybrand and the City Administration had recommended Cooper & Lybrand.

Mr. Kriewall explained they interviewed representatives from both firms and told them that they wanted to do a very hands-on analysis of police staffing and service delivery capabilities through analysis of reports. He said we have had two proposals submitted, one from Plante & Moran and one from Cooper & Lybrand and we feel that the Cooper & Lybrand proposal is more complete and more descriptive and we are recommending that Cooper & Lybrand be engaged at this time.

Mayor McLallen said the major question was the Cooper & Lybrand quote said that they had a not-to-exceed cap of $14,900 and the request for a Budget Amendment is $20,000 so Mr. Kriewall should address that.

Mr. Kriewall said they did indicate in their proposal that they had to perform some extensive analysis over and above what they think they needed to perform and this kind of a task is not defined at the onset. In other words, as they discover more information, they may want to perform more analysis, but we would be comfortable at this time if Council wanted to cap the Cooper & Lybrand quote that they made to us. He said we would come back to Council if we needed to expend any monies beyond that, so if Council wanted to cap it at $14,900 at the present time, it seems very reasonable for this service and we would recommend it.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilwoman Cassis asked the timetable to return these recommendations and Mr. Kriewall replied they have indicated they can do it in about 6-8 weeks.

Councilwoman Cassis added their Police and Fire Committee have looked at this for over a year and we certainly are very mindful and appreciative of the efforts of citizens who have come forward and done this. She said she could support this because it will help Council get a particular insight into the overall needs and where we are going in the next 10-15 years. She said it gives us a way of projecting these needs to such a degree that when we as a Council make a recommendation to the people of this community regarding police and fire services and a millage, that we can be not only assured that the work of the committee was helpful in this but also that we are taking a responsible and professional look at this to make the best judgement.

CM-96-05-166: Moved by Cassis, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consultant Agreement for Police Patrol Staffing Analysis and adoption of Budget Amendment 96-18 in the amount of $14,900 and if any further funds are requested, this would have to come back to Council.

DISCUSSION

Councilman Mitzel agreed with Councilwoman Cassis’ comments and would add that he regrets not having done this up front so that this data would have been available for the committee to use.

Councilman Schmid supported the motion, however, it should be clear that this is another study and it would help support the Citizens Committee Study or address it at least, but it would be strictly a recommendation and nothing more by the group that is doing it.

11. SCHEDULE SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING ON THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1996 - TO IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE ACTIVITIES ROOM.

DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen said it was her understanding that we have received in the packet a format for the Clerk’s Evaluation and this will enable the Clerk to tell us what she has done and accomplished in relationship to that.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Councilman Mitzel asked about the Ordinance Review Committee and back in February we had basically concluded the work that needed to be done at the Committee level for the ordinance concerning RV’s, Signs, Detroit Edison Utility Lines, and Safety Paths on both sides of the roads. He said three of those issues were to be reported back to Council that the Committee needed direction or wasn’t going to take any action and the other one was that the Attorney was going to draft an amendment and to come to Council. He said it has been 2 1/2 months and nothing has come forward.

Councilman Mitzel asked for a quick report on Community Clubs and the Ice Arena. Councilman Crawford said he gave Council a brief report last time that we have scheduled meetings every Wednesday night for the next several weeks because time is of the essence to address any concerns on the site or the documents. At our last meeting there were some concerns by some members that were not quite familiar with the process that we have gone through the last couple of years and we have asked Mr. Watson to be there to explain the agreements that we have already somewhat blessed as a Council and to bring the rest of the Committee members up to date.

Councilman Clark said the Town Center Committee met tonight and discussed a number of items and one was the Access Main Street Property, which we also had on our Agenda this evening, and also there is a continuing discussion going on regarding the Main Street signage for the buildings that will go in and that is still being reviewed so we have some uniformity and some standards in terms of an overall theme and that is being developed. Also the Chamber of Commerce has made a proposal for an amenity in the form of a streetscape, which would be a clock something along the lines of what Northville has and they are thinking in terms of $20,000 for this clock which they have already raised half the money.

Councilman Crawford said he received copies of the minutes of their last two meetings of the Community Clubs but they are not in this packet and should be and Mrs. Bartholomew should contact Dan Davis for copies.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

Councilwoman Cassis said she wasn’t sure where Mr. Hartshorn lives and Mayor McLallen indicated he lives on Novi Road on the west side just north of the site condominium, Arrowon Pines. Councilwoman Cassis then said she is aware that several years ago, water mains were placed in this area and that individual property owners would be able to tap in. Mr. Hartshon brings a real hardship as he has expressed it, maybe one that was not anticipated, but in order to answer some of his questions, she wondered if our City Manager and City Attorney might meet and discuss that and see if there is an equitable way to help out a single property owner.

Mr. Kriewall indicated there has been two or three amendments to the Ordinance to provide some relief to this gentleman and he would meet with the attorney and the department head and even Mr. Hartshorn and try to trace the history of the relief that he is seeking and come back to Council with a recommendation.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Councilwoman Cassis said there was a letter from Parks & Recreation speaking to the North Novi Master Planning and apparently Faren and Associates have completed their recommendations and she thought that information was going to come back to Council before a Public Hearing was set on the matter, which was set for Thursday evening.

Mr. Kriewall recalled that we questioned the Parks & Recreation Commission as to their timing and not bringing something forward to City Council and their response was they had already noticed their hearing and felt they needed to proceed. Mr. Kriewall said if Council wants to see the document before it goes much further he would bring that forward at the next Council meeting.

Mr. Kriewall then stated Mr. Ron Watson has indicated that regarding the US 500 stock car race held opposite the Indy 500 race, there is a big controversy going on and apparently they have invited the Motors Sports Museum to actually run the Novi Special as the parade lap for that race. He said Motor Sports is trying to find the original restoring mechanic to see if they can get that running but for years, they have been trying to be invited to Indianapolis to run the Novi Special but the Indy Race track would only allow them to come down if we gave them a free motor which we didn’t want to do. He said with this competition heating up, we have been invited to the race and we will try and take it there.

Councilman Schmid then asked about the several claims for wells and so forth that have failed in the area of Nine Mile/Beck Road and is that a result of the dewatering of the 9 Mile sewer. Mr. Kriewall said not that we have been able to determine and we have looked at several complaints in that area. He stated our engineers and our water department, Mr. Nowicki, have investigated many of the concerns but some of them appear from a timing standpoint, that they may be coincidental to what is going on over there. Based on the depth of the dewatering and the depth of the problem wells, it doesn’t appear that there is any necessary relationship and it was determined based on the studies that have been done in the area, the proximity to the wells and the depth of the wells.

Mr. Kriewall said as in Mr. Young’s problem, it is a situation where he has had a well head failing at a depth of something in excess of the dewatering depth of the sanitary sewer that was installed and he is such a long way from it, it appears there is no correlation.

Councilman Schmid requested a list of the claims.

Councilman Schmid next asked if the City is working on a Recreational Zoning District. Mr. Kriewall said they are looking at drafting some language that would accomplish such an end based on our prior discussions with City Council, and that model has been taken from other cities such as Milford. He said in a meeting with Mr. Young, we fully explained the evolution of how we are looking at this, for instance, Community Sports Club having optioned the property on Eight Mile before we even came into the picture in terms of discussion with the Sports Club. He stated the the entire evolution of how this complex might be developed in that area was also discussed with Mr. Young, even to point out that we have had public posted meetings of Planning Commissioners and Council Members touring the facility. From that point, it led to the evolution of considering a particular zoning change through the definition of a new zoning classification and Mr. Young is aware of that.

Councilman Schmid said he wasn’t speaking specifically of Mr. Young and the rumor is beyond Mr. Young. Mr. Kriewall indicated it was in process and will probably come to Council and/or Planning Commission within the next two to three weeks.

Councilman Mitzel asked if they could provide the results of what happened with the Farmington Hills rezoning and the oil wells and such. Also, Deb Bundoff mentioned a couple of weeks ago, water standing on both sides of Novi Road just north of the Amoco Station and part of it looks like wetlands and the other part looks like the water normally would not be there and he would like information on that. Also he had requested status of that Fretter site, especially the vacant lot concerning the landscaping.

Mr. Kriewall reported there was a notice in the paper over the weekend that this particular Fretter site was for sale and we know that some of the adjacent property owners/developers in that area, have been negotiating on the site so apparently that Fretter site will be gone.

Councilman Mitzel said his question concerns more what the status is of that whole agreement with the development and the landscaping and the $50,000 bond that was put out for landscaping and their site plans and they keep coming through with all these site plans and nothing happens, and he wondered where it stands. Mr. Kriewall said the money is still posted with us and apparently the most recent development plans are vanishing along with Fretter’s ability to retain the property.

Councilman Mitzel asked if the Administration would provide a recommendation as to whether or not we should proceed to utilizing those funds and Mr. Kriewall felt it was more of a legal question than anything else at this point in time. Councilman Mitzel said he would like some feedback because this has been going on for 10-13 years.

Councilwoman Mutch stated the Detroit Free Press did a rather exhaustive study of suburban communities that buy water from the City of Detroit and they had indicated that Novi was one of those communities that had the least mark-up and she thought we were at the very bottom of the list. She said it appeared that some communities such as Birmingham, which had an incredible mark-up close to 300%, appeared to be getting their water at a lesser rate, not only what we paid, but what it cost the City of Detroit residents to pay and she wondered if Mr. Kriewall could explain that.

Mr. Kriewall read the same article and said they have been to court on the water rates and Mr. Fried was involved in a fairly extensive litigation about 7-8 years ago and had lost. He said the rates are unfair and they are based on a distance and transportation elevation pumping equation that apparently has been adopted by the water industry throughout the United States and they really tie all of the variables in that equation to distance and elevation of pumping and when you are at the end of the line, which we are, we pay a premium and that is based on elevation and distance.

Mr. Kriewall said there have been some "sweetheart" contracts negotiated by communities a long a time ago, before Novi was hooked into the Detroit system and one is the water authority that embodies Southfield and Oak Park and some other communities, and they have their own water authority and they do some of their own repumping so they are buying the water at a wholesale rate, but they are actually repumping it. He said Detroit doesn’t allow that anymore because they were losing money in some of the prior agreements.

Mr. Kriewall said the only way to resolve that issue would be through some of the State Legislation that has been proposed by people such as the County Drain Commissioner and others over time. He felt this article was good in that it brings this issue out again.

Mr. Kriewall said our low mark-up margin is being reviewed right now by the Finance Director and he is probably going to have a recommendation to Council for a rate adjustment the second meeting in June and that will coincide with proposed Detroit rate increases which is scheduled to go in effect on July 1st and our low mark-up is historic in this community and we have always tried to just barely get our add-on operating costs added to the wholesale rate from Detroit, because it is so high. He said we have tried to keep it on a very close margin, but it looks like it needs some fine-turning.

Councilwoman Mutch said she would like to comment too that the figures that were given in the chart indicate that in Birmingham they pay less than $4.00 for the same amount which she believed we pay in excess of $10.00 for, and they still pay more and the consumer in that particular community pays more than we do with our mark-up to cover our costs of delivery. Mr. Kriewall said we are very efficient from a wholesale to a retail pricing standpoint and our mark-up is very minimal and the volume has something to do with it.

Councilwoman Mutch said if there is anything we can do to improve this, to please keep us informed because the City of Detroit is in the process of installing a new metering system. Mr. Kriewall said the problem politically is that some of the other communities that have the better rate structure, would normally align with the suburban areas in terms of legislative initiative and the initiative is not there quite frankly and for Southfield and Birmingham and some of those other areas, they just like things the way they are so we have to fight a difficult battle politically in that regard. He felt as the system expands to more suburban areas, they will find that the political situation might change because all the newer communities coming into the City will be faced with even higher rates than Novi, so it should come to a head eventually but politically it might take some time for the situation to change.

Councilman Schmid then brought up the letter received from Mr. Richard Schliem III regarding the traffic light on Twelve Mile Road and asked for a report and Mr. Kriewall indicated he would give him a report.

ATTORNEY’S REPORTS - None

4. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION, RE: INSTALLATION OF FAST-TRAC SIGNAL SYSTEM - HAGGERTY ROAD - PULLED BY SCHMID.

Councilman Schmid said there has been a lot of discussion in Oakland County and other areas that this system does not work and he wondered if Mr. Kriewall had received any positive or negative comments.

Mr. Kriewall said they have made some improvements along the way, but he knows the initial start-up headaches they had in Troy were tremendous and the Troy people were swearing up and down that traffic got worse once they turned this on. He said there were some problems with the earlier cameras and they wouldn’t detect certain color cars and there were some real problems. He said in monitoring the situation, the County has been under a lot of scrutiny nation-wide because of this system, so they apparently have corrected a lot of the problems. He said it is expanding all over the United States, which is testimony that they are getting the bugs out of the system.

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

Novi Road Water Main By-Pass-N-5003-1

Temporary Construction Easement Emerald Oaks Company $250.00

Temporary Construction Easement Emerald Oaks Company $250.00

Temporary Construction Easement Dixon Road Group Ltd. $225.00

Temporary Construction Easement Novi-Twelve Mile Assoc. $ 30.00

Main Street Streetscape - N-3620-03

Streetscape Easement Vic’s Kid Ltd Liability Co. Gift

Type of Document Executed by Compensation

Basset Drain Cleanout - Document Acceptance

Drainage Easement Thomas & Genevieve McSweeney Gift

Temporary Construction Easement Thomas & Genevieve McSweeney Gift

Ingress-Egress Easement Thomas & Genevieve McSweeney Gift

Councilman Mitzel asked about the Main Street Streetscape Easement and is that for the tower and Mr. Kapelczak replied yes.

Councilman Mitzel said concerning the Basset Drain Cleanout, the cover letter from JCK basically mentions that there are concerns with City insurance coverage and indemnification that should be acted upon by Council from a policy issue and he tried to follow along in the packet and wasn’t successful and he asked if that has been cleared up or is there still something Council is suppose to act on or consider.

Mr. Kapelczak said Mr. Fried’s office was working on that matter, trying to get an indemnification clause put into the easement agreement because if you don’t put an indemnification clause in there, the City will have a harder time procuring easements especially of this nature.

Councilman Mitzel said Mr. Fried’s office had a question as to whether or not City insurance would cover that and Mr. Fried said it would not cover it. Mr. Fried said the issue has not been resolved and Councilman Mitzel said he was surprised it was on the Consent Agenda.

Councilman Mitzel didn’t feel they have it clearly outlined which way Council should go on this and how to resolve this matter and Mr. Fried said without the indemnification agreement.

Moved by Mitzel, NO SUPPORT, MOTION DIED: To approve all Resolutions on Item #8 except for the Main Street Streetscape and the Basset Drain Clean-out because there are concerns on one item and on the other item he wished to vote no.

Councilman Mitzel said on the Main Street Streetscape, he was going to vote no because he didn’t think it was in the City’s best interest to have an easement for a tower.

Councilman Mitzel said regarding the Basset Drain Cleanout, that was still an issue the Council has to discuss on how we are going to go and do we want standardized identification language in it or do we want to try to pull those things out and see if we are able to get those easements.

Councilwoman Mutch said on the compensation given for the temporary construction easements, when she looked at the documents, the figures do not agree. She said the Dixon Road Group Ltd. shows a compensation of $30.00 instead of $250, and the Novi-Twelve Mile Assoc. shows $225.00 rather than $250. Mr. Kapelczak indicated the figures in the documents were correct, but the Agenda had the incorrect figures.

Councilman Mitzel indicated their Parliamentary Rules do not require a vote for splitting the question.

Councilwoman Mutch also indicated that the gift from Vic’s Kid Ltd Liability Co is actually $1.00.

The motion was restated:

Vote on CM-96-05-171: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

CM-96-05-172: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Clark, MOTION CARRIED: To approve the Main Street Streetscape Resolution.

Yeas: McLallen, Crawford, Cassis, Clark, Mutch, Schmid

Nays: Mitzel

Councilman Mitzel said we had a letter concerning the bikepath along Taft Road by Royal Crown from the Royal Crown Homeowners Association, and he felt maybe the Administration could respond to them that that was actually included in the $50,000 project that we approved last year and it hasn’t been completed because of the lack of easement there and we should fill them in that we are trying to work on it and it hasn’t been forgotten.

Mr. Kriewall indicated that Mr Nowicki has told him that they have been trying continually to get that easement from the owner of the cemetery and he refuses to give it to us and apparently we cannot condemn the cemetery.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM.

Mayor City Clerk

Date approved: August 26, 1996

Transcribed by Charlene McLean & Sharon Hendrian