Mayor McLallen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Mayor McLallen, Mayor ProTem Crawford, Council Members DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Mutch, Schmid

Mayor McLallen advised there is a request to add the Financing for the Acquisition of the Addition to the North Novi Park Property (Poll property) as Item 7 under Matters for Council Action. The Mayor continued by stating that there is an amendment to Item E under the Consent Agenda (policy must be reviewed by the city auditors). Further, the Mayor noted Item A. 1 under the Consent Agenda should be corrected to read August 24, 1998 instead of August 17, 1998.

Councilwoman Lorenzo requested that Council remove Item 2 under Mayor Council Issues because she would like to discuss it as a Consent Agenda Item. She then requested that Council add the Ice Arena Pre-opening Budget Reimbursement as Item 2 and add Mr. Frankel’s Request to the City Clerk as Item 3.

Councilman Kramer asked that Council add the Twelve Mile Road Plan as Item 5 and Sidewalks as Item 6 under Mayor and Council Issues.

PRESENTATIONS:

1. Introduction of Lisa Dilg, Program Director for Coalition That Cares

Craig Klaver gave a brief history of the Coalition That Cares grant and advised that Lisa Dilg will facilitate the after school youth activity program. He clarified that Beth Belter will now serve as the Executive Director and an employee of the Coalition. He added that the Parks & Recreation Department will administer the after school program. Mr. Klaver then introduced Ms. Dilg and advised that she holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Central University, and also holds a Masters of Art and Counseling.

Ms. Dilg advised the program will use Soccer Zone and the Ice Rink facilities, and are currently considering two other sites. She added that they are also in the process of purchasing equipment and have posted job openings for staff members. Ms. Dilg reported they are targeting Friday, October 23 for their Open House.

Councilwoman Mutch asked Ms. Dilg to describe the available positions. Ms. Dilg advised they are looking for three part time site supervisors who must be eighteen years or older with some experience with children who are available from 1:30 until 6:00 p.m. She added they are also looking for eight part time program assistant positions and four of these employees would serve as tutors. Finally, Ms. Dilg advised that they are looking for a part time office assistant with some clerical experience. Ms. Dilg advised she can be reached at the Parks & Recreation Department.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Edward L. King, Jr. - 22220 Connemara, advised he has been a Novi resident since 1983. He added prior to his retirement, he worked as the Chair of the Social Studies Department at Fordson High School in Dearborn. He advised he taught Geography and received an NDEA Fellowship in Advanced Geography in 1966. Further, Mr. King advised that he holds four college and university degrees, including a doctorate. Mr. King explained he is relating this information because he wants to clarify that he has expertise on the topic about which he wishes to discuss; Thornton Creek Stream erosion and its impact upon his property. Mr. King advised that Thornton Creek flows along the southern edge of his property and prior to the removal of trees, vegetation and the disturbing of the wetlands, the creek carried a modicum of water at a leisurely flow. He continued by stating that it has now been cleared of its natural vegetation and covered in concrete to make way for new homes. In addition, Mr. King advised that Nine Mile Road was paved and reminded Council that during certain rain storms, it floods between Taft and Beck Roads. Mr. Field stated this past August the area experienced a heavy concentration of rain and consequently, vast amounts of water drained from this section. He advised that the water velocity of Thornton Creek began to increase and the stream could not bear the load because the culverts did not attenuate the run off of the water. Mr. Field added that by the time the stream moved from Nine Mile to the culvert adjacent to his home, the stream was a torrent and began to back up west of Connemara Drive which caused increase pressure at the Connemara culvert. Mr. Field advised that the result was that the spewing water pouring out of the creek was now approximately fifty feet wide. Mr. Field explained this was a dangerous situation because of the rapid current. Mr. Field advised that his yard now needs approximately twenty cubic yards of crushed recycled concrete to shore up the stream to prevent further erosion. He continued by stating that he contacted Mr. Nowicki on August 31 and he was then referred to Mr. Saven, who was sympathetic to the problem. Mr. Field advised that Mr. Saven then directed him to contact Ted Collins who surveyed the property on September 8, 1998 and advised that there were many options for correcting the problem. Mr. Field explained if the problem is not corrected, there will be massive erosion along the southern shore on his property. Consequently, Mr. Field requested Council’s financial assistance from federal funds in addressing this issue.

Mayor McLallen advised Mr. Field that he can discuss this matter further with Mr. Nowicki and Mr. Kapelczak this evening.

Alan Rothenberg (Baniya Aldridge) - 31144 Columbia, advised he is a member of the Historical Commission and invited Council to their first annual Fuerst Farm Picnic Sunday, September 27, 1998 (1:30 until 4:30 p.m.). He added that a concert is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. and there will be an apple pie contest.

Chuck Smith - Novi Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, advised the Chamber’s monthly luncheon is scheduled for Tuesday, September 15 and Heath Merriweather (Publisher for the Detroit Free Press) will be the speaker at the Novi Hilton. Secondly, Mr. Smith advised that the Chamber sponsored a series of three meetings with Grand River property owners relative to its widening and he understands that the report has been submitted to the appropriate people. Although he has not read the report, he understands that the consensus was for a five lane widening. Lastly, Mr. Smith advised on behalf of the board, they are looking forward to the Economic Summit scheduled for Thursday, September 26, 1998 (Novi Civic Center - 5:30 until 8:30 p.m.).

Tony Marroni - 41608 Chapman Dr., advised he recently read an article in the Novi News about flood plain restrictions and he complimented Council in their effort. As discussed earlier during Audience Participation, Mr. Marroni advised that Novi not only has a lot of flood plain areas, but it is also a critical drainage area and the flood plains act as a filtration system for all the lakes and ponds. Mr. Marroni restated that he just wanted to say thank you and asked Council to keep up the good work.

CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

Councilwoman Lorenzo requested that she would like to remove Item A. 1 and 2, Item C. 1 and Item G.

CM-98-09-278: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Consent Agenda as amended:

A. Approve Minutes of:

3. Special 6:00 PM City Council Meeting of August 31, 1998

B. Schedule an Executive Session immediately following the Regular Meeting of September 14, 1998 for the purpose of Pending Litigation and Property Acquisition.

C. Approval of II Reading & Final Adoption of three separate ordinances to provide more stringent flood plain development regulations:

2. Ordinance No. 98-80.04

3. Ordinance No. 98-111.04

D. Approval of July 1, 1998 Amended Administrative Personnel Policy adding the positions of Director of Developmental Services and Program Director for Coalition That Cares

E. Approve Resolution adopting General Record Retention and Disposal Schedule #8

F. Approval of Contract for Prosecuting Attorneys with Cooper, Shifman, Gabe, Quinn, Seymour, P.C.

H. Approval of Consent to Change Control request from BRE Communications d/b/a Phone Michigan.

I. Approval of Agreement with Silver Ball Amusements, Inc. for installation of Coin-Operated Equipment at the Novi Municipal Ice Rink

J. Approval to purchase one (1) 3/4 ton pick-up truck through the State of Michigan from Signature Ford in the amount of $18,912.40 (Water Dept.)

K. Approval of Sidewalk Repair Agreement with Harold Cavanagh for concrete sidewalk work at 42115 Ridge Road West.

L. Approval of Road Commission for Oakland County Agreement for traffic control device No. CO 1033 for future Nine Mile/Beck Road traffic signal.

M. Adoption of Resolution and Good Faith Offer to Purchase pertaining to property to be acquired from Doice E. Ward and Joanne M. Ward for Eleven Mile/Wixom Road Water & Sewer Extension and Eleven Mile/Beck Road Intersection Improvements Project.

N. Approval of Contract/Agreement between HAVEN, Inc. and the City of Novi in an amount not to exceed $5,000.

O. Approval to proceed with computer software purchase from W. T. Beresford in the amount of $10,500 (Parks & Rec).

P. Approval of Traffic Control Orders - Addington Subdivision

1. 98-90 - Rescind TCO 98-36-Yield sign on Elizabeth Ln at Addington Ln

2. 98-91 - Rescind TCO 98-37-Yield sign on Devonshire Dr at Elizabeth Ln

3. 98-93 - Rescind TCO 98-39-Yield sign on Jaslyn Ln at Addington Ln

4. 98-95 - Stop on eastbound Jaslyn at Addington Lane

5. 98-96 - Stop on southbound Addington Lane at Jaslyn Lane

6. 98-97 - Stop on northbound Addington Ln at Jaslyn Ln

7. 98-98 - Stop on westbound Elizabeth Lane at Addington Lane (south)

8. 98-99 - Stop on southbound Addington Lane at Elizabeth Lane (south)

9. 98-100 -Stop on northbound Addington Lane at Elizabeth Lane (south)

10. 98-101-Stop on eastbound Addington Lane at Devonshire Drive

11. 98-102-Stop on westbound Addington Lane at Devonshire Drive

12. 98-103-Stop on southbound Devonshire Drive at Addington Lane

13. 98-104-Stop on northbound Devonshire Drive at Addington Lane

14. 98-105-Stop on southbound Elizabeth Lane at Devonshire Drive

15. 98-106-Stop on northbound Elizabeth Lane at Devonshire Drive

16. 98-107-Stop on westbound Devonshire Drive at Elizabeth Lane

Q. Approval of Traffic Control Orders - Lilly Pond Subdivision

1. 98-113-Rescind Yield sign on Lilly Trail at Buffington Drive

2. 98-114-Stop sign on Lilly Trail at Buffington Drive

R. Approval of Claims and Accounts - Warrant No. 525

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. Special City Council Meeting of August 17 24, 1998

2. Regular City Council Meeting of August 31, 1998.

C. Approval of II Reading & Final Adoption of three separate ordinances to provide more stringent flood plain development regulations:

1. Ordinance No. 98-15.03

G. Approval of Dispatch Contracts with the cities of Wixom & South Lyon and Lyon Township.

Nays: None

MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION - Part I

1. Adoption of Resolution #6 SAD 149, Eubank Street water main.

Mayor McLallen advised that the participants in this SAD would like the project to begin this calendar year and they would like to amortize the cost of the project over thirty years. She noted there does not seem to be any objections to those requests.

CM-98-09-279: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Resolution #6 - SAD 149, Eubank Street water main as submitted and schedule a public hearing for Monday, October 5, 1998

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer asked how does the adoption of this resolution relate to the request to set the interest rate at 8%? Mr. Kriewall replied that occurs after the roll is confirmed and would be discussed further at the public hearing.

Councilman Kramer would then ask Administration to let Council know what the normal procedure is. He explained that he understands it is normally a couple of percentage points above what the bond is and he is unsure whether 8% is reasonable. Although thirty years seems like a long time, Councilman Kramer assumes the useful life of a water main is well beyond thirty years.

Councilman Schmid agrees thirty years seems like an abnormal amount of time. Mr. Kriewall advised that the term is normally fifteen to twenty years, but noted they currently have a bond sale associated with the length of this SAD and consequently, they are able to extend the term to thirty years.

Mayor McLallen believes staff understands that Council would like a clear explanation by the time this matter comes back for a public hearing because of the unusual financing mechanism.

Nays: None

2. Approval of Agreement between the City and Oakland County for a Communications Tower on the DPW site

Mayor McLallen advised negotiations for this agreement began in 1991. The Mayor stated that the tower is erected and its purpose is to bring improved communication. She added

that in return, the city received generator power. Mayor McLallen advised that the issue in the final contract is about whether the property should be sold or should negotiations take place that would allow the city to exercise an escape clause.

Mr. Klaver added that the original location proposed by the county was at the waste water treatment facility and there was a public concern because that area is looked upon as being a pristine area. Mr. Klaver recalled when the contract was first negotiated, the city had not yet gotten into the cell phone era and therefore, there was no demand for tower space until a few years later.

Mayor McLallen understands the term is for five years, Mr. Klaver agreed and noted that County agreed to make any fee adjustment retroactive. Therefore, Mr. Klaver advised that the city has $12,000.00 coming back from that point and he estimates that the city will collect approximately $13,000.00 per year.

In the original request, Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the County wanted to construct a tower at the waste water treatment plant and asked if they had a permit to do that. Mr. Klaver replied that it did not require city approval because the county owns the property.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the surrounding citizens were concerned with the location, so the city negotiated with Oakland County to locate it in a more appropriate location; Mr. Klaver agreed.

In addition to the tower being located in a more appropriate location, Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the city also received an emergency generator. Mr. Klaver explained in the original contract, the county planned to allow the city to place their antennas on the county towers and they would then be automatically be backed up through the generator. However, since then, Mr. Klaver advised the city has built a radio facility under the existing tower, can run lines from the generator to that facility and provide the backup without relocating them.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the city is currently using their own tower; Mr. Klaver agreed and added it is the city’s intention to continue to keep using that tower. He noted it would have cost approximately $35,000.00 to relocate the towers and it would have served no purpose.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the city will receive 15% of all revenues (approximately $12,000.00 per year); Mr. Klaver agreed.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the county will be responsible for the construction, installation, operation and maintenance of standby electrical equipment provided that the city provides the storage building. Mr. Klaver agreed and added that the city has already constructed that building.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the county is asking for 15% of what the city may make if the city leases its space to someone else; Mr. Klaver agreed. Councilwoman Lorenzo further understands that the city has no intention of doing that; Mr. Klaver agreed, and added that because of the city’s current and future needs, they believe there is no space available.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked what was the cost associated with the construction of the building, the gas line, the electrical power, etc. Mr. Klaver replied the relocation of the equipment was something the city was going to do anyway and it has nothing to do with this agreement.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the city is not subsidizing the placement of the county’s tower on the property; Mr. Klaver agreed, but added that the city did provide space within the storage building and that condition was a part of the original agreement.

CM-98-09-280: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agreement between the City and Oakland County for a Communication Tower on the DPW Site

Nays: None

3. Consider an amendment to the motion passed 8/31/98, Re: Parcel division granted to FDI Realty Partners/8-Haggerty II for Lifetime Fitness site.

Mayor McLallen noted Councilman DeRoche brought back this matter for reconsideration.

Councilman DeRoche would like to propose a reconsideration of the motion Council approved at their last meeting. He explained he would like to make a change to the motion’s language which states, "subject to the dedication of the road before final occupancy of the facility for dedication of the road upon completion of the development of construction of Phases I - IV" and asked whether Council is required to reconsider the entire motion. Mr. Fried advised that Council should reconsider the entire motion.

Councilman DeRoche asked Mr. Churella to speak to the issue.

Mark Churella advised he is asking for reconsideration of the motion granting their request for parcel division on August 31, 1998. He explained the original motion was specific to Lifetime Fitness and the approval was subject to the road being dedicated prior to Lifetime Fitness receiving an occupancy permit. Mr. Churella reminded Council that Mr. Watson had recommended that the motion be made in that fashion because it was his understanding that the development was going to be completed after Phase I and Lifetime Fitness was developed. However, Mr. Churella advised they will actually have development on Summit Pointe Drive through Phases I through IV, and Lifetime Fitness. Therefore, Mr. Churella reported that the substantial portion of the development will not be completed with only the development of Lifetime Fitness and Phase I. He continued by stating that they need the opportunity to make some adjustments to the road and to the open cuts that are going to be required. Mr. Churella noted when he explained this situation to Mr. Watson, Mr. Watson advised that making those open cuts as a private road would be easier. Therefore, Mr. Churella requested that they be permitted to complete the development on Summit Pointe Drive (Phases I-IV and Lifetime Fitness) prior to dedication. In addition, Mr. Churella requested that the language reflect the presentation for dedication by the developer. Under the current language, Mr. Churella advised that if Council elects not to dedicate the road, they would then have to come back before Council on behalf of Lifetime Fitness to ask how they would get an occupancy permit. Mr. Churella restated he is asking Council to permit them to continue development on Summit Pointe and Lifetime Fitness prior to presenting the road for dedication.

Mayor McLallen understands that Summit Pointe Drive will be a surfaced road with curbs and gutter, and that the developer will not dedicate the road until the construction is completed. Mr. Churella agreed and added that they will be responsible for the road’s maintenance.

Councilman DeRoche understands that the road will be constructed to meet the city’s standards; Mr. Churella agreed.

CM-98-09-281: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider CM-98-08-256

Nays: None

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer recalled the original issue was about the lot split and that split off property did not front on a public road. Therefore, Councilman Kramer advised there was a necessity to create a public road to make the legal lot split. Councilman Kramer believes they should strengthen the language of the motion and state that it "shall" be dedicated upon the completion of the project because there is always a chance that the project may not be completed. He explained that he believes if the road is not completed within a certain amount of time that the city would have the option of requesting the dedication of the road.

Mr. Fried believes there are two parts to the dedication of a road. He explained one is the dedication of the road and the other part is the acceptance by the community. He advised that just because a property owner dedicates a road to the community does not mean that the community accepts that road. Mr. Fried believes that the sense of the motion is that the owner will dedicate the road and the city may or may not accept the road when the project is completed. Mr. Fried added that irrespectively of what Council does in regard to this motion, he advised that the applicant must still appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals and get their consent to build a structure on a road that is not a public road.

Mr. Churella advised that the ZBA already granted them that approval Tuesday, August 4, 1998 (Case 98-061).

Councilwoman Mutch asked how did the applicant receive street name approval of Summit Pointe Drive when the city already has a street named Summit Drive? Mr. Pham advised that the applicant has not received final approval for their streets. Mr. Churella added he is open to change the name of the street.

Councilman Schmid reminded the petitioner that the building must be on a public road to be eligible for a lot split. Mr. Churella advised that their request was for a sidwell number and not for the right to build. He explained they already received permission to build on that site through the Planning Commission and the ZBA process. Mr. Churella stated they could continue to operate under the way the motion was presented, but he reminded Council that is not what he is presenting. He explained at the time they made the motion, Mr. Watson was under the impression that the development across Summit Pointe Drive was going to be completed with Lifetime Fitness and Phase I. Mr. Churella added that it is not their intent to circumvent the process and pointed out that if they dedicate the road prior to the completion of construction, they will be back before Council because they will be making modifications to the road that will be far more burdensome than addressing this issue as they are proposing.

Councilman Schmid is not suggesting that the applicant is trying to circumvent the process; he is concerned about the ordinance requirement that a property must be on a public road to receive a lot split. Mr. Churella agreed that is true, but noted a variance may be granted under some circumstances.

Mayor McLallen interjected, the dedication creates the public road and the acceptance to a finished road is the second step.

Mr. Fried added that Council does not have the authority to say whether an applicant can build on a public road. He explained that is controlled by the ZBA and noted they can grant a variance to permit a petitioner to build on a private road if they find there is reason for that variance.

Councilman Schmid restated he is talking about a lot split. Mr. Fried assumes that Council authorized the lot split with the condition that the road be built on a public road.

Councilman Schmid believes it is possible that the project may not be completed if there is a downturn in the economy and therefore, the road may never be dedicated. Mr. Churella agreed that could happen.

Councilman Schmid does not have a problem with that. However, it is his understanding that a public road is required for a lot split; Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilman DeRoche advised his motion contains the same motion that Council approved unanimously and reminded Council that approval was subject to the dedication of the road prior to final occupancy of the facility. However, Councilman DeRoche is now asking Council that the approval be subject to presentation for dedication of the road upon the completion, development and construction of Phases I-IV. Councilman DeRoche believes that the city does not want the applicant to present the road when they build the first stub to access Lifetime Fitness, but rather he believes they would want the applicant’s presentation for dedication when the project is completed.

Councilman Kramer understands that the petitioner will not get a formal lot split until the road is presented. Councilman DeRoche advised that is one issue that must be addressed by the city attorney.

Mr. Fried believes if they do not grant the lot split at this time, that the petitioner will have difficulty with his development; Mr. Churella agreed.

Mayor McLallen understands that the petitioner has received an approval to begin construction by the ZBA; Mr. Fried agreed and added that Council could condition the lot split on the petitioner building a road according to city standards and its dedication to the city.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that the petitioner has already agreed to those conditions and she understands that the issue before Council is that the petitioner will keep ownership and maintenance of the road until the development is completed.

Mr. Fried understands the problem is how will the city force the dedication if they grant the lot split. Mr. Fried advised it is to the petitioner’s benefit to have the road dedicated.

Councilman Schmid understands the ordinance requires that a lot must be so many feet on a public road to receive a lot split. Mr. Fried advised that the ordinance is much broader. He explained that to get a lot split, the petitioner must comply with the city’s zoning ordinance

Councilman Schmid cannot believe it is accurate to say the petitioner can receive a variance from the ZBA to build on a flag lot.

Further, Councilman Schmid understands the city’s assessor rejected the petitioner’s request for a lot split; Mr. Churella agreed they were denied their request because the lot did not front a public road. Mr. Churella advised he is back before Council because the dedication was Mr. Watson’s recommendation to Council. However, Mr. Watson was misinformed and Mr. Churella explained that he did not correct Mr. Watson’s understanding. Consequently, the vote went through. Secondly, Mr. Churella stated the approval of original motion is subject to the dedication of the road. Mr. Churella advised that if they do not accept the road for dedication, Lifetime Fitness can never receive an occupancy permit. Mr. Churella advised that they are back before Council to have those two things modified and noted that they are willing to present the road for dedication because that is all they can do at this point.

Councilman Schmid understands that the city can reject the dedication of the road if it does not meet the city’s standards; Mr. Fried agreed.

Councilman Schmid believes the petitioner is legitimately concerned about his lessee. Mr. Churella disagreed because he already has an approval for the lot split. However, he explained the split is contingent upon the dedication of the road when there will still be additional construction on the road and he does not want to do that. He further explained that not only will they destroy the road, but he also knows the difference between having the ability to do an open cut, and a pit and bore on the road. Mr. Churella advised he will be subject to that and he will be subject to getting additional regulatory approval in order to do it.

Councilman DeRoche believes the original motion was flawed and restated his proposed motion. He then advised that he would like to change the motion to state, "with the agreement that" instead of "subject to." Councilman DeRoche restated the motion once more.

Councilwoman Mutch believes the underlying concern tonight is the condition that was placed on the petitioner’s approval created a situation where the petitioner may present the road for dedication, the city might not accept it and therefore, Lifetime Fitness cannot occupy the building. Mr. Churella agreed that is one of his concerns and added he would also request that the dedication of the road not be contingent on just the completion of only Lifetime Fitness.

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether traffic will travel on the road to the other sites. Mr. Churella advised that traffic will travel that road.

Mr. Arroyo believes that they should condition the motion upon a phasing plan presented for review administratively because to date, he has only reviewed Phase’s I and II, and Lifetime Fitness. In addition, Mr. Arroyo believes if the applicant desires another split for additional properties in Phases I-IV prior to the dedication of the road, they should require them to go back before the ZBA for the same type of variance because those properties will not front a public road as well.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that the ZBA has the authority to grant a variance that allows construction on a lot that may not otherwise be buildable. Mr. Arroyo advised he reviewed the Subdivision of Land section of the city code. He reported that the code specifies that a division or petition of a parcel of land shall not result in the creation of a sub-parcel in violation of the access and frontage requirements as listed in 2517 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Arroyo believes that in order to approve a lot split, that a waiver must be granted to the subdivision of land provision and he believes that is what the applicant requested the last time.

Further, Mr. Arroyo understands that separate action was taken at the ZBA to address the same provisions of 2517 that are associated with the site plan that was approved. He explained that the petitioner could conceivably come forward with a site plan, not ask for a parcel division and request a waiver of 2517 and 2518 (the frontage and access requirements), and never come before Council for a land division. Mr. Arroyo explained that the petitioner is requesting a lot split for Lifetime Fitness and therefore, they had to go before both the Zoning Board of Appeals and Council for waivers.

That is Councilwoman Mutch’s point; she explained that the ZBA can allow someone to build on a lot that they may not be able to otherwise build on because of the zoning ordinance.

Councilwoman Mutch restated she has some concerns that they will be servicing public facilities from roads that have not been accepted as a public road.

Mayor McLallen understands that the subdivision roads are not accepted until the subdivision is completed and traffic travels on those roads; Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilwoman Mutch understands that the subdivision roads do not have the heavy equipment traffic and that is why Mr. Churella wants to postpone the dedication of the road to avoid potential damage to the road.

Councilman Kramer asked whether the terms of the agreement stays with the property or does it stay with Mr. Churella. Mr. Fried advised that if the motion intends that an agreement be drawn, then an agreement will be drawn to that effect and will provide for recording of that agreement.

Councilman Kramer would like the terms to be attached to the property in case the property is sold. Mr. Fried believes the motion intends that an agreement be drawn and that agreement will provide that the agreement will be recorded and require the dedication of that road. Councilman Kramer would be satisfied with that because that would be enforceable to whoever owns the property and completes the development of the property. Mr. Fried agreed and added that they will record the agreement with the Oakland County Clerk’s office.

Councilman DeRoche advised that he will agree to remove the current property owner’s name from the motion so that possible future owners’ of the property will assume the terms of the agreement. He added that he would also like to make the motion subject to the Planning Department and consultants’ approval of the conceptual phasing plans of Phases III and IV.

Mr. Churella advised that their original packet included the conceptual plan and he will make certain that they forward copies to the Planning Department.

Councilman Kramer can now support the motion.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes Councilman Schmid was correct when he said that the previous request was for a lot split which requires that the lot front a public road. She then reminded Council that in order to make it conform with the ordinance, Council made their approval subject to the dedication of the road. Now that the road will not be dedicated until the other phases are completed, Councilwoman Lorenzo believes Council is granting a waiver until the completion of the project. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes the only alternative would be to have it dedicated and then have the city maintain the road.

Councilman DeRoche agreed, but he did not want the city to assume the road until the project is completed.

Councilman Schmid understands that the petitioner could have received a variance from the ZBA to build the building without a lot split; Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Nays: None

4. Adoption of amendments to the Wetlands Inventory Map (Sec. 12-156.c) and Woodlands Map (Sec. 37-6.b) - I Reading

Linda Lemke advised that a lot of field work went into the maps for more than a year. She added that the update to the woodlands and the sparse wooded areas have either been included as light or eliminated entirely from the map. Further, the regulated woodland areas that developments deleted have been eliminated as much as possible. Ms. Lemke then advised that any projects developed under the old map and have preserved areas within them, would still be regulated with the adoption of the new map. Ms. Lemke reported that she still has a few minor modifications so there is more clarity before they finally publish the maps.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is glad to see that they finally updated the maps.

Because the first wetland map was very general, Ms. Lemke advised there were more detailed areas added to these maps.

CM-98-09-283: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt amendments to the Wetlands Inventory Map (Sec. 12-156.c) and Woodlands Map (Sec. 37-6.b) - I Reading

Nays: None

5. Adoption of Zoning Text Amendment 18.141 - An ordinance to amend footnote a. of Subsection 1602.4 of Ord. No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance to provide size and placement restrictions for awning and projecting signs in a TC-1 District - I & II Reading and Final Adoption.

CM-98-09-284: Moved by DeRoche, Seconded by Kramer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Zoning Text Amendment 18.141 - An ordinance to amend footnote a. of Subsection 1602.4 of Ord. No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance to provide size and placement restrictions for awning and projecting signs in a TC-1 District - I & II Reading and Final Adoption.

Nays: None

6. Adoption of Zoning Text Amendment 18.142- An ordinance to add a definition of "Adult Day Care Center" to Sec. 201 of Ord. No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to add Subsection 7 to Sec. 302 and to add Subsection 8 and 9 to Sec. 303 of said ordinance, to permit adult day care center in RA District as a principal use permitted subject to special conditions - I Reading

Councilman Schmid has some concerns because he dealt with the type of individual that will use these facilities (closed head injuries due to automobile accidents). Having been in the insurance business since 1973 when the No-Fault Law came into its existence, Councilman Schmid advised there is a large occurrence of closed head injuries. Councilman Schmid understands the city only permits adult day care centers in the Office or NCC Districts and he believes that is an appropriate zoning for them. Although he is willing to look more closely at this request, he is uncertain about whether the problems that exist with these types of facilities have been looked at closely.

Councilman Schmid understands that this facility would house adults eighteen years and older, and they are primarily for closed head injuries of any cause. Councilman Schmid continued by stating that one could get the impression that individuals with closed head injuries are sedate, nonviolent and normal people that do not cause any problems. However, the reality is that is not unusual for a resident of an adult day care to leave the facility and become lost for many days. Councilman Schmid agrees that the residents need a place to have a home, but he believes the original ordinance was probably written to care for them in nonresidential areas. Councilman Schmid understands that this is no different from the arguments made about the group homes and so forth.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council that they permit all those uses in residential areas under Michigan State law.

Councilman Schmid asked whether there is a state law that governs adult day cares.

Mr. Arroyo advised this amendment provides for "day" care only and means there will be no overnight residents. He further advised that the type of facility that is regulated by the state and permitted in the residential ordinance is an overnight residential care facility that houses six to eight residents. He added that is something that cannot be preempted at the local level. Mr. Arroyo advised the proposed amendment is something different and added one reason they are recommending that they include a definition for adult day care in the ordinance is because it is not clearly defined at this time. Mr. Arroyo added that the definition does not include nursing homes, homes for the aged, hospitals, alcohol or substance abuse rehabilitation centers, or residential care facilities for persons released or assigned to a correctional facility. Further, Mr. Arroyo understands that this type of facility is not regulated by the state in any way. Therefore, he continued by stating that the facility will be subject to the local regulations put in place in the zoning ordinance.

Councilman Schmid asked whether Mr. Arroyo is aware of zoning requirements in other communities for these types of facilities. Mr. Arroyo advised that it is very limited because it is a fairly new land use.

Councilman Schmid advised that he has visited a number of these facilities and he found them to be very industrialized. Councilman Schmid would like to see more history on these types of facilities and the kinds of problems that may occur. He restated he is concerned about the impact this could have on a residential area.

Mr. Arroyo advised another difference between this type of facility and an overnight care facility regulated by the state is that they can put the overnight facilities anywhere in a residential district. However, this ordinance amendment is drafted in way that the facility must have a frontage on a major thoroughfare to be approved. Therefore, it could not be located within a subdivision internally.

Councilman Schmid restated that he would like more information about the zoning in other communities, the type of individuals that would be housed there, and the types of problems that can occur that could adversely impact the residential area.

Councilwoman Lorenzo suggested that the amendment include the appropriate language in a section instead of just referring to a section of the ordinance to avoid having to refer separately to the ordinance.

Councilwoman Lorenzo is also concerned about the way this was brought forward. She explained she is concerned about any ordinance draft that is in response to a particular petitioner, a particular business, or a particular site. She is especially concerned because the taxpayers pay the city’s consultants to draft these in response to a particular applicant and not because Council or the Planning Department thought it was a good idea. Councilwoman Lorenzo continued by stating that she views this as a designer ordinance and she thinks the city can get into trouble for doing that.

Councilwoman Lorenzo believes this is a land use decision and she understands that an adult day care is for more than just those with traumatic brain injuries. She explained that they also include the developmentally disabled, the physically disabled, and the aged. Councilwoman Lorenzo is concerned that the ordinance does not address the maximum building size, the maximum building coverage, the minimum front, rear or sidewalk setbacks, and the maximum number of persons permitted. Further, because of the way the amendment is currently written, Councilwoman Lorenzo believes an adult day care facility could be constructed on a five acre site and be ten feet away from an adjacent resident.

Mr. Arroyo interjected, it is seventy five feet on all sides because it is a nonresidential use.

Councilwoman Lorenzo does not understand how a 10,000, 70,000 or 40,000 square foot facility is compatible with residential. Therefore, she believes they will need to scale these facilities down to a size that is appropriate in a residential area. She added they must also consider the number of people in terms of trip generation.

Mr. Arroyo understands some facilities offer one-half day care and full day care, so the trip generation would depend upon whether they are all coming at the same time. That is Councilwoman Lorenzo’s point; she explained it depends upon what the facility is going to do and therefore, she believes the city should be the ones designating the number of people and not the people.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked what is the average trips per day that they can expect from any average household? Mr. Arroyo replied the average is twelve trips. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes that is the number of trips that should be limited to one of these facilities if they want it to be compatible with residential. Councilwoman Lorenzo advised that she can only support this amendment if it is compatible with residential.

Councilwoman Lorenzo suggested that the Ordinance Review Committee explore Special Development Districts in the future to address these types of issues.

Councilwoman Mutch believes it is unfortunately perceived that the city is somehow doing someone a special favor at the taxpayer’s expense when something like this comes before Council. Although Councilwoman Mutch acknowledges that point of view, she would suggest that when a proposed ordinance meets a specific need of a project that is being proposed at the same time, that the discussion center on the proposed ordinance and not the project. She continued by stating that a lot of the discussion unfortunately seems to have zeroed in on one proposed use and overlooks all of the positive other uses included that she believes there has been a demand for in this community (i.e., working families with aged parents).

Councilwoman Mutch agrees an adult day care is something that they would not like to see built in the middle of a subdivision. She then reminded Council that they do permit other uses besides residences in residential districts (i.e., child day cares, public schools, non-public schools, and churches). She continued by stating that there is not even one of those uses that comes close in comparison in terms of traffic or noise that they would associate with a residential use and yet these are things allowed, but regulated in residential districts so they are compatible. Councilwoman Mutch would not want to have to go into an industrial or commercial area for these services and asked if they would regulate the adult day care in the same way in terms of making it fit into a residential area.

Mr. Arroyo advised that he became involved in the development of this amendment midway. However, he believes there has been some discussion about limiting the size of the structure and he also thinks it might be a reasonable regulation. Further, he does not believe every use permitted within a residential district necessarily has to be wide open. Mr. Arroyo also believes that they already regulate the set backs to some extent because there are more extensive setbacks for this type of use than they would have for residential use. Mr. Arroyo added that he has gotten some ideas tonight and they will take them under consideration.

Councilwoman Mutch believes there are other things in place that they may be able to bring into the picture. Councilwoman Mutch believes there is a need for these types of services in Novi and it does not seem to fit the ordinance as it exists. She added that there is a need to provide a continuing good quality of life for disabled and aged family members locally.

Councilman DeRoche agrees there is a need for adult day care facilities in Novi. However, he would like to express that there is a distinction that this is different from a school and a child’s day care. Further, Councilman DeRoche does not consider an adult day care center as being consistent with the city’s RA zoning without the types of restrictions mentioned by Councilwoman Lorenzo.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

In regard to Designer Ordinances, Mayor ProTem Crawford advised that he is not so naive to think that all good ideas come from Council and the Planning Commission. He would welcome ideas from whomever would bring them forward.

Councilman Kramer agrees with most of the comments made this evening and he would like to see a general ordinance written that permits adult day care centers in RA zoning. He suggested that they review the discussion for some of the proposed child day cares that have come to the city.

Council Kramer suggested that they also need to address the issue of screening. He continued by stating that while they have addressed a number of the general applications (i.e., location on a major thoroughfare, site size, etc.), there are other general planning specifications that need to be reviewed and therefore, he does not believe they are ready for a first reading. Although Councilman Kramer supports adult day care, he believes they need to be located appropriately throughout the city.

Councilwoman Mutch asked whether an adult day care in residential could be considered under special land use. Mr. Arroyo replied they have proposed it under special land use and they will clarify that. In that case, Councilwoman Mutch reminded Council that there is a tremendous amount of control for projects developed under special land use.

Mayor ProTem Crawford noted that Councilman Kramer would not support the first reading because he wanted to have more things incorporated in the ordinance. Mayor ProTem Crawford reminded Council that the purpose of a first reading is to make comments, consider those comments and then come back for a second reading.

Councilman Kramer does not disagree, but he believes in the past that there has been a general consensus during a first reading before moving on to a second reading.

If they do not approve the first reading, Councilwoman Mutch understands that the only other alternative is to turn it down and it would not go anywhere.

Mayor McLallen believes the issues will be addressed as the process moves forward.

Councilman Schmid believes the Farmington Hills ZBA report is referring to traumatic brain injuries. He continued by stating that the ordinance before Council not only includes traumatic brain injuries, but the intent is also to include other types of needs. Mr. Arroyo agreed and noted that to only include traumatic brain injuries would be very limiting and not consistent with the application of today’s adult day care systems. Therefore, it was felt that the definition should be broadened so that it does not become a designer ordinance by including a number of different types of individuals that might require this type of facility. Mr. Arroyo continued by stating that it was specifically broadened so that they would not have to go back later and amend the ordinance to add another type of need. Mr. Arroyo added that the reason the Farmington Hills ordinance is more specific is because it was brought to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a specific interpretation of that particular type of need. He explained it was not an ordinance, but it was merely a request for a ZBA interpretation.

Councilman Schmid understands that people using this facility will possibly come from the tri-county area; Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Councilman Schmid there must have been a reason for only permitting these in Office or NCC Districts in the past because it is nothing more than a rehabilitation facility. However, Councilman Schmid believes they must seriously consider whether they want to include a business of this nature in their residential districts.

Mayor ProTem Crawford does not believe the facility is intended to be a rehabilitation center. He believes the intent is to provide an adult day care center for families that need to work who perhaps have a need care for their aged parent with Alzheimer. Mayor ProTem Crawford believes they should permit these types of facilities in just about any area in the community with special provisions as restricted under the city’s special land use. He continued by stating that he believes the facility will service primarily Novi residents because of the nature of the facility. Further, he believes there is a need in Novi to provide this type of service and that the city needs to move forward with trying to implement an ordinance to meet this need.

Councilman DeRoche called the question.

Councilman Schmid restated that he believes the facility is nothing more than a rehabilitation facility. Mr. Arroyo referred to Paragraph 7, Item 5 and advised that the Implementation Committee and the Planning Commission were concerned about this type of facility becoming a rehabilitation center. He continued by stating that the language specifically states that non-incidental medical treatment and acute physical rehabilitation are prohibited.

Mayor McLallen reminded Council and the city’s consultants that the question has been called.

Installment Purchase Resolution for the Poll Property located on South Lake Drive

Mayor McLallen reminded Council this purchase is to enhance the beach area on Walled Lake and Lakeshore Park, and the Resolution before Council authorizes the installment purchase contract.

Mr. Kriewall reported the city has made an arrangement with Comerica Securities at an interest rate of 4.8% and the closing is scheduled for Wednesday.

CM-98-09-286: Moved by Crawford, Seconded by Schmid, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt the resolution authorizing the installment purchase contract for the Poll Property located on South Lake Drive as presented

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Councilman Kramer will support the motion because he believes this is an effective and efficient use of the city’s resources.

CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION: (Items listed on the Consent Agenda which have been removed for discussion and/or action)

1. Special City Council Meeting of August 17 24, 1998

Councilwoman Lorenzo referred to the second paragraph on Page 1 and stated the language should be changed from, "Councilwoman Lorenzo said that she felt the most important question was whether the building was worth saving." to "Councilwoman Lorenzo said that she felt the most important question was how to fund the renovations." She then referred to the last sentence and advised that it should read, "She suggested that we should find people in the community to help raise funds and assist with the restoration."

CM-98-09-287: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of August 24, 1998 as corrected

Nays: None

2. Regular City Council Meeting of August 31, 1998.

Councilwoman Lorenzo referred to the second paragraph Page 25 and asked that, "Although they have not met the first review standard . . ." be revised to read, "Although they have not met the first review standard in the wetland ordinance."

Councilwoman Lorenzo referred to the second to last paragraph on Page 25 and asked that, "She questioned if the use . . . " be changed to read, "She questioned the use . . . "

Councilwoman Lorenzo referred to the sixth line in the first paragraph on Page 26 and asked that, ". . . EPA are . . ." be changed to read, ". . . are EPA . . ."

Councilwoman Lorenzo referred to the fourth line in the third paragraph on Page 31 and stated, " . . . also believes to expect road improvements west of the intersection . . ." should be changed to east and the next sentence, need to improve Twelve Mile Road again should be east of Novi Road.

CM-98-09-288: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of August 31, 1998 as corrected.

Nays: None

C. Approval of II Reading & Final Adoption of three separate ordinances to provide more stringent flood plain development regulations:

1. Ordinance No. 98-15.03

Councilwoman Lorenzo advised that she would like to insert "wetland" between lake and stream. She read, "No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, wetland, stream, ditch, drainage way or other body of water."

CM-98-09-289: Moved by Lorenzo, Seconded by Crawford, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve II Reading & Final Adoption of three separate ordinances to provide more stringent flood plain development regulations as amended for Ordinance No. 98-15.03

Nays: None

G. Approval of Dispatch Contracts with the cities of Wixom & South Lyon and Lyon Township.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands the reason the City of Novi was looking at the

contracts was because there was an inequity in terms of the service they were providing versus the funding that was being contributed by other communities. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes there is still a disparity, especially with the City of Wixom. She explained she reviewed the figures that were originally provided in terms of number of calls and cost. She reported that in 1997 Wixom had almost 30% of the total dispatch service and is only currently paying 5.5% of the cost. Councilwoman Lorenzo added that Novi is now requesting them to pay approximately 15% of the cost, which she believes is still a bargain and Wixom is proposing to pay about 11% of the cost. This is not a good business agreement for the City of Novi from Councilwoman Lorenzo’s perspective. She explained if Wixom is using 30% of the service, then she believes they should be paying close to 30% of the cost. Councilwoman Lorenzo recalled that there have been memos to the effect that Novi would still need almost the same number of personnel, but she is not satisfied with just "almost the same." She explained that she needs to know whether they would actually need the same number of personnel, more personnel or less personnel. She understands that the staffing needs are based upon the total volume and added that she further understands dispatch calls between 1990 and 1996 have risen 33.8%. Councilwoman Lorenzo has a feeling that Wixom has contributed to much of that increase and added that because of their growth, the dispatch service calls will increase. Councilwoman Lorenzo would just like Wixom to pay their fair share.

In addition to dispatch, Councilwoman Lorenzo reminded Council that Novi also provides for lock up services and according to Chief Shaeffer’s memo, she understands that in 1997 Wixom prisoners amounted to 281. Councilwoman Lorenzo asked what is the policy for processing the prisoners. Chief Shaeffer agreed that Novi provides lock up services for Wixom and South Lyon in terms of the physical environment. However, he explained that the communities deliver the prisoners to Novi so the shuttle can deliver them to the Oakland County facility.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether Novi processes the prisoners while they are housed in Novi’s facility. Chief Shaeffer advised the paper process in and out of the Novi facility is completed by one of the officers of the appropriate community in the presence of one of Novi’s officers. The Chief further advised that one of Novi’s officers locks the prisoner in one of the cells and they handle the prisoner’s discharge in the same manner.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands it is Novi that does all of the administrative detail. Chief Shaeffer advised the completed form is for Novi’s records.

Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that the participating communities do not pay an additional fee for lock up services. Chief Shaeffer advised that the original contractual arrangement includes lock up services and they continue to include these services today.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked whether there is any cost associated with lock up. Councilwoman Lorenzo explained that she is concerned about the taxpayers of Novi subsidizing Wixom for not only dispatch service, but for lock up services as well. Councilwoman Lorenzo has no problem with participating with the City of Wixom for these services, but she restated that she believes they should pay their fair share.

Councilwoman Lorenzo added that she is concerned about the turnover in the city’s dispatch personnel. She recalled from an earlier memo provided by Chief Shaeffer that their major concern was about insufficient manpower for the quantity of the work load. Councilwoman Lorenzo believes if the City of Wixom were required to pay their fair share ($80,000-$120,000), then they may take their business to Walled Lake for $50,000.00. Councilwoman Lorenzo continued by stating if Novi lost the City of Wixom and lost the $60,000.00 they contribute, Novi would also gain 30% less in service calls and 281 less lock ups. Councilwoman Lorenzo wonders whether the city could possibly retain more of their dispatchers if there were less of a work load and therefore, less stress. It is not Councilwoman Lorenzo’s intention to eliminate Wixom from the program. However, she believes that Wixom should either step up and pay their fair share, or they can do what they need to do retain this service elsewhere. Further, Councilwoman Lorenzo believes Novi needs to reclaim some of the costs and reduce the workload to retain the city’s dispatchers. Therefore, Councilwoman Lorenzo advised that she cannot support Wixom’s contract and asked Council to consider her comments before they make their decision tonight.

Councilman Schmid asked how are the figures calculated? Chief Shaeffer replied that the figure quoted by Councilwoman Lorenzo represents the number of calls dispatched. He added that it is a simplistic way of measuring the distribution of work load. Chief Shaeffer cautioned Council that the figure is not a comprehensive number and explained that the dispatchers also perform other clerical duties.

Councilman Schmid agrees that Novi has other expenses that cannot be charged to the other communities in terms of staff, equipment and facilities.

Although Councilman Schmid will support the motion, he noted that it seems that they charge some communities more per call and that they should look more closely at this in the future. Councilman Schmid added that he understands compromises were made for this contract; Chief Shaeffer agreed.

Councilman DeRoche understands the term of the contract with Wixom is for one year; Chief Shaeffer agreed and added that the previous contracts were also for one year.

Councilman DeRoche asked how many years has the previous billing level been in effect? Mr. Klaver advised that the previous contracts included a 10% limit on annual increases.

Chief Shaeffer agreed that the previous contracts included a 10% escalation clause from year to year and they broke the trend in this year’s contract. He noted that Wixom’s fee is increasing by 103% in the proposed contract.

If necessary, Councilman DeRoche asked whether they could expect another 103% next year? Chief Shaeffer believes it may be necessary to discuss their fees again at that time, but he could not predict what percentage the increase would be.

Mayor ProTem Crawford asked why does Novi house Wixom’s prisoners? Chief Shaeffer advised he was not a part of the original agreement, but he understands that Novi retains some of Wixom’s prisoners for transportation by the Sheriff for long term housing at the Oakland County jail. He noted that the county shuttle travels to Novi and not to the other communities.

Councilwoman Mutch wonders whether Oakland County would continue to offer their shuttle service if they were only picking up Novi prisoners. Chief Shaeffer agreed that was a good point.

Mr. Kriewall believes the understanding was when the court located in Novi that this arrangement would take effect.

COUNCIL DISCUSSION

Mayor McLallen believes Councilwoman Lorenzo raised a number of pointed issues. The Mayor agrees that with the continued growth and demands that are disproportionately coming from Wixom versus the other communities, that Wixom is on notice about their contribution and the 1999 contract will be looked at more closely.

Nays: Lorenzo

MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES

- Lorenzo

Councilwoman Lorenzo reminded Council that during the OST rezonings in February that they were given a total cost estimate between $7,900.00 and $9,000.00. Councilwoman Lorenzo would like to make certain that they have not exceeded those costs. Councilwoman Lorenzo understands that it will take approximately a day for Administration to research her request and asked whether there is a consensus of Council to direct staff to confirm the actual cost.

Councilwoman Mutch asked staff to confirm the time to complete this work. Mr. Pham advised believes it would require approximately one week to complete that request.

Councilman Kramer supposes that this may be interesting information, but he does not believe this request is a good use of the city’s resources. Therefore, Councilman Kramer will not support the request.

Councilman DeRoche also believes this would be interesting information, but he does not want staff to be held to some sort of report or time frame. He added that he believes map preparation and title search would be useful and could be completed fairly quickly. Further, he believes they could attach approximate numbers to public notices and zoning change signs. However, in terms of administrative and consultant time, he would prefer to see a condensed version of the process and Council could then calculate the numbers themselves.

Councilman Schmid believes a cost estimate would be a legitimate request and added that he believes the request could be completed within an hour and a half.

Mayor ProTem Crawford believes any amount of time is too much time at this point because he does not understand what use they would make of this information. Therefore, he believes a more appropriate request would be to determine what the cost would be up front if they were to go through another city initiated rezoning.

Councilwoman Mutch understands they have already received estimates and now Councilwoman Lorenzo is asking for actual costs. She believes if there were a significant difference, she agrees that it would be interesting information. Further, Councilwoman Mutch believes the estimates for the first three items that Councilman DeRoche itemized were probably right on because they are known costs. Councilwoman Mutch added that it would be the final two items that they would estimate and believes the numbers may not be much different.

Mayor McLallen does not favor taking staff time to complete this request. She explained an estimate was provided and if staff or the consultants had found that the actual cost of the process had been more than their estimate, Council would have been advised about it during the budget process. In addition, Mayor McLallen advised another issue is that it is a cost of an investment in the city’s future and she believes as long the costs were in line with everyone’s budget, it was a positive investment.

2. Status of dispatch service fee adjustments - Lorenzo (see Consent item G- contracts) - REMOVED

3. Ice Arena Pre-opening Budget reimbursement? - Lorenzo

Councilwoman Lorenzo recalled that there was a figure for a number of items for the Ice Arena somewhere between $60,000-$70,000 in regard to the pre-opening budget and noted that she understands it had far exceeded that amount. She reminded Council that one of the items was approximately $44,000.00. Consequently, Councilwoman Lorenzo spoke with Mr. Kriewall who spoke with the Finance Director and he then advised her that they did not believe that amount would be reimbursed. After reviewing the minutes and Mr. Davis’ March 11 memorandum, Councilwoman Lorenzo reported that the city was supposed to be reimbursed for that money.

Mr. Kriewall advised that is contrary to what the Finance Director has told him.

Mr. Klaver advised that Mr. Davis confirmed that amount of money was set aside, but that they only needed $42,000.00 and that they do not plan to spend anything further. Mr. Klaver continued by stating that amount is scheduled to be reimbursed and that Mr. Davis was hoping they could do it on an incremental basis over the next fiscal year.

Councilman DeRoche believes the part omitted from the minutes was the discussion about the front money. He recalled that he described this money as "front money" and that the Ice Arena was described as a start up corporation who are not using their own funds. He added that the Ice Arena did not get SPA Loans, they did not use their own money, and they were fronted 100% of their working capital from the city’s funds. Councilman DeRoche recalled these funds essentially financed the start of their business and he believes Mr. Davis acknowledged that at the meeting. Further, Councilman DeRoche recalled that it was expressed that while the city was financing the start up, that the money was to be reimbursed. Councilman DeRoche would hate to think that the city does not have the follow through to collect this money when they are acting like a bank for the Ice Arena to start up their operations. He explained that he believes it is inappropriate to think that the Ice Arena can pay it back when it is most convenient for them.

Mayor McLallen believes serious concerns have been raised regarding this issue and Council expects a full accounting of this at the next meeting with a payment schedule or that they go to outside sources to pay the lump sum back to the city.

Mayor McLallen asked whether a formal policy is required? Mr. Fried believes they should address this issue on a case by case basis. He explained that they do not need a general policy because the state’s statute already authorizes them to do it.

Councilman Schmid believes Council agreed to send the issue of sidewalks and safety paths to the Ordinance Review Committee and that they were to bring that issue back before Council.

MANAGER’S REPORTS

Councilman Schmid asked who is going to pay for the repairs of the Ice Arena’s walls? Mr. Kriewall advised that matter will be discussed at tomorrow’s Building Authority Meeting and he will bring that information back before Council at their next regular meeting.

Councilwoman Lorenzo asked Mr. Nowicki to provide a report about the city’s first Hazardous Waste Day and DPW Open House. Mr. Nowicki advised they had five hundred participants last Saturday and that exceeded their expectations. Mr. Nowicki added that they received a lot of positive comments from the public and he thanked Council for approving the funds to move forward with this program.

Councilwoman Mutch asked if the program stayed within its budget. Mr. Nowicki is uncertain at this point.

Councilwoman Mutch stated if it looks as though this program is beneficial and cost effective, she suggested that they consider providing this program in both the spring and fall. Mr. Nowicki advised they are currently in the process of combining their programs with the other communities on a rotational basis.

Councilman Kramer commended Mr. Nowicki for a well executed program. He added that he would like to build additional awareness through some of the civic organizations (i.e., Boy Scouts).

Mr. Nowicki thanked the contractor’s, Craig Smith, Bruce Jerome, Chris Pargoff, JCK & Associates, and RRRASOC for their participation.

Mr. Fried reported that they have settled negotiations with the Bell family in regard to property acquisition for $8,300.00 which is in the range that Council authorized.

Nays: None

COMMUNICATIONS

1. Letter from George Davis to City Council, Re: 40001 Grand River/Harry’s Landscaping.

2. Letter from Marie & Robert Plank, Re: Opposition to zoning change - Eight Mile/Beck Road.

3. Letter from Stuart Frankel, Re: Postpone rezoning request - Eight Mile/Beck Road

4. A. Nowicki memorandum dated 9/4/98 to E. Kriewall, Re: Bids received by MDOT for Nine Mile/Novi Road Intersection Improvements.

5. A. Nowicki memorandum dated 9/4/98 to E. Kriewall, Re: MDOT’s I-275 Reconstruction.

6. Walden Woods I - Update.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Mayor City Clerk

Transcribed by:

Barbara Holmes

Date Approved: September 28, 1998