| View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVI MONDAY, MAY 21, 2001 AT 7:30 PM NOVI CIVIC CENTER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Girl Scout Troop #3341 Leader: Cindy Toth Rebecca Sprys, Kathleen Hlavaty, Katie Hildreth, Danielle Kern, Chelsea Rozek, Stephanie Toth ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark-absent/excused, Council Members Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (additional communications or petitions) Member Kramer added under Mayor and Council Issues, 4. Library Tour, 5. Building Authority Use, 6. Wish List proposal, 7. Parks & Rec. Southwestern Core Reserve Member DeRoche added under Mayor and Council Issues, 8. Downtown Gateway Ordinance. CM-01-05-123 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Cassis; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended. Vote on CM-01-05-123 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer Nays: None Absent: Clark SPECIAL REPORTS - None COMMITTEE REPORTS Member Csordas, SWOCC, advised Council that at last week’s meeting some of the subjects were the availability of Roadrunner high speed internet access, which is anticipated in June, 2001 throughout the City. They are continuing with their digital conversion and expect to have it completed this week. There will be fiber playback, which is an extremely clear and fast playback and will be available at the new location when up and operational. Narrow casting for the schools will be available in August, which would allow Novi to use one channel to view three different entities. Also, there is a letter in Council packets from Mr. Klaver regarding Mr. Levitt and the attached letter sent off of a Detroit News web site was fairly inaccurate. Ms. Collins is not the Executive Producer of the Todd Levitt Show and it is an issue involving the use of alcoholic beverages or drugs on the TV show. He would be happy to answer any questions and assured them it was not as dire as it appeared to be. Mr. Klaver has all the details on this. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said the real point of information is that the lawsuit had been dismissed. Member Csordas agreed. PRESENTATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
REPORTS CITY MANAGER Mr. Helwig highlighted the work of Council members , community residents and staff putting together the Novi River Day for Saturday, June 2, 2001 from 9:00 AM to noon. A River Day luncheon would be held at noon at the picnic shelter in Lakeshore Park. It would also be the gathering point along South Lake Drive at 8:45 AM or at any time throughout the day.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS - None ATTORNEY – Update on Jason Ct. Issue Mr. Fisher said Mr. Pearson assembled a meeting on May 16th at a neighboring home to discuss the issue of Jason Ct. with interested persons. It was an excellent dialogue and information exchange and he had a report for Council regarding some of the underlying legal questions. Mr. Fisher said the first issue was the potential for the Department of Social Services to actually give notice and contact the subdivision representatives so they could establish some liaison with the property owner or the manager. The Department indicated they would not provide notice under such circumstances. Next regarding other outstanding license facilities in the City, attached to the memo is a map that shows where other facilities are within the City. These matters are in flux on an ongoing basis. We have a notice of termination of one of the licenses in the City and there are probably some new facilities that might not be on the map but it appeared the information sharing between departments of the State are not instantaneous. Therefore, we do not get exact and perfect information of one compared to another. Mr. Fisher said given the locations of the facilities and the classifications primarily related to the number of residents in the facilities, it appeared that eight or nine of these facilities were for the care of six or less. One or two facilities were larger than the six. The facilities throughout the City are licensed for a number of purposes. Three are licensed for the physically handicapped, three for the developmentally disabled, one for both categories, one for the mentally impaired, and two facilities that have no specific identification. In terms of code compliance, the facility that is at issue, to the best of our knowledge it is not a licensed facility and no license has been sought. After speaking with Mr. Morrone it appeared that there were no outstanding violations, which meant that all of the improvements proposed are being done through a homeowner’s permit and are in compliance with code. The Department did require filing of an affidavit indicating ownership and the intent to occupy and the Department did further indicate special permits would have to be pulled for specialized work such as plumbing, electrical etc. The next issue was what happened if the facility was never licensed by the State. Mr. Fisher said the rule was that the Statutory Exemption, or treatment of one of these facilities as a single family residence for zoning and other purposes only applied when the facility was State
licensed. If not State licensed then it must conform to local zoning. The most operative restriction and governing language would be the definition of family for single family purposes and the zoning ordinance would come into play. That definition had three major prongs to it. First being one or two persons or parents with their direct lineal descendents and adopted or foster children and including domestic employees. Secondly, not more than three persons not so related so you could have two related adults plus three unrelated people with the view that all those people in the home would be living together as a single housekeeping unit. That, in essence, is our definition of family in the zoning ordinance. In terms of correctional facilities, the question was asked if someone could open a facility for six or less for correctional purposes in the City. There is an express provision in the statute in the City Zoning Enabling Statute that specifies that the exemption from the single family residential restrictions for adult foster care facilities licensed by a State agency for the care and treatment of persons released from or assigned to adult correctional institutions would not apply. The exemption would not apply to a facility that wanted to provide care and treatment of persons released from or assigned to adult correctional institutions. There are a number of things that are regulated such as assisted living facilities, convalescent or nursing home, housing for the elderly, hospice care and child care facilities, independent and congregate elderly living facilities. There is no ordinance provision that addresses and provides special treatment for a State licensed facility with less than six residents and properly so. The Statute indicates it would be improper to give that type of use any treatment different than given to a single-family residence. Regarding a facility designed to house more than six the statute did not prohibit regulation and there is a very unique interplay between zoning and the Federal Fair Housing Act in this context. The Federal Fair Housing Act specifies that where you have people that are handicapped you must make every effort to make a reasonable accommodation for those people. Unfortunately, members of Congress have not helped us in a great extent in terms of what that meant nor was there any machinery in the Zoning Enabling Act that contemplated the overlay of the Federal Statute onto our zoning network. Therefore, it would require a complex ordinance that Mr. Fisher would be happy to provide to the City to regulate that type of situation if Council wished. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if Council wanted to request such an ordinance. Council agreed that they did. Mr. Fisher will prepare it. Mr. Fisher said Item #8 on the agenda is a matter involving the MDOT/M-5/Garfield Road wetland mitigation site. Council packets have a fair amount of material on it. When this item came up he would distribute a slightly revised copy of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants that are considerably more in line with the understanding and arrangement reached with the surrounding property owners. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Jonathan Brateman, Legislative Affairs Chairman for the Chamber of Commerce, was present to discuss the downtown Gateway Ordinance. He advised Council that the Chamber of Commerce had followed this carefully and supported the Gateway Ordinance. He asked when the ordinance would be voted on by Council? Greg Carn, resident, spoke with concern about the canceling of the tutoring program of the after school program. The residents have found this program to be very valuable for the children and felt it was critical to have education as the number one importance. Mr. Carn and other residents were present in support of the tutoring program, asked that Council keep it in, and cut elsewhere. He read a letter of support from residents Lilly and Terrance Constance, which stated the parents were willing to raise funds to keep the after school tutor, Nancy Baziuk. They felt Ms. Baziuk was an asset to the program and the community. Mr. Carn asked that the City keep the tutor at least part-time and to consider the money being spent on the program for playing foosball, ping-pong, etc. Celia Gendloff, had talked with Mayor Clark regarding a letter to parents of children who attend the after school program. The letter asked that the children who did not need the program not be sent to it because the children not being tutored and supervised by Ms. Baziuk were roaming around the ice arena without supervision. She expressed concern for them and their safety and asked that the adults watching their children be accountable at the ice arena. Ms. Gendloff did not want Ms. Baziuk to leave. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked Mr. Helwig to look into this. She said it was important for the residents to understand that the primary reason the City was able to provide the program was the Federal Grant Program and this is the last year of the grant program and there will be no more funds. Ms. Belter and others involved in the coalition will have to raise the funds privately in order to continue any of the programs involved here. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said Council does think education is important but there are no funds available for this program without making it a fee for service program. This is the last year that the City would be involved in any of these programs. Residents have the option of hiring Ms. Baziuk privately to tutor their children. Member Bononi proposed they should look into a way to eliminate one facet of an entertainment program to save the educational part. Member Kramer said it is a coalition program. He felt it was a health, safety and welfare program for our children and we are concerned with children who do not have parents available after school. He felt the residents and the coalition should work through this together. They should join or become involved with the coalition. He would not support a request for administration to make something happen. There was no Council support to send this to administration. Karen Piccinni, Planning Commission Chairperson, read a letter asking for Council consideration prior to final action to the fiscal budget. She felt the overall lack of support and preparation of City Attorney was unprofessional and not deserving of the efforts of the Commission. During the last two Commission meetings three major issues clearly demonstrated the problem. She cited three instances in which he was unprepared for the meetings, not responsive, did not spend time to know the City ordinances, and said he was often unavailable. This was detrimental to the decision making of the Planning Commission and the City Council. She recommended removing Mr. Fisher from the Planning Commission and if Mr. Fisher could not guarantee changes in his level of service the replacement of him with another law firm that would make Novi’s business a top priority. Also, regarding the
consultants, with the current level of experience with the Planning Department and a change in City Attorney the continuity and expertise is missing. This is not just in the Planning Department. There is also a new City Manager, Assistant City Manager, no Parks and Recreation Director or Assistant Parks Director, and a new forester that we have lacked since last August. She said with the possibility of six commissioners after June 30th with less than one year’s experience the changes to the City Administration and consultants might be detrimental to the function of the Planning Commission. Therefore, she felt compelled to recommend that the changes in consultants be delayed one year until the City properly adjusts to the changes in new personnel in order to preserve the history and intellectual property of the City administration. Richard Atto asked Council to keep residents informed of the progress of the Gateway Ordinance regarding the southwest corner of Meadowbrook and Grand River. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said Council referred the Gateway Ordinance to the Ordinance Review Committee a couple of months ago. They have been meeting and residents are welcome. They will meet June 21st at 6:00 PM in Council Chambers. Robert L. Fetton, a partner in Saddle Creek Apartments, echoed the comments made regarding the Gateway Ordinance. He thought if they could do something with the Gateway Business District the landowners would be excited and it would enhance the property values around there as well as downtown Novi. Kathleen Mutch read a letter regarding the Fuerst Property clean up and thanked everyone involved. She also discussed the Mayor’s project of recognizing war veterans. This year we are recognizing Korean War Veterans and a historical marker dedication would be forthcoming. Mary Catherine Steer, senior at Novi High School and member of the National Honor Society, stated she had been an active volunteer for the after school-tutoring program. She was given the opportunity to help children understand, further their knowledge and become more confident with their grades. She has seen children with C’s, D’s and F’s on their report cards excel after six weeks with the tutors and certified teachers. By the second term of the grading period they were making A’s and B’s. Ms. Baziuk has made a lot of difference in this program and the volunteers look up to her for guidance and with her help this program has run so smoothly. Amelia Burkhardt, sophomore at Novi High School and member of the National Honor Society, also believed this was a wonderful program and it was fantastic to realize what a huge difference she, Ms. Baziuk and the others have made in these children’s lives. Kim Capello, prior Chairperson of the Planning Commission, stated he had always been an advocate of bringing some of the consultant services in house. However, he did not think the consultant services should be terminated as quickly or in the fashion that this Council was proposing. Mr. Arroyo needs to be kept in house a couple of times a week. He didn’t think the Planning Department would be in a position with a new department head and two new planners to identify issues they need to send to Mr. Arroyo as special projects. He felt someone was needed to identify the issues and the questions before the answers could be found. He did not think new people could do this. Mr. Arroyo needs to stay to give consulting direction as to where we have been and where we are going. Regarding engineering, he had worked closely with Dave Bluhm over the last seven years and understood what they did for the City. We have needed an in house engineer for five or six years and he was hoping to get one in this budget. However, that engineer really would have nothing to do with the consulting services in regard to the Planning and engineering work that is being accomplished. He said you couldn’t hire two new engineers, bring them on board, and expect them to do all of the work that JCK had been doing. Dave Potter, Doug Pakkala, Dave Bluhm and Joe Kapelczak are highly experienced and qualified people and can’t be replaced with two new engineers. Mr. Capello said the newspaper said the City was paying JCK $1.2 million but we all know that 99% of that is paid by developers and not the City. What happens if we have the overhead of in house engineers and staff and the economy dips or if the developers are not paying that $1.2 million? We still have the overhead. With our consultants if the developers don’t come in it costs the City nothing because there is no overhead. We need to outsource those services and phase in new engineers. This drastic change is much too quick, could cost us a lot of money, and now is not the time to do it. Andrew Mutch, Planning Commissioner, supported the Gateway Ordinance but was concerned with the lack of progress. He was not in favor of replacing the consultants so quickly because the Planning Department was too new. CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals) CM-01-05-124 Moved by Csordas, seconded by DeRoche; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Vote on CM-01-05-124 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer Nays: None Absent: Clark
1. May 7, 2001 – Regular Council meeting 2. May 9, 2001 – Joint Meeting with Council and Library Board 3. May 10, 2001 – Joint Meeting with Council and Parks and Recreation Commission. E. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 597
MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – Part I
CM-01-05-125 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Kramer; MOTION FAILED: To adopt the proposed budget resolution for FY 2001-2002. DISCUSSION Member Kramer said obviously the most controversial portion of this budget is the consultants. The budget is to set aside funds to enable Council to put programs in gear and to that end he supported it. The purpose of the re-alignment of the consultants is multiple. It is to provide improved management by the City of the consultant services and to provide focus, accountability and synergism among the various consultant areas. He didn’t expect the City to be the technical experts in the arenas that the consultants have their business. This would help in problem solving to have all the elements in one area that could get the job done. He thought the City had excellent consultants and this was not meant to minimize that in anyway. The consultants have helped our City get to where it is. We are making a change to grow and go forward and the question is at what pace should that change be made. Member Kramer would support the budget but would request, by motion, that the City Manager develop a transition plan and submit it to Council before implementing additional hires. Member DeRoche thought the budget was an excellent document and exceeded his expectations. Mr. Helwig did a tremendous job on improving the productivity of the documents Council reviewed during the actual process. The most important thing about this document is that it lived within our existing taxes and there were no new taxes or increases. New spending was focused on core services rather than ancillary or comfort items. The ice arena continues to move in the right direction and closer to the goal. We made a large commitment to replenishing the General Fund Balance and reconciled our existing self-insurance responsibilities with our Legal Defense Fund and it was a big step in the right direction. Member DeRoche agreed with the previous speaker that management needed to be hired but that is where he wanted to keep it. He did not want to attempt private sector solutions with government employees right away. One of the powers he is reluctant to give up is when Council is changing a philosophy that would have a significant effect on how Council administers things. This document regardless of the debate has major steps in the right direction and that is a universal commitment to open competition and bidding and we continue to go in that direction. There is a move toward direct administrative supervision. Removal of retainers was good and an increased awareness of the cost of our ordinances. Member Cassis commended Mr. Helwig for the budget. He felt the administration under the leadership of Mr. Helwig was moving in the right direction in its organization, staff and accountability. One pillar of our foundation has been the use of consultants to do our services and now we are considering hiring in house consultants. Once we go down that slope of bureaucracy there is no return. This is a radical step to take and needed thorough airing and deliberation. This is a service that is a pass through from developers why should the City take on this complicated and risky task? There has been no break down of the present system and it has not been demonstrated that our relationship with the present consultant is bad or faulty. Member Cassis said all departments that deal with JCK have given them high marks. Any time bureaucracy is increased there is more responsibility and risk. Our Risk Management Consultant said, "there is no central coordination of safety loss prevention activities within the City of Novi." If this Council is insistent in going all out in that direction do it gradually. Member Csordas said there was no recommendation from the Consultant Review Committee, which did not help in the process. He had spread sheets from all of the Planning Commissioners, City Council people and City management employees that participated in this evaluation and it was for all of the consultants. The rating structure was 3 exceptional, 2 was proficient and 1 equaled fair. He felt the rating system was poor. Member Csordas said engineering was 2.49, legal 2.49, Birchler/Arroyo was 2.62, Lemke and Associates was 2.43 and Aon was 1.14. He asked Mr. Helwig to talk with Mr. Klaver to find out why Aon was unacceptable. Member Csordas said the trend in government is privatization because we obtain a higher level of service and competence by retaining outside experts. He needed to see the supporting documentation for the fees that were paid by the developers because without it he could not depend on the model. The net result, if all of this is brought in house would be an increase in cost to the City. It would be covered by the fees and he needed to know what the fees were. Support staff would eventually be required and benefit and retirement costs would escalate considerably. Rod Arroyo, an award winning planner, has served the City well. He does a great job and understood the ordinances better than anyone on the Planning Commission. Mr. Helwig’s experience has been to have staff on payroll but this had not been Novi’s history and we are doing fine. If Mr. Helwig had documented due process Member Csordas would support his decisions because he is an absolutely astute management person and he had full confidence in Mr. Helwig’s decision making process. Member Csordas said until it is demonstrated to him that the benefit is commensurate with the costs he saw no reason to increase the financial exposure. He would support one new engineer and continue to retain the consulting engineers with renegotiated or eliminated retainer fees. Someone had indicated that JCK stated they would agree to eliminate the retainer. Secondly, he would support two staff planners to assist clerical and to continue to retain the planning consultant with a renegotiated retainer fee. He knew that the two staff planners that come on would not have the expertise that Mr. Arroyo and his firm provide. He suggested offering Mr. Arroyo the job to work for the City and see what his costs might be. If a GIS person is available through a consulting firm no GIS technician. Heavy equipment operator and mechanic would be fine. In house landscape architect would be fine. Our fees that consultants charge to developers and residents are not commensurate to surrounding communities according to a study generated by the City and reviewed by the Novi Chamber of Commerce. This has created a negative image in the development community for Novi and there is no way to determine the lost opportunities to our City as a result. Member Csordas requested an update to the study to current market conditions and that Mr. Helwig insures that our consultants are not hurting the City’s image due to unrealistic fees. This report needed to be brought to Council. In the minutes of April 23rd Mr. Helwig stated "there were practices with these consultants that go well beyond supportable ethics and did not include competition and practices that have not included proper oversight." Mr. Helwig felt strongly about this and it caused Member Csordas concern. He felt City Council should be aware of these issues and Mr. Helwig’s concerns should be addressed. The choice and control of our consultants is the City Manager’s responsibility. Member Csordas’ concern was not for the well being of our consultants. His concern was for what was best for the residents of Novi and the performance level of the city administration period. Member Cassis noted there was no consensus to approve the entire general budget and asked if Council could compromise whereby a vote could be taken on a budget that would go through? Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo did not think that would be appropriate. There is a motion on the floor and if it went down and there was no budget then we could ask Mr. Fisher what happened if a balanced budget was not approved. These items were hashed out, discussed, and voted on individually and that vote is on the record. We are here to approve the budget resolution. Member Cassis said when debating the budget he had asked if five votes were needed when appropriating money. Everyone said you could have five votes at the time of the approval of the budget. This could have been resolved then but everyone chose to wait until now. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-125 Yeas: Kramer, Bononi, Lorenzo Nays: DeRoche, Csordas, Cassis Mr. Fisher said if the budget is not approved for those items that are required to do business an interim resolution could be adopted. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if it could be brought forward at the next meeting? Mr. Fisher said if money is needed tomorrow to continue operating then it needed to be done this week. She said this budget was for July 1st so there was time. Mr. Helwig said the Charter required the adoption of the budget for the next fiscal year by the third Monday in May. Mr. Helwig said they tried to emphasize this as they were going through the process rather than having the discussion and vote the night of the Public Hearing, May 7th, to wait until what would be the final day that City Council could enact a budget. Member DeRoche said something had to be done tonight. Tonight he heard members speaking and voting differently to the issue than when they were in the Committee of the Whole. In effect that revisits those individual issues. He felt if opinions had been changed Council needed to discuss it and reconsider it all together.
Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo disagreed. We are not here to debate the entire budget again. If Council did not want to approve the budget that would be fine, if they wanted to make another motion that’s fine. CM-01-05- Moved by Kramer To accept the budget as proposed but set aside the money in The budget allotted to the consultant reorientation and have the administration return with a work plan to include job description, timing and continue to seek Council approval for those expenditures as each job comes through justified. Motion died for lack of support. CM-01-05- Moved by Cassis To hire one engineer and one City planner and see how that process goes and then revisit the situation. Motion died for lack of support CM-01-05- Moved by Csordas, seconded by DeRoche; To support all points of the budget except for the component of the City consultant change and discuss and assess that component at the next meeting. DISCUSSION Member DeRoche asked if he was saying to leave the budget where it was but in the same resolution freeze the money. Member Csordas said yes. Member Bononi said change is hard. It is very interesting that we look at many good people who have served over the years as consultants as being indispensable to this City. She learned long ago everyone can be replaced. It is amazing that in a year a single person could change our budget process 380 degrees and nobody served as his mentor. We have a situation where we have a process and we have folks for the main part that have been here for nearly 20 years. A lot of those things have worked very well but in the last couple of years she didn’t think they had worked well. When paying these people we have to ask who benefits. She felt the money paid to the engineering firm would buy 55 professional engineers. To suggest that because folks are entrenched and people are used to doing business in a certain way that benefits the status quo did not mean that the taxpayers who are paying the bill were benefiting equally and that was her main concern. Life moves on, challenges are different, relationships change and that is to be expected. Member Bononi said from the standpoint of having someone put together a budget that is responsible and starts the first stage of implementation of this change do we show this person our confidence or don’t we? Do we turn it around when there is pressure or because people in the business community want things to stay the way they are? Or do we look at everyone’s benefit to come up with a balanced plan. She thought this was a balanced plan. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo concurred with Member Bononi’s comments. She felt that Council needed to put their trust and faith in Mr. Helwig. It is important that when we hire someone to do a job that we respect their position, knowledge and experience. The City Manager has always made these decisions on how best to administer the City with a firm accountability and responsibility. We sat for many meetings over this, the hard questions were answered, and now everyone is changing things around. She would not support this vote. Member Cassis commented the process was getting personal and was not productive. He said he is a free enterprise person, a businessman and knew what efficiency was, and knew that private enterprise in competition always produced the best results. While we are trying to reduce the role of government on the national, state and city levels we are trying to swell it up here in Novi. If we don’t like our present engineers we can change them. He insisted on outside engineers because he believed in free enterprise. Member Csordas restated the motion: CM-01-05- Moved by Csordas, seconded by DeRoche; To approve the appropriate part of the budget to continue the operation of the City, to keep paying the bills and running the business and to carve out the issue of the change in consultant versus the in house way that the City does business to be addressed by Council at the next meeting. DISCUSSION Mr. Helwig commented he appreciated the compliments on the budget process. He stated in his career he had had one Council member vote against a budget so this was a new experience for him. Therefore, he had to dilute some of the compliments because his consensus building, problem solving and identification of issues fell short. Mr. Helwig noted they have a very dedicated staff who are not bureaucracy builders. He was not interested in doing something that someone else could do. They inherited a past track record in this administration that served the community very well on many things. But for the past year we have been dealing with Sandstone, road bond, budget issues, upgrading the caliber of staff, performance and accountability, connecting with citizens and on and on. These are very important issues. Where we go from here is what the budget is all about. People had said we should have had a chief engineer five years ago and others said if we hire three we are going down the road to hiring who knows how many. Mr. Helwig said he has a goal of no new staff next year. It is not in his wisdom to recommend additional staff. He wants to work smarter and leaner. We have been told that we are slow to hire and yet tonight there is a motion that would not give us any specificity that would further delay our ability, precious time, to get people on board so that we can get caught up. We have so much work to do and do not have the resources to serve you. He was disappointed in the outcome tonight. It is not life or death but we will fall short of your expectations. We need to move on. He said setting all the consultant recommendations aside would further delay our ability to get going. This budget process started in December and it is now May. We have to get going and we have to make things happen. We are in the construction season, applications are coming in right and left. He inherited a system where we did not bid for special projects for engineering services. As an administration we had to initiate that change the private sector did not initiate it. We had to initiate getting two appraisals for property acquisition. He believed there are certain things that government and serving the public interest did honorably and far better then the private sector. We are not here to take up space and not get meaningful results accomplished for our community. He thought during this last year a lot of things had been moved that had languished for years and years and years. He said any time he went before his staff he told them they were doing honorable work and he stood by the changes they recommended. No one else would have recommended those changes and that is the role that Council expected from him. He suggested that Council slightly modify what they are considering and give them approval tonight to hire the recommended changes with the exception of engineering where Council has said they only want to go with the chief engineer right now. Approve the other changes 2 planners, the landscape architect, and a chief engineer; give us that authority tonight so that we can start to make a difference. You have all lamented that Mr. Nowicki is drowning and if drowning you try to save that person today. You don’t wait two weeks to discuss it again and several more weeks to hire some help. We need this authorization tonight. He noted he didn’t do a lot of begging but tonight he was begging that for whatever reasons it shifted and the majority only wants to hire one engineer. Give us the authorization to do that and to hire the planners that had been on staff in the past and who are desperately needed. Give us the authority to hire a landscape architect so that we can integrate all the other services for woodlands and wetlands that we need to do and that Council is expecting them to do so that they aren’t redesigning proposals when they come to them. We are still not going to meet Council expectations and that pained him but we have to get on. He would not be part of a status quo that just languishes for weeks and weeks. We have too much to do and Council is expecting too much from them. CM-01-05-126 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the main motion to approve all the consultant recommendations with the exception of the two staff engineers and that that line item be returned to the General Fund for future consideration by this Council. DISCUSSION Member DeRoche asked Mr. Helwig if the motion was essentially what was said? He thought the City Manager was frustrated and appreciated his willingness to show leadership. He thought this was reasonable and got to heart of the issue. The core here should have been what he was going to do anyway. He hoped Council could come together and he realized that on one end of this discussion some might be upset that we are hiring this much staff and on the other end some people might be saying Mr. Helwig should get everything he requested. This is a reasonable compromise. Mr. Helwig would get the building blocks of what he needed and Council could finish the discussion.
Member Kramer thought the proposed amendment was a reasonable place to go. It supported the basic philosophy and change that we are trying to implement and gave time to think through how to do the engineering side of it. He would support it. Member Bononi would support this motion but felt the motion was lacking in leadership, heart, courage, commitment and business sense. She hoped the City Manager would take seriously the advice he received from this table about looking very carefully at the existing consultant situation in the future and taking charge of it. Member Cassis asked for clarification of the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said the motion was to include everyone except the two additional engineering positions. Ms. Smith-Roy said with the elimination of those two positions there wouldn’t be any impact on the General Fund Budget because those positions are going to be charged out to other funds. So, within that department it would affect two line items and she would make that change accordingly. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo commented she would vote in favor of this although she fully supported the City Manager’s full recommendation. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-126 Yeas: DeRoche, Csordas, Cassis, Bononi, Lorenzo, Kramer Nays: None Absent: Clark budget. CM-01-05-127 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Kramer; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the proposed Water and Sewer Rates Resolution for 2001-2002 FY budget. DISCUSSION Member Kramer said this is a pass through of rates charged the City by the City of Detroit and he would support it. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-127 Yeas: Cassis, Bononi, Lorenzo, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer Nays: None Absent: Clark CM-01-05-128 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Bononi; MOTION CARRIED: To approve the Resolution for Public Act 88 – Reciprocal Retirement. DISCUSSION Member DeRoche said this Act would allow the City Manager to attract the talent that he needed and he would support it. Member Cassis wanted to know what the ten employees now under this Act cost at this present time. Ms. Smith-Roy said because we are contributing now for each employee there is no separate additional cost for those ten employees. We contribute now from hire date and the impact this would have is on the withdrawal on the investment balance that they have within the pension fund. She could not predict what employees would come to the City or what employees would leave as a result of the Act. Mr. Helwig said there were follow up examples May 10th in an earlier packet. Ms. Smith-Roy explained an employee comes to Novi with 15 years of experience from another Michigan government entity. They work for Novi for 5 years with an average compensation in a three year period of $50,000 and their retirement benefit would begin at age 60. Normally if the employee stayed five years and retired at age 60 they would not collect anything. If Act 88 were in place the same employee would receive $5,625 annually from our pension system starting at age 60. CM-01-05-128 Yeas: Kramer, Csordas, DeRoche, Cassis, Lorenzo Nays: None Absent: Clark, Bononi CM-01-05- Moved by Csordas, seconded by DeRoche; To approve the request from Singh Development for Final Preliminary Plat approval of Churchill Crossing for a 208 lot subdivision located on 80 acres at Ten Mile Road west of Novi Road (single-family R-4 zoning) DISCUSSION Member Kramer commented that in the packets is a JCK letter that indicated City Council approval of revision to the Simmons Sanitary Sewer District prior to approval of subdivision construction drawings and construction on site. Mike Kahm, Singh Development, said essentially this property was at one time entirely in the Simmons Drain District and some years ago the District was amended to accommodate the Greenwood Oaks Subdivision at Ten Mile and Beck. That left approximately 19 taps in the formula for the Simmons Drain. They did an analysis and submitted it to JCK, which demonstrated there was about 81 taps that could be supported based on the remaining parcels that would be using the Simmons Drain. They requested that JCK consider the analysis to redistrict and allow 81 taps to go into the Simmons Drain. They could also tap the entire subdivision into the sewer at the north east corner of the sub and have the construction plans for that in case there isn’t enough capacity in the Simmons Drain. Member Kramer asked what the issues were with regard to processing the revision of the Sanitary Sewer District? Mr. Kahm said they did not intend to present that tonight. The sewer has design capacity for what they are proposing. It had to do with concerns that the City had about infiltration so Singh Development agreed to set aside that process until the monitoring or the metering is completed. They should have all the information within a week or two and be back before Council within four weeks for the actual District change. If acceptable to Council they would like the motion to say subject to the redistricting which would be an administrative approval. Member Kramer asked how this would normally be handled? Mr. Kahm said they would normally prepare a sheet with the data and information relative to the design and capacity of the sewer system as well as maps showing the existing district and the old district. That is brought to Council and a resolution is adopted on the change in the redistricting. Member Kramer proposed an amendment to the motion that the approval would be subject to revision of the Simmons Sanitary Sewer District. CM-01-05-129 Moved by Kramer, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the request from Singh Development for Final Preliminary Plat approval of Churchill Crossing for a 208 lot subdivision located on 80 acres at Ten Mile Road west of Novi Road (single-family R-4 zoning) subject to all of the oral and written recommendations of the City’s consultants and subject to the revision of the Simmons Sanitary Sewer District. DISCUSSION Member Csordas would not accept it based on the developers opinion but wanted the City engineers opinion. Mr. Kahm said the in flow data is being collected on the sanitary sewer and in order to get good meter results rain is needed. Once the ground water builds up enough pressure in the line they would find out what shape the sewer is in. If a lot of water is getting into it then they look at what type of sewage is going into it plus the rainfall. If it exceeds the design capacity they have to go to Plan B. Member Csordas asked if it was included in the original analysis and all the other consultants approved the plan. Member Kramer asked if this could be approved with determination of whether Plan A or Plan B is designed for the sanitary sewer?
Mr. Kahm said if the analysis proves acceptable then the current plan would be acceptable. If unacceptable they would go to Plan B and those plans would be reviewed as part of the construction set. Member Csordas accepted the amendment. Member Bononi asked the applicant if they were still committed, at his expense, to a traffic signal on Ten Mile Road? Mr. Kahm said yes and an application had been submitted to the OCRC. The City’s interest in having traffic signals help a great deal and he asked for Council’s help with that. The fact that they applied for it provided all the data, the warrant analysis supported a traffic signal today without the subdivision. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked for a second motion for resolution to come forward to assist Mr. Kahm in his efforts with the Director of the Traffic Safety Department for the OCRC. Member Csordas said that could be added to the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said they needed to take care of the motion on the floor and then deal with the second motion. Member Cassis said there is a light at 10 Mile and Novi Road and another at the Civic Center and now another about 500 feet away and asked what would the reaction be from OCRC? Is there a possibility of just putting one in front of Churchill Crossing and forgetting this new one on Ten Mile? Mr. Arroyo said they looked at it when they reviewed the traffic impact study. While it seems the lights are not that far apart they are close to a third of a mile apart and it was ideal spacing for progression of traffic. That is an appropriate location assuming the warrants are met. Mr. Helwig said he and Mr. Nowicki met with the leadership of the road commission right after this was before Council. They were favorably impressed if it was funded by the developer and if the developer justified it through warrant studies. Mr. Nowicki discussed this with the Road Commission this morning. They received their information and are looking at the numbers based on the numbers that had been conducted privately by Singh Development and it looked like the traffic signal was warranted at this time. The Road Commission, if the funding is secured through Singh Development, is going to look at changing the wording in the existing contract to move it forward and get the signal up as quickly as possible.
Mr. Fisher said it would be appropriate to designate the City Official that would be the ultimate decision maker on this such as Mr. Nowicki. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-129 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, Amendment DeRoche, Kramer Nays: None Absent: Clark
CM-01-05-130 Moved by Cassis, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a Resolution of Support to David Allyn, Director of the Traffic Safety Department of the Road Commission for Oakland County. DISCUSSION Mr. Fisher wanted to clarify that the light would be put in at Mr. Kahm’s expense, it is something that he would like to do and that he was offering to do rather than something the City is requiring him to do. Mr. Kahm said that is correct. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-130 Yeas: Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo Nays: None Absent: Clark AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Eric Sower, Novi High School Senior, noted he served as a tutor during the after school program. He felt going to only homework assistance was not sufficient for the student’s needs. The tutoring provided so much more and he asked that the tutors be kept so students continue to grow as learners and thinkers in our society. He urged Council to make academics a high priority and to continue funding the tutoring branch of the after school program if possible. If not ask parents to seek private corporate sponsorship rather than charging a fee for these services. Cindy Gronachan, representing residents of Garfield Road, regarding the Garfield Road mitigation project. She said the paperwork was before Council to authorize Mr. Nowicki to finally purchase this property from MDOT. She asked that Mr. Nowicki be so authorized. She thanked everyone and after eleven years pursuing this asked if she could be a witness to the deed. Mr. Fisher did not find a problem with that, as she had no interest in any money. MATTERS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – Part II Equities Group for Cabot and Lewis Drives. Mr. Fisher said this arises out of an issue that related to Edison conveyances both in connection with the SAD 155 as well as the Northern Equities matter. Our office was concerned with some of the provisions in the Edison documentation related to insurance requirements for the City as well as liability and indemnity. Rather than receiving the two road dedications of Cabot Drive and Lewis Drive we requested that some brief hiatus be put into place while they tried to negotiate with Edison to gain a better position for the City on these documents. Edison has been very cooperative and he thought Edison would respond quickly and headway would be made. The agreement allowed the company to move forward without being prejudiced by not dedicating the roads in a timely manner. They are assuming the risk and understand that this time could be a detriment but we all believe that we are working in the right direction. He asked 0for support of the extension of the agreement for 90 days. CM-01-05-131 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the extension of Escrow Agreement for 90 days between the City & Northern Equities Group for Cabot and Lewis Drives. DISCUSSION Member Csordas said in Mr. Fisher’s memo of April 30, 2001 he said that the obligation of the City to indemnify Edison for all claims arising out of the use, etc. Are you comfortable with that. Mr. Fisher said no and that Edison was working with them to modify the language to put us on better terms with the documentation. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-131 Yeas: Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Bononi, Lorenzo Nays: None Absent: Clark 6. Consideration of a request to vacate a portion of Elm Court Road right-of-way and authorization for the City Attorney to prepare a vacating Resolution. CM-01-05-132 Moved by Csordas, seconded by Bononi; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the request to vacate a portion of Elm Court Road right- Of-way and authorization for the City Attorney to prepare a vacating Resolution. DISCUSSION Member Kramer said the property to the south has a garage that comes very close to the southerly property line. If we vacate the property it would allow a house to be built on the southerly lot to be moved northerly and closer to the non-conforming building. He was concerned about creating this problem. At least with the City owned right-of-way that is maintained by the property owners in the area it would position any proposed building about 25 feet from the existing building. The proposal was to vacate the right-of-way but retain an easement for drainage and he had asked how an easement affected a building site location. Mr. Fisher said if an easement is retained the ownership would probably divide with half going one way and half going the other but the ownership would be subject to the easement. Member Kramer said part of the practical difficulty is that the southerly lot is contentiously wet and one way around that was to move any proposed building as far north as possible. He asked if they would create themselves a problem by doing this? Member Kramer said there was control over building sites when they did plats but they don’t have as much control over individual lots. He was still not convinced this was the right thing for those two property owners.
Mr. Nowicki said it is all under one common ownership right now and that is why they are making this request. The people who own lots 13 and 14 are the ones that purchased lots 8,9,10, 11 and 12, which puts them all under common ownership. They have no plans to further divide that property or construct another building. They are looking to acquire that and that is why we are going through this process again and it would moot any discussions with respect to set backs or issues of that nature. Member Cassis said under the Subdivision Control Act of 1967 it says, " land in a subdivision dedicated to the use of the public for purposes other than pedestrian" etc. which public way is within 25 meters of a lake". Why would they put a state statute like this? Mr. Fisher said it basically is a provision that was added to the Land Division Act at the request and lobby of the DNR. The purpose was to avoid vacations of road endings that go down to the lake and provide public access to lakes, which is a huge statewide controversy. Member Cassis asked what happens in the future if they are sold to different people and they start fighting over the lake access? Mr. Fisher said if a resolution was needed to take it to Circuit Court, Council could pass that resolution with a reservation that Council is not passing on the merits of whether or not a vacation should be granted and leave that to the dispute between the parties. Council could pass a motion allowing it to go to Circuit Court so a decision could be made once all the parties have been joined. In that kind of case statute prescribes that everybody within 300 feet has to be joined as a party along with the Drain Commissioner, the City and any number of parties and it would give a chance to other people to intervene here. Then every ones interest could be stated and an ultimate determination made. Member Kramer asked if the motion was appropriate. Mr. Nowicki stated Mr. Fisher had verbiage he would add and it would come back for a Public Hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said correct and that this was only the first step. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-132 Yeas: Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo Nays: None Absent: Clark
(MDOT Beck Road/I-96 Wetland Mitigation Project). CM-01-05-133 Moved by Kramer, seconded by DeRoche; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt Resolution of Support: Ingersol Regional Storm Water Detention Basin (MDOT Beck Road/I-96 Wetland Mitigation Project) DISCUSSION Mr. Nowicki said originally the Ingersol Basin was called out in the original Storm Water Master Plan and it had been referenced several times in studies since that time with the most recent being the 1994 study of the storm water in the area of the basin. Council was approached regarding combining the Ingersol Basin with a mitigated wetland that MDOT was proposing to do. MDOT needs to mitigate a certain acreage of wetlands that would be lost to the Beck Road/I-96 Interchange project. A number of years ago Council went on record indicating that any wetlands lost to a project within the City should be mitigated in the City of Novi. So MDOT began searching for potential sites for that mitigation. The site south of 12 Mile Road and west of M-5 is owned by MDOT and was acquired as part of the M-5 project. Through their analysis it looked like the ideal site to construct a wetland. Mr. Nowicki had become aware of that and began discussions to combine that wetland mitigation with an offline storm water detention basin. Council authorized the preparation of plans and the discussion with MDOT. The designers of the wetland mitigation project are Bob Zelski of MDOT and Don Tilton and Don Beagle of Tilton and Associates. Mr. Tilton said this was an opportunity to construct a very natural open area adjacent to the expressway, which would serve the engineering function of handling storm water as it comes out of the Town Line Drain. He explained where the flows would go and said they wanted to preserve the quality of the wetland with low velocity water and the area was big enough to accommodate over a 100-year storm event. This would accommodate MDOT’s needs and Novi’s needs without too much additional work. Mr. Nowicki said this project would come back to Council after it is further defined and the plans are further along where they could be submitted to City staff and consultants for their review. Then an agreement would have to be entered into with MDOT in order for the project to move forward because there would be a funding requirement by the City to fund specifically that area directly associated with the storm water basin. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-133 Yeas: Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis Nays: None Absent: Clark the MDOT M-5/Garfield Road Wetland Mitigation site and to have the City Attorneys prepare documents providing use restrictions pursuant to the Resolution of Council and record such upon transfer of title to the City. CM-01-05-134 Moved by Cassis, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize submittal of Application to Purchase and Agreement of Sale for the MDOT M-5/Garfield Road Wetland Mitigation site and to have the City Attorneys prepare documents providing use restrictions pursuant to the Resolution of Council and record such upon transfer of title to the City. DISCUSSION Mr. Fisher said the modification between the documents was that this document clarified that in addition to the fact that the property may not be subdivided for a period of 100 years from the date hereof it may not be sold for a period of 100 years. In addition, the previous document provided, in paragraph #2, that a use improvement alteration or activity of any kind proposed to be undertaken on or in connection with the property shall require notification of the residents along Garfield Road. The prior document said the adjoining property owners on Garfield Road. This language would require notice to all of the property owners on Garfield. Member Bononi asked who would provide the assessment of the current viability of the wetland and its function? Mr. Nowicki said MDOT provides that under the supervision of the Department Environmental Quality. They have a five-year monitoring period of that wetland mitigation site and are responsible for it. Mr. Zelski, MDOT, said the wetland that is existing today has scrub shrub, open water, shallow emergent and forested wetland. The monitoring period for this type of wetland is 3 to 5 years. They have an environmentalist specialist that monitors this wetland in the spring and in the fall and that report would go to the DEQ and the EPA. Typically, for a forested wetland, they are required by the DEQ and the EPA to plant 400 two to three foot seedlings per acre. A forested wetland would typically be monitored up to 10 years or until the tree reaches a certain height of 10 or 13 feet. At the end of the monitoring period there must be at least a 70% survival rate. Member Bononi said in the original conservation deed restriction it is referred to that "no additional storm water volumes and/or other polluting materials to the described property not included in the original design shall be deposited on this site". However, in the letter dated April 5, 2001 from Mr. Pakkala, page 2 and last paragraph, it said "with regard to storm water volumes we believe the primary concern is altering actual storage volume of the wetland, which may affect the mitigation viability. The language should be revised to read any additional storm water entering the site shall receive pretreatment in accordance with best management practices." She said that was not the intent of this conservation deed restriction and asked where they were on that? Mr. Nowicki said they were maintaining the verbiage that was included in the conservation deed restrictions and that advice was not taken. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said which meant this was not a storm water wetland and Mr. Nowicki agreed. Roll call vote on CM-01-05-134 Yeas: Cassis, Bononi, Lorenzo, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer Nays: None Absent: Clark CONSENT AGENDA REMOVALS FOR COUNCIL ACTION – None MAYOR AND COUNCIL ISSUES
Member Bononi was concerned about the compliance status of the City’s Storm Water General Permit and the unfair burden threatened to be placed on the City to implement
a duplicate and expensive inspection at point of property transfer as a result of Oakland County’s refusal to do so. If we do not establish a program our Storm Water Permit may be in noncompliance by the MDEQ. The question of fundamental fairness needs to be raised about the situation of the City and other Oakland County Rouge Water Shed Communities. She talked with Jonathan Bulkley, monitor to the Federal Court who serves Judge Feikens who presides over the Rouge Program. She had inquired as to how to communicate with the acting director of the MDEQ Livonia with regard to the likelihood that the Oakland County Storm Water Permit would be judged to be in compliance. If it is then we are left holding the bag. Why should our City provide inspections for systems for which we did not issue permits nor had any control over them and how can the duplication of local programs in Oakland County prove to be cost effective. We have been diligent in our efforts and the City of Novi at the Water Shed Advisory Group level has been a leader. It is important to remember that of the three counties that comprise the Rouge Water Shed Wayne and Washtenaw Counties have stepped forward to establish programs to inspect septic systems at point of property transfer in addition to implementing numerous other IDEP activities under their County permits. Both programs are operating smoothly and to date have identified about 20% of the tests as malfunctioning systems. This is an important point with regard to public health. The only offer from Oakland County was an invitation to participate in their environmental infrastructure fund, to apply for a grant. If they don’t fund this particular fund when it expires in a year we will once again end up holding the financial bag. Member Bononi believed this matter concerned not only the public health but also the public trust. The citizens of the Rouge Water Shed deserve at least the quality of dedication to the improvement of water quality that other Rouge Water Shed counties have provided to the citizens. As a result of the suggestions received from the Court Monitor and the representative of MDEQ that she suggested asking the City Manager to write a letter to the Court Monitor requesting assistance and to express our concerns to Judge Feikens about the situation we are in with regard to compliance. Also, request a meeting with the acting MDEQ Director, Hae-Jin Yoon, to make our concerns clear. She asked for Council support to ask Mr. Helwig to contact both these parties to see if progress could be made. Member Kramer questioned what the problem was. Member Bononi said we have a problem with the status of our permit and noncompliance of our permit as a result of action or inaction of the County. We have tried to approach that at the Sub Water Shed Advisory Group level and there is no movement there. So we are trying to find another way to approach the Court and the MDEQ who have the ability to decide who is in compliance and who is not. Also, so that we can look at other means by which we could be in compliance. Member Bononi sent a copy of the Point of Transfer Ordinance to County Commissioner Hugh Crawford to ask for his intervention as well. Member Kramer asked if others should be invited to join with Novi in this endeavor. Member Bononi said Mr. Bulkley suggested that at the next appointed Federal Court date that comments from any and all communities who are affected by this would also be welcome at the Federal Court. Member DeRoche wanted to solicit information and not action. Mr. Helwig said the Court could order a moratorium on development in our community, for example, if we do not step up to the plate as a County. We have already written the County by Council direction and that was unanswered. He thought the suggestion now to tell people that we want to be in compliance is an appropriate one. We are not coming forth with an answer we are asking for help. Member Bononi stated she was not proposing that we should take a position or make policy. This is a request for assistance, advice, and any alternatives so that we can bring our permit into compliance. Member Kramer asked if timing was critical? Member Bononi said it was. Member Kramer asked if a motion was needed or could Mr. Helwig be asked to do this? Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said that could be done with consensus of Council and there was consensus. Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked Council if they wanted to continue Items 4
through 8 on the next agenda due to the lateness of the hour? Member
Kramer wanted to keep Item 4 on this agenda.
Member Csordas said this issue is similar to the Briarwood issue where the trees are floating in water and dying. On the western border of Beckenham Estates there is a body of water that looks like an area that was dry for many years and grew trees and now they are in two feet of water. Mr. Nowicki has been helping him and has been the liaison with the consultant engineers. He asked that this issue be on
the next agenda under Reports and have Mr. Nowicki and JCK explain why the
trees are in water. A JCK representative went out there to speak to some
of the residents and made some recommendations and he wanted him present
to defend those recommendations.
Member Csordas asked for the results of the traffic calming measures on
Cider Mill and was interested in the speed. Mr. Helwig said they would
have an analysis at one of the next two meetings.
Member Kramer said Ms. Evans from the Library offered two dates for a Library tour on June 2nd at 10:00 AM and June 18th at 6:45 PM and asked Council Members to sign up for one of the two days. Member Kramer felt it was important that everyone take advantage of the tours to understand the conditions in the Library. There was no action taken.
8. Downtown Gateway Ordinance – Member DeRoche Member DeRoche asked if a first reading could be done in June? Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it was not ready. Member DeRoche asked that it be put on Mayor and Council Issues in June for discussion to keep the process going. Member Kramer suggested a draft of the ordinance be given to Council and Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo said it would be in the next packet. Member Bononi said this charge is taken very seriously and she would not be pressured. We take time to look at these very seriously and invited Council Members to attend the meetings and look at the draft as it appeared before them. She asked for Council’s patience. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Jonathan Brateman, 42705 Grand River, spoke regarding the Gateway District Ordinance and asked that this be brought to the next public meeting because he wanted to know if this would be passed or not. He thought the Commission, in its zeal to make a perfect ordinance, members are looking it over and over again. He thought a majority of Council members would like to see it have its first reading and then perfect it after that. Mr. Brateman asked that Mr. Arroyo’s draft of the Gateway Ordinance be voted on at the next public meeting. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter from Arnold F. Serlin – Re: Wetlands at Bristol Corners ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 PM.
__________________________________ ________________________________ Laura Lorenzo, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Reutter, Deputy Clerk
Transcribed by: __________________________ Charlene Mc Lean
Date approved: June 4, 2001
|